The atrocity of the Akallabêth [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-15-2007, 09:33 AM

I also don't think killing women and children would be OK, but I suppose what we have are forgetting is, that possibly 90% of the Númenoreans were really wicked at that time. This would include the women as well (they could very well make sacrifices of their own children to Sauron, for example). And after all, Valar let the Faithful leave. If they acted really ruthlessly as you say, they'd have put the island down no matter if any faithful were there.
TM, you said they missed warning... I think they got enough warnings: if you don't consider their own tradition, then from the Elves, the Faithful ... and this took centuries. Ar-Pharazon was really much then. I think we'll all agree that worshiping Sauron and making bloody sacrifices of other people is really not nice. But we have many warning omens even in the last generation: eagle-like clouds from the west, restless earth beneath the island, lightnings from the skies, and here is the reaction of the Númenoreans to the warning:
Then some few would repent for a season, but others hardened their hearts, and they shook their fists at heaven, saying: 'The Lords of the West have plotted against us. They strike first. The next blow shall be ours!'

If I exaggerate it a little bit, the Valar were very kind to wait until the last moment, till Ar-Pharazon really attacked Aman. You also have to look at it from the point of Valar, or Eru - you have some world you had a hard work with, but when your own creation turns against you, who have created it for them, believes Sauron that you are just a nonexisting phantom (sorry TP :D ) and instead worships Melkor as "Lord of All" (when actually he is stuck somewhere in the Void), and finally, wants to attack you (?!?! huh?), that's really much. Destruction of Númenor was not exaggerated punishment in my opinion, for the "evil ones", of course. And as I said, when the Faithful left, there possibly were not too many of those who didn't deserve the punishment. So, I also don't agree that the death of those women and children was O.K., but they surely were not so many - they were not all of the inhabitants of Númenor, there were just few of them, so the portrait is not as terrible as you show it.

Elmo

01-15-2007, 09:37 AM

I believe not one child should die for the sins of their parents... and I'm also opposed to the death penalty :)

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-15-2007, 09:41 AM

I believe not one child should die for the sins of their parents... and I'm also opposed to the death penalty :)
Yeah, I am as well... but... well, you know, I can't think of any possibly better continuing of the story...

littlemanpoet

01-15-2007, 10:07 AM

Within the context of Tolkien's story, it is incorrect to assume that the women and children were innocent of the crimes against Eru and the Valar for which they are punished, while the men are guilty. Were the women quarantined? Were the children not around? No, all were together in the same disobedience against the Law set down by Eru, and paid the penalty thereof.

"But they didn't do anything!"

... that would be the objection, I believe.

Maybe they did and maybe they didn't, we cannot say based on what we are told; what is implied, though, is that the attitude of the Numenoreans was shared by all. The next generation would have been no better, and probably worse, than the one that received the punishment.

Macalaure

01-15-2007, 10:26 AM

Unless I haven't overread something, there was no messenger or whatsoever sent to the first Men. Then again, the Valar only found out about the Elves by chance, so maybe they didn't know about Men before it was too late, because they didn't go to Middle-earth regularly anymore. Later the Valar couldn't have helped Men against Morgoth without helping the Noldor as well. Obviously they weren't particularly good at swallowing their pride.
I think that they didn't intentionally neglect Men, but that it all was just a lot of bad luck and maybe shortcoming of character.

As has been said, the Drowning of Westernesse was not the Valar's deed. I don't see what they could have done either. But it casts an ambiguous light on Eru, I think. Numenor was a gift to the Edain of the first age. Their descendants rebelled against the Valar, so Eru surely has a good right to take it from them again. But he killed everyone on it who didn't have a ship prepared perchance, and that was cruel.
I think we agree that the unfaithful Numenorians deserved punishment. Death? If there is one person who is able to judge that, it is Eru.
If he had let the women and children live (in Numenor or Middle-earth), history would have repeated itself, I'm sure. So, judge each individual and only kill the wicked? Leaves a weird feeling in me.
Maybe judge each individual, withdraw the gifts that the Valar once granted to the Numenoreans from the guilty and banish them from the isle, therefore making them no better than the average Man of Middle-earth? Not sure whether this would have been wise. But maybe Eru just wasn't wise in the moment? Maybe he was just angry about these people who received more wisdom etc. from the Valar than any other Man and still weren't satisfied and turned to evil to have more? Maybe he thought that even the Faithful would, after having multiplied, turn to evil eventually? (if I read the Silm correctly, it was the Valar, not Eru, who helped the Faithful escape)
Whatever the case, the drowning remains a deed that, in my mind, was unjustifiedly cruel and overshot the mark. Was it justified? I don't think so. Is it understandable? Maybe.

Concerning the warnings, I think the reaction of the Numenorians to it shows more of the paranoia of the people than of their actual peril. I doubt even the Valar knew what was to come when they laid down their supremacy.

Bêthberry

01-15-2007, 10:27 AM

Within the context of Tolkien's story,. . .

I think what lmp means is that there have been a few changes in perspectives in ethics from the Second Age to the Seventh Age. Tolkien's story is set within a mythological past in which it was deemed appropriate for entire races, nations or tribes to share the same fate. Individual, situational ethics weren't yet around then.

Lalwendë

01-15-2007, 10:44 AM

Cynically speaking, isn't it still the case that whole races (probably translated in modern terms as whole cities or neighbourhoods) suffer the same fate brought down from 'on high' - in modern parlance not from god or the gods but by the armed forces/terrorists/city planners or whoever?

Looking at this from the slightly depressing point of view that Tolkien seems to have held that Eru could indeed do seemingly inexplicable and cruel things, isn't it even more tragic that because of the misdeeds of the bad Numenoreans they also caused the suffering of their innocent wives and children? It was a Tragedy of War.

And incidentally, no, I don't feel comfortable with that notion but it's what happens. Maybe we would cope with it better if we believed there was no Eru and Valar behind it all and it was just a natural event or a result of warfare?

As to whether the wives and kids were evil too, well we don't know. But can't we assume that the children were not, as I'm not sure Tolkien ever shows us children as anything other than innocents? And why would a bad Numenorean naturally pass on 'bad blood'? If 'good blood' can make it all they way through the generations to find its way into Faramir, surely some 'good blood' would have found its way into some of those who drowned too?

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-15-2007, 10:47 AM

Once more to that "they didn't care for Men" part.
I'll try to write it shortly and clearly:
1) the Awakening of Men took place when there were enough problems with the Noldor,
2) Valar didn't even know the exact time of their awakening, and as Maca said, it was pure accident that Oromë found the Elves (Valar knew just "the time is slowly coming", but didn't know exact date),
3) and most important, Valar themselves decided not to intervene after their first "failure" - which is what they considered the assault on Utumno and going for the Elves to be. Melkor had by the time of the awakening of Men returned to Middle-earth, and Valar did not want to intervene to the Silmarils cause of Noldor, no other assault on Angband until a messenger from both the First and Secondborn came to assure them that both the Elves and the Men agree with, and request, their help. No other war which would tear land apart (although in the end, it is what happened in Beleriand), no Oromë coming for the Men - and as I said, they didn't know of them - because Valar didn't want to rule with fear (as opposite to Melkor), to force the elves to go to Valinor, to create an image of terrible power so that the elves won't love them as they are but out of fear. This is basically why they considered their behavior at awakening of the Elves as their "failure", and this is why they didn't come for the Men.

Elmo

01-15-2007, 11:11 AM

Miriel was killed and she certainly didn't do anything wrong - her story is especially sad i find...

Nogrod

01-15-2007, 11:54 AM

I guess all the pantheons of the world have had their mercifuls and cruel ones, the goodies and the baddies; the bringers of plenty and the bringers of doom and damnation. When reduced to just one God on certain cultures, that One has retained those conflicting characteristics. Just look at Yahweh (Jehova), Allah or even the christian God.

So Eru willing to drown all the Numenorians seems to be nothing new from the higher beings as all the enemies of Islam will perish in the end, the unchristians will face eternal damnation in the Last Judgement, all the people had to drown in Noah's flood and so on. The problem we see arising in here I think, is the protestantic interpretation of the God which partly (but only partly) leaves this other side of the coin behind and wishes to stick to the purely loving and good God. With this presupposition - and trying to see Eru as a christian God-like - we face a dilemma: how could Eru do that? If we stick to the traditional Gods we might answer: easily. But if we try to "modernise" (reads: clinging to the traditon of the enlightenment) our image of God will face these problems.

The interesting question to me follows as I try to think how Tolkien himself thought this. Was he thinking it along the lines of traditional religiousity where it was just right and good that the sins of the fathers were avenged to all in the lineage or did he indeed flirt with protestantism here trying to make the readers feel bad about that kind of judgement by Eru?

Macalaure

01-15-2007, 12:13 PM

Miriel was killed and she certainly didn't do anything wrong - her story is especially sad i find...You're right, it's a very sad story. Still, I don't hold her blameless. She did not resist Ar-Pharazôn and did nothing against the way Númenor went.

And last of all the mounting wave, green and cold and plumed with foam, climbing over the land, took to its bosom Tar-Míriel the Queen, fairer than silver or ivory or pearls. Too late she strove to ascend the steep ways of the Meneltarma to the holy place; for the waters overtook her, and her cry was lost in the roaring of the wind. ~AkallabêthI'd say there's a fair amount of double sense in that line. :)

Lalwendë

01-15-2007, 12:23 PM

Well seing as we cannot presume to know one man's relationship with God, how can we say for sure that Eru is Tolkien's own view of the real world 'God'? What we can say though is that this is the god he created for his secondary world and we have to work within and understand Eru within those boundaries first and foremost. And Eru is not always 'nice' by a long way. In fact, as he was the one who created Morgoth and it was Morgoth who then created the discordancies in the music that brought evil into the world, and Eru allowed it to hapen, he was not always 'nice' from the beginning.

If he was bringing any other aspects of 'god' into the text then I suggest a good place to start is to look at how that Northern literature dealt with such concepts; it was Tolkien's hope to give this work a Northern air, so that might point as to why Eru is a bit of a thunderer and smiter.

Eru's different because everyone can cop for it, whether good or not. I also don't think Protestantism has an overall 'good' God, as there's plenty of scope in all sects for shrugging your shoulders and saying "well, God works in mysterious ways" when something horrible happens. Another good reason for analysing what Eru does and understanding why he does it from within his own secondary world I think.

Nogrod

01-15-2007, 01:02 PM

[...]how can we say for sure that Eru is Tolkien's own view of the real world 'God'?Sorry. I may have expressed myself poorly. That was by no means my intent. I meant more that how did Tolkien see his own creation, Eru? What did he wish to say with it?
In fact, as he was the one who created Morgoth and it was Morgoth who then created the discordancies in the music that brought evil into the world, and Eru allowed it to hapen, he was not always 'nice' from the beginning.But was Tolkien's Eru an omnipotent all-knowing God like that of christianity who knew it already what his creation would be up to and all that would follow it or was he more a Northern God who did what he deemed best and tried to handle the outcome as best he could? I mean surely one can't blame a God for creating something great that later turns evil if his intentions were good and he knew not all that would come from his creation?
I also don't think Protestantism has an overall 'good' God, as there's plenty of scope in all sects for shrugging your shoulders and saying "well, God works in mysterious ways" when something horrible happens.That's why I said that the protestantic interpretation partly tries to leave that side out... :)

PS. Funny. It's only now that I find personating Eru as a he a bit uncomfortable... looking like Judaeo-Christian-Islamist Guy here in this discussion. Blessed be the Finninsh language where the pronoun s/he will not imply a gender allowing a God to be more literally abstract.

Lalwendë

01-15-2007, 01:27 PM

Sorry. I may have expressed myself poorly. That was by no means my intent. I meant more that how did Tolkien see his own creation, Eru? What did he wish to say with it?

But was Tolkien's Eru an omnipotent all-knowing God like that of christianity who knew it already what his creation would be up to and all that would follow it or was he more a Northern God who did what he deemed best and tried to handle the outcome as best he could? I mean surely one can't blame a God for creating something great that later turns evil if his intentions were good and he knew not all that would come from his creation?

I think that's what he's trying to say - that this god (and maybe his God too, but who really knows) works in ways that to humble and mere people can seem cruel. There's plenty of free will, even for the Valar, as Eru seems to sit back mosty and allow the inhabitants of his world to work things out for themselves. Eru only seems to interfere where his creations interfere with some of the basic orderings of life - e.g. Men trying to get to Valinor, whereas Eru has set out another path for Men. It's at once a frightening and thrilling prospect that people and leser gods have so much scope in this world. Maybe it's telling us something about responsibility and taking it for ourselves seeing as Eru sticks his hand in so rarely? That would tie in with character development in LotR and how they all learn things about themselves.

Maybe Eru knew what might happen - he might have had an inkling from Morgoth's discordant tunes at least, but wanted to see how things would play out?

That's why I said that the protestantic interpretation partly tries to leave that side out... :)

PS. Funny. It's only now that I find personating Eru as a he a bit uncomfortable... looking like Judaeo-Christian-Islamist Guy here in this discussion. Blessed be the Finninsh language where the pronoun s/he will not imply a gender allowing a God to be more literally abstract.

'Tis a flamin' minefield, trying to pin down what this and that sect believes, which is why I;d rather go for what we can grasp hold of, i.e. looking at it from the text! And I like the sound of Finnish pronouns...maybe they are important in Tolkien's work as the language inspired him so much?

Břicho

01-15-2007, 02:10 PM

It does seem like an atrocious act.

In fact, Eru having that kind of power all the time and letting Sauran kill and enslave thousands might be construed as an atrocious act...

But, anyway...

If Numenor had become the premiere Empire on Earth; unstoppable by ANYBODY--not Elves, not Sauron himself--maybe not even the Valar?--and had truly turned into an evil empire; if the majority of them carried off slaves to be sacrificed, raped "lesser races wives", tortured men for fun, stole things, burned fields and inflicted misery up and down the coasts of Middle-Earth, littered rampantly, etc...then maybe Eru was just being merciful to the Rest of the people of Middle Earth. Perhaps less people died in the Flood than would have died had the Numenorean Empire continued, um, empiring...? Just a thought?

Elmo

01-15-2007, 02:20 PM

He could have ended the empire without slaughtering the innocents. The children were not born evil. If as written above he had made the Numenoreans normal humans again and they lost their empire they would no longer be able to commit their huge crimes and their would be no need for infaticide.

The Might

01-15-2007, 02:25 PM

Good point there Břicho, I really had not considered that before.
It could very well be that the destruction of Numenor was a way to save many other people. And perhaps it was also a test made by Eru and the Valar. Those wise enough to fear the Valar and to see and understand the signs that were sent by the Valar were also able to flee and reach Middle-earth, but those who didn't died. Of course some small children died in the event, who can definitely not be blamed for anything, but I guess that Eru judged each one fairly in the end.

Břicho

01-15-2007, 02:25 PM

He who:
Yes, very true. I'm only trying to justify it in some way, because it seems it must be justified.
Story doesn't make much sense if Eru is worse than Melkor.
This is a fascinating question.

Well, since men are meant to die anyway, maybe he doesn't look so darkly on Death itself--maybe the mere killing of millions who are just going to "join him" in heaven or wherever isn't such an atrocity to him? It's only an atrocity to those of us who live in the world and have to die.

Břicho

01-15-2007, 02:28 PM

Bêthberry

01-15-2007, 03:44 PM

If mortality is the gift of Eru to the race of men (and hobbits), why is it being viewed here as a punishment or unjust act? That perspective sounds a bit Black Numenorean, eh?

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-15-2007, 03:59 PM

If mortality is the gift of Eru to the race of men (and hobbits), why is it being viewed here as a punishment or unjust act? That perspective sounds a bit Black Numenorean, eh?

Hmm, another interesting thing we obviously all forgot. Except Bêthberry! We were all deceived by Morgoth's lies, obviously? I now once again see that it was probably not easy not to believe Morgoth's lies: though pure readers, we have been all deceived.
Death is their fate, the gift of Ilúvatar, which as Time wears even the Powers shall envy. But Melkor has cast his shadow upon it, and confounded it with darkness, and brought forth evil out of good, and fear out of hope. Yet of old the Valar declared to the Elves in Valinor that Men shall join in the Second Music of the Ainur; whereas Ilúvatar has hot revealed what he purposes for the Elves after the World's end, and Melkor has not discovered it.

In the light of this, the children "just" didn't have the possibility to enjoy the beauty of the Creation... which rose from Ainulindalë... but would that have been something to enjoy, a life in the fear of shadow on an island where people make bloody sacrifices to Morgoth? Not a kind of place to spend my life in.

Lalwendë

01-15-2007, 04:04 PM

:D

Meh. But wouldn't that mean that all good Men should be completely suicidal nihilists?

OK, seriously, it's always possible that Eru thinks they will be better off turned into Davy Jones' Locker rather than sharing a life of sin with their naughty husbands, and maybe he thinks they'd be better off dead than living and ending up grieving said naughty husbands? ;)

What I think is that Eru had gifted them Numenor which was close to Valinor and it turned out this was a mistake and he had to take it from them. But how could Eru get rid of an entire land mass without also hurting some of the people who lived there? Many must also have died when Beleriand was lost, so it's not like he hadn't done it before.

What's making me laugh (in a sick, twisted fashion) though, is how we keep on trying to justify it when really it was sick. Why are we trying to do that? Tolkien doesn't. He just writes about it.

Folwren

01-15-2007, 05:36 PM

I haven't read the entire thread - I don't have time - but I wanted to suggest something.

I never considered the Valar evil...I never thought that what they did to Numenor as evil...The faithful got away with their wives and kids.

This discussion made me think more about it, though, in what ten or so posts I read. Perhaps it could have been much like Sodom? When God destroyed Sodom he told the one faithful man and his family to leave the city and not to look back. He destroyed Sodom, but he let the faithful escape - but the faithful man's wife looked back and she too was destroyed.

There were warnings given, were there not? And the faithful did get to escape, didn't they? If the women and children didn't leave, wasn't it their own fault? Well, the children were innocent, surely. How many of them do you think would have left their home to go with the remnant of the faithful? Another argument is the kids were too young to make such a choice... What was Eru to do? Let them live until the children were old enough to make their choice? What are the chances that they would make the right ones?

I don't think the Eru or the Valar were evil in this destruction of Numenor. I think it was the case of Sodom - they didn't find enough faithful within the city to spare it.

-- Folwren

P.S. I think capital punishment would solve a lot of our problems...

Bêthberry

01-15-2007, 06:02 PM

:D

Meh. But wouldn't that mean that all good Men should be completely suicidal nihilists?

The good die young, Lal. ;)

littlemanpoet

01-15-2007, 09:06 PM

What's making me laugh (in a sick, twisted fashion) though, is how we keep on trying to justify it when really it was sick. Why are we trying to do that? Tolkien doesn't. He just writes about it.

Within the context of the story, mind you...., to call 'sick' Eru's retribution against the disobedience and evil to which the Numenoreans had fallen, is to take the side of the disobedient and evil Numenoreans. The reader is of course welcome to identify with any character in any story as s/he sees fit. Some of us identify with Elves, others with Men, some with Eru, some with the Valar; and I suppose some readers might even be willing to identify with Ar Pharazon or Sauron, who, it is certain, would consider Eru's decision to punish them for their wickedness, most deplorable. But that does not make their wickedness any the less deserving of the punishment that Eru, within the context of the story, apparently decides they are worthy of.

Břicho

01-16-2007, 12:28 AM

If mortality is the gift of Eru to the race of men (and hobbits), why is it being viewed here as a punishment or unjust act? That perspective sounds a bit Black Numenorean, eh?
Mortality may not be a punishment or an unjust act in a universe in which the soul lives on after Death; but most mortals would think that it was, especially if they are living in the world with immortals--why them, and not us? I think it's a completely natural reaction.

. It's not as if Eru talks to any of them to comfort them when they are afraid of Death.

Lalwendë

01-16-2007, 02:15 AM

Within the context of the story, mind you...., to call 'sick' Eru's retribution against the disobedience and evil to which the Numenoreans had fallen, is to take the side of the disobedient and evil Numenoreans. The reader is of course welcome to identify with any character in any story as s/he sees fit. Some of us identify with Elves, others with Men, some with Eru, some with the Valar; and I suppose some readers might even be willing to identify with Ar Pharazon or Sauron, who, it is certain, would consider Eru's decision to punish them for their wickedness, most deplorable. But that does not make their wickedness any the less deserving of the punishment that Eru, within the context of the story, apparently decides they are worthy of.

I agree, in fact you could say...let's put it politely as I can...that this is one of those instances where Eru just gets it over and done with and scitan happens, as they say. ;)

But still, I am sure there are no other instances where children are lumped in with the sins of the fathers, where they are viewed as being likely to carry the same 'evil'; I want to know if there are as this will help square it up. So why kill the innocents? The only way I can get my head around this, even within the context of the secondary world, is to assume that Eru allowed them to die too to underscore the tragedy which resulted from their fathers' wrongdoing. Which is poetic, but still a bit sick.

Thinlómien

01-16-2007, 03:16 AM

PS. Funny. It's only now that I find personating Eru as a he a bit uncomfortable... looking like Judaeo-Christian-Islamist Guy here in this discussion. Blessed be the Finninsh language where the pronoun s/he will not imply a gender allowing a God to be more literally abstract.I too find that always a bit difficult, since the -tar ending is feminine in Finnish... :) (In fact, when I was younger and first acquinted with the Silmarillion, I thought Ilúvatar to be female.) But it helps if you keep in mind that the name Ilúvatar comes from two elements ilúvë "all" and atar "father"...

Elmo

01-16-2007, 03:29 AM

I personally think if I was on Middle Earth I would be right with the 'Black' Numenoreans right up to the point they started the human sacrifice. I think there is much Illuvatar could have done to try and heal the damage Melkor had done on man's view of the 'gift' of death.

littlemanpoet

01-16-2007, 04:15 AM

So why kill the innocents?I believe that Tolkien himself said something to the effect that the situation in Numenor was not unlike that of the biblical Israel from the Old Testament Bible. Yahweh, as the comparable Eru is there named, commands the Israelites to destory whole nations: men, women, children, beasts, everything. When they obey these commands they are called righteous, for having obeyed; and those who do not obey, or not completely, are named unrighteous. Now, Tolkien didn't have his faithful Numenoreans wreaking death upon the Numenoreans that worshiped Sauron, but the comparisons are there.

The point is that we presume that the children are innocent. It appears, from the text of The Silmarillion, that "the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the third and fourth generation", seems to hold true. The Noldor have to deal with this, in terms of their oath.

Lalwendë

01-16-2007, 05:28 AM

I believe that Tolkien himself said something to the effect that the situation in Numenor was not unlike that of the biblical Israel from the Old Testament Bible. Yahweh, as the comparable Eru is there named, commands the Israelites to destory whole nations: men, women, children, beasts, everything. When they obey these commands they are called righteous, for having obeyed; and those who do not obey, or not completely, are named unrighteous. Now, Tolkien didn't have his faithful Numenoreans wreaking death upon the Numenoreans that worshiped Sauron, but the comparisons are there.

The point is that we presume that the children are innocent. It appears, from the text of The Silmarillion, that "the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the third and fourth generation", seems to hold true. The Noldor have to deal with this, in terms of their oath.

Hmm, but what is carried out in the Old Testament is just Jihad, Holy War, the same thing that some extremists are waging today - as seen by the actions of terrorists, they do not care that they also kill those of their own creed and colour as they are doing it in God's name and are righteous in taking life. However in Tolkien's world it's not people who wreak Jihad on other people, but Eru who does it, which is a very different thing. In fact, when the Noldor rebel, they are in many ways enacting a Jihad, and they are punished for it heavily - and rightly. In the world Tolkien creates, it seems only Eru has the authority to do such things and if mere people attempt them then they are not deemed 'righteous' but are damned.

As for the children being innocent, I still can't find anything to say otherwise than that Tolkien thought children in his secondary world were innocents. And in terms of the sins of the fathers being visited on other generations, you could say that some things come out in character flaws when in adulthood, but likewise they often do not (witness the comparison of Boromir and Faramir).

Břicho

01-16-2007, 06:00 AM

"Nothing is evil in the beginning. Not even Sauron was so."--Elrond(or somebody)

Bêthberry

01-16-2007, 07:36 AM

Mortality may not be a punishment or an unjust act in a universe in which the soul lives on after Death; but most mortals would think that it was, especially if they are living in the world with immortals--why them, and not us? I think it's a completely natural reaction.

. It's not as if Eru talks to any of them to comfort them when they are afraid of Death.

Well, the Numenoreans worked like mad to avoid death but there are several questions to be asked of this state. Do other races of men in Middle-earth fear death? Most don't have close contact with the elves.

The other question has to do with what it is exactly that people fear. Do they fear any possible pain in the cessation of life? Or do they fear the "afterlife", having been inculcated with horrific visions of physical torment in a lake of burning fire? I thought that the afterlife was a complete unknown in Middle-earth rather than a scene of retribution and punishment.

Lalwendë

01-16-2007, 09:10 AM

Well, the Numenoreans worked like mad to avoid death but there are several questions to be asked of this state. Do other races of men in Middle-earth fear death? Most don't have close contact with the elves.

The other question has to do with what it is exactly that people fear. Do they fear any possible pain in the cessation of life? Or do they fear the "afterlife", having been inculcated with horrific visions of physical torment in a lake of burning fire? I thought that the afterlife was a complete unknown in Middle-earth rather than a scene of retribution and punishment.

It always strikes me as interesting how those who have contact with Elves come out of it with one of two views: they either accept their fate and their 'special' role in Middle-earth or they do all they can to get what the Elves have. Maybe it all stems from understanding or not the burdens of immortality? I often find that in Real Life a lot of those who think immortality would be 'cool' are younger, but those who have lived a bit longer gradually come to an acceptance of death as their fate (or are looking forwards to an eternal nice rest, a cup of tea and a sit down ;) ).

Anyway, yes a lot of people in Middle-earth (most people) have had no contact with Elves, let alone any Ainur, but many of them appear to have come to terms with the prospect of death; they have no knowledge of what the afterlife (or even if there is one) might be like yet they find comfort in their own ways, e.g. the Rohirrim seem to believe they return to their ancestors as seen in what Theoden says about it; and what's even better is he is not disabused of this notion. I like that.

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-16-2007, 09:16 AM

The other question has to do with what it is exactly that people fear. Do they fear any possible pain in the cessation of life? Or do they fear the "afterlife", having been inculcated with horrific visions of physical torment in a lake of burning fire? I thought that the afterlife was a complete unknown in Middle-earth rather than a scene of retribution and punishment.
If they didn't know, then this would be obviously the well-known "fear of the unknown", which is, as we know, the worst. However, I think that the horrific scenes are just what Morgoth put before the men: if we consider the Day of Doom, which was said to come at the end of times, the Númenoreans wouldn't probably have to be afraid of dying if they were OK, but when they didn't have peace with Valar (and Eru), it is logical that they were afraid, and if there were some gossips from Morgoth about terrific scenes after death, then I quite understand them. However, they were not right because the Powers wished good for them (which they, poor folks, at that time did not know, losing contact with them) - or maybe actually, they might have been right about that now they had something to fear about: at least Ar-Pharazon "buried in the Caves of the Forgotten until the Day of Doom" seems he had much to fear about (or maybe his punishment was enough?)

Okay, back to the original question... I think there is something we need to make clear. Just a little bit of a revision. (Who does not want to waste time or on the other hand who wants to make a mess in the thread by posting something which does not make sense, stop reading here and jump right onto next post.) What is actually the question we are trying to anwer here?

If the question is simply "Why did Eru let the innocent die", then if we consider ourselves in the world of Middle-Earth, then we have probably nothing to say, after all, it is Eru's world, not ours. We just live there because he created us, and let us live our human, elvish, hobbit... lives there, to care of our ships, groves, gardens, whatever we like...
If we consider ourselves outside of the world, as mere watchers, and we consider the story living its own life, we also have nothing to care about. We are just watchers (readers) and the world has a life of its own, once again, we are just "visitors", or even less. I think a serious Tolkien fan will not be content to end simply just with this conclusion ;)

If the question we are trying to solve here is "Is Eru really good and just or is he, perhaps just a little bit, evil", well, that's something more. This question would ultimately mean: is Middle-Earth an ultimately good world, or is it not? Once more I think a serious Tolkien fan will be sure that it is, and Tolkien himself said it many times. (And just look Břicho's one-sentence post above.) I know, I am silly to even mention it, I think to every Tolkien reader it must be obvious.*

So now: is the question we are trying to answer "How is it possible that Eru, being good, did allow the innocent to die?" Lalwendë posted before that it seems we are trying to "justify" Eru's act. How does it go together with the image of someone ultimately good and just that the innocent die? Now you probably await some shocking revelation in which I explain it. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't know. But this is what I wanted to say: this is the question which I'd like us to answer on this thread. Eru is ultimately good (statement). Innocent die (statement). How does this go together? Point.

Just a little suggestion at the end: were not the drowned children (with small c) his Children (with big C) as well? Do you think he was not sad when they died? (I think it is not necessary to explain the terms of "loss" and "destruction of many good things" in the context of Middle-Earth) I'm pretty sure he was. So, why did he kill them.

*Note: if anyone thinks otherwise, I think it'd be better to start a new thread for it: "Is Middle-Earth/Eru good?" But since Tolkien says it's good, we probably just have to believe that it is, and now try to think, how is that possible if it doesn't seem to make sense to you.

Volo

01-16-2007, 09:25 AM

I might be ignorant to say, but I doubt that the innocent children would prefer to be taken away from their whole sivilization than have peace. I do think that there are things worth than death. Death is permanent, but so is the death of others. Probably the innocent children wouldn't be innocent for long if they were brought alone to Middle-Earth. Most of them would die or be killed and the rest most certainly would become killers themselves.

I think that it should be all or nothing is such a case. Open to better ideas.

Rune Son of Bjarne

01-16-2007, 09:36 AM

Why was it so important for the Valar to keep Aman "man-free" ? Surely if they had aloved men to settle there, there would never have been an invation. Men would know that it would not give them eternal life. . . .another thing I don't understand is why the Valar refuse to have interaction with men, is it not the valars job to take care of Arda? How do you take care of a place by sitting at home watching elves, while others have to suffer under the evil of Sauron?

and to say that the Children of Nuemenor could just have left is silly. . .first of all how could a child leave if their parrents stayed? they have no means of making such a desition. . .another thing is that it is crazy to say that people deserved death because of where they lived.

I must say that I have been hesitant to enter this talk, as I think it very easily can become more of a RL discution than a LotR. . . and I must say that it still show these tendencies.

Volo

01-16-2007, 09:41 AM

I'd say because of that:

Men would know that it would not give them eternal life. . . .Men would start asking for more...

Rune Son of Bjarne

01-16-2007, 09:47 AM

what? I don't understand. . . If men knew that they could not achiev eternal life by living with the Valar, they would start asking for what?

Elmo

01-16-2007, 10:05 AM

littlemanpoet

01-16-2007, 10:06 AM

Hmm, but what is carried out in the Old Testament is just Jihad, Holy War.Actually this is not the case. A close reading of the story text shows that Y*H*W*H (for those of you who prefer to see it that way) required the "children of Israel" merely to march around a city once per day and then seven times on yet another day, sing and blow horns and shout, and that's it. Y*H*W*H was the one who destroyed the city. And this is not an isolated incident. Time after time, the people in this story are required to do very little, and Y*H*W*H destroys their enemies in a variety of ways.

Legate, you said what I was going to say, and in a clearer way. And I think that you have stated the question very clearly and succinctly, though not without an assumption:

Eru is good. Eru destroys Numenor. All the inhabitants die. Are they innocent? Maybe, maybe not. We don't know; at least, it is not stated directly in the text. If some were innocent, how could they be killed by an Eru who is good? Can one posit that there must be something better for them on the other side of death? One may hope so, but the text gives us no certainty. The only conclusion we are allowed is this: if Eru destroys innocents, Eru must be evil. Since Eru is not evil, but good, those whom he destroys cannot have been innocent.

"But that can't be right." "That's too simplistic."

If such objections come to mind, please note that I have simply used logic to reach the only conclusion that can be reached.

Rune Son of Bjarne

01-16-2007, 10:22 AM

If there is something better for them after death, would that not mean that Eru rewarded them for invading Aaman?

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-16-2007, 10:50 AM

Why was it so important for the Valar to keep Aman "man-free" ?
It was not their fate, as it was said, they were destined by Eru to something else. The Undying lands were something of an "equivalent" of death for Men in that the others couldn't come there, as well as the Elves couldn't die. This is also why the tale of Beren&Lúthien is important (apart from that it's so beautiful and sad), because it clearly shows this.
I think you might also use the word "Faërie" for Aman (as it is used in Hobbit, for example), and as we know, this was a very important word for Tolkien. I think if you read the essay "On Fairy Tales" and also "The Smith of Wootton major" (this one especially), it will be clear to you. Because even though this does not connect directly with the ME, I think for Tolkien it had overall validity.

If there is something better for them after death, would that not mean that Eru rewarded them for invading Aaman?
Okay, I hope this is meant as a joke... but, someone before posted here that it was not said what was there after death... only that they'd join the Second Music of Ainur... but this was at the end of times, after the Last Battle... and Day of Doom... They were not alive anymore, after all. Which brings me to... hmm, it must have been super-cruel to Ar-Pharazon not even to let him die(but after all, this is what he wanted)... do you think Eru gave him to the hands of Valar, that he'll be judged with the Elves? By Mandos? Okay, off-topic...

please note that I have simply used logic to reach the only conclusion that can be reached.
I did as well. And I expected nothing more.

Macalaure

01-16-2007, 01:50 PM

If such objections come to mind, please note that I have simply used logic to reach the only conclusion that can be reached.Not really. ;)

Eru is good. Eru destroys Númenor. All the inhabitants die. If there were innocents among those, then, according to the sense of justice I think at least most of us share, this was not a just act. Therefore: If Eru kills innocents, Eru cannot be entirely good (that's the negation of 'Eru is good' ;) ). Indeed we have two assumptions here (Eru is good, Eru killed innocents) which cannot be both true at the same time.

So, were there innocents? Well, it's not stated directly in the text, but there must have been children, even babies, on Númenor at the time. According to our sense of justice again, these are innocents. And if Eru killed them, he cannot be entirely good. (If you think the children weren't innocent, it means we don't share the same sense of justice (could be...) and use different measures for 'good')

Is it even possible that Eru isn't entirely good? I think so. After all, Melkor was an offspring of his thought, and Melkor's dischords had their source in Eru as well, as is stated. One could argue that even the Marring of Arda was, in a way, intended by Eru. This might lead to far, though. All I want to show is that it is possible that Eru is not entirely good. I can easily imagine that he was subject to, for example, wrath. I don't think this would make him less praiseworthy.

Lalwendë

01-16-2007, 02:17 PM

There is of course the very great possibility that notions of good and evil simply don't come into this. They are, after all, creations of human minds. So where would that leave Eru?

Well, Eru just is.

If this secondary world was intended to be anything like Faerie then ultimately it would indeed be neither good nor bad, it would just be.

Now for an additional mad thought. Alongside Eru we get glimpses in the text of another being, Ungoliant, who seems to be a polar opposite to Eru. He creates, she consumes. He makes Light, she makes Unlight. And she too, came out of the void; the Elves had no notion whatsoever of where she might have come from, and Morgoth did not make her. She is not 'bad' in the truest sense, she just does what she does. Just as Eru does. Is Eru amoral just like Ungoliant?

lmp, the bit I was looking at was where you said this:

Yahweh, as the comparable Eru is there named, commands the Israelites to destory whole nations: men, women, children, beasts, everything. When they obey these commands they are called righteous, for having obeyed; and those who do not obey, or not completely, are named unrighteous.

It's the 'obeying commands' bit that is basically Jihad; if they obey they are holy, but if they do not obey then they are not worthy. They might only be marching round, but if that then prompts destruction then it's not far off laying a bomb with your own hands. Or does the marching have nothing to do with what God then does? In which case, why are they doing it? :confused:

Břicho

01-16-2007, 02:17 PM

I don't know what the Valar's space for their beach towels...

Myself I believe that men weren't allowed in the undying lands because the Valar did not consider men 'fair' enough' Consider that Ingwe and the Vanyar were Manwe's faves because they were fairest and the most skilled at poetry. Compare this to Beor's men and their 'rude harps'. Basically the Valar considered having men in the undying lands would make the place untidy.
No, I don't agree--I don't think the Valar were "racist": they are the Guardians of Men as well as Elves and they loved them.

I think they're not allowed because the Men would start REALLY pining for everlasting life in Aman, surrounded as they would be by perfection; or the Men themselves would feel imperfect and thus disrupt the balance with envy. It's in Men's nature to change; and it's in the Elves'/Valar/Aman's nature to not change(at least not in the same way, or so quickly.) Men would simply disrupt the society; and probably wreak havoc on it after a few generations. The Valar knew this because they were wise.

I suppose I have to simply accept that this is something like the Old Testament God.
What was that book Jung wrote about Job?

littlemanpoet

01-16-2007, 09:15 PM

If there is something better for them after death, would that not mean that Eru rewarded them for invading Aaman?This presumes that those who are punished for their rebellion by invading Aman, would receive such a reward they have lost by virtue of their rebellion.

please note that I have simply used logic to reach the only conclusion that can be reached.
I did as well. And I expected nothing more.Quite right. However, you allowed both sides of an impossibility to stand, thus creating a logical impossibility: "How is it possible that Eru, being good, did allow the innocent to die?" ..... I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't know.

If there were innocents among those, then, according to the sense of justice I think at least most of us share, this was not a just act.With "sense of justice" you have introduced a subjective, and therefore mutable standard against which to judge the question. If a reader wishes to reach one's own conclusions with which one feels comfortable, then such mutable standards are fine. However, if a reader wants to understand the text based on its own internal reality, one must use the only consistent standard available to anyone, which is logic. Thus: If Eru is revealed by the text as good, then Eru is good. Further, if Numenoreans are revealed by the text as innocent, then they are innocent. Eru is indeed revealed throughout The Silmarillion as good, and the Numenoreans are revealed in the Akallebêth, as falling deeper into error and wrong and evil throughout the history of Numenor. Thus, by the standard available to us, text and logic, there were no innocents left on Numenor when it was drowned by Eru.

Is it even possible that Eru isn't entirely good? I think so. After all, Melkor was an offspring of his thought, and Melkor's dischords had their source in Eru as well, as is stated. The text: But now Ilúvatar sat and hearkened, and for a great while it seemed good to him, for in the music there were no flaws. But as the theme progressed, it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own imagining that were not in accord with the theme of Ilúvatar."Nothing is evil in the beginning. Not even Sauron was so."--ElrondSo states the text. Therefore, Eru cannot have been anything but entirely good from the beginning, and the text never shows any alteration from this. Melkor's discord was from his own imaginings and do not derive from Ilúvatar, as stated in the text.

There is of course the very great possibility that notions of good and evil simply don't come into this. They are, after all, creations of human minds. So where would that leave Eru?Your statement lacks the self-evidence it purports on two counts: first, the downfall has everything to do with good and evil. Just read the text. Do note that I am not saying that that is the only thing it's about, but it most certainly is there. Second, the claim that good and evil are creations of human minds is debatable. Thus, your question, "where does that leave Eru", is easily answered: it leaves Eru where the text leaves Eru.

Volo

01-16-2007, 11:18 PM

Men would start asking for more...

Meaning that men wouldn't stay happy in Aman for long. In a few hundred years they would probably start rebelling and claiming their right on immortality...

Břicho

01-17-2007, 12:47 AM

This presumes that those who are punished for their rebellion by invading Aman, would receive such a reward they have lost by virtue of their rebellion.

Quite right. However, you allowed both sides of an impossibility to stand, thus creating a logical impossibility:

With "sense of justice" you have introduced a subjective, and therefore mutable standard against which to judge the question. If a reader wishes to reach one's own conclusions with which one feels comfortable, then such mutable standards are fine. However, if a reader wants to understand the text based on its own internal reality, one must use the only consistent standard available to anyone, which is logic. Thus: If Eru is revealed by the text as good, then Eru is good. Further, if Numenoreans are revealed by the text as innocent, then they are innocent. Eru is indeed revealed throughout The Silmarillion as good, and the Numenoreans are revealed in the Akallebêth, as falling deeper into error and wrong and evil throughout the history of Numenor. Thus, by the standard available to us, text and logic, there were no innocents left on Numenor when it was drowned by Eru.

The text: So states the text. Therefore, Eru cannot have been anything but entirely good from the beginning, and the text never shows any alteration from this. Melkor's discord was from his own imaginings and do not derive from Ilúvatar, as stated in the text.

Your statement lacks the self-evidence it purports on two counts: first, the downfall has everything to do with good and evil. Just read the text. Do note that I am not saying that that is the only thing it's about, but it most certainly is there. Second, the claim that good and evil are creations of human minds is debatable. Thus, your question, "where does that leave Eru", is easily answered: it leaves Eru where the text leaves Eru.
I suppose then it remains to define what Eru's definition of "good" was. Obviously if Miriel is guilty and deserves death merely for being unable to stop Pharazon, (perhaps the most powerful being in the WORLD at that time) even though she was a member fo the Faithful, then Eru's definition of what constitutes guilt and innocence is very, very strict indeed.

Lalwendë

01-17-2007, 03:19 AM

Therefore, Eru cannot have been anything but entirely good from the beginning, and the text never shows any alteration from this. Melkor's discord was from his own imaginings and do not derive from Ilúvatar, as stated in the text.

Tolkien differs in his opinion:

no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me

and

thou, Melkor, wilt discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind, and wilt perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary to its glory

These lines demonstrate that both Melkor's discordant theme and even his thoughts are a product of Eru. So from the very beginning, when the Valar were created, Eru made them with evil inbuilt. And as Eru says, evil is a part of the essence of existence in this cosmology; it is 'tributary' to glory, i.e. it must bow down to it, but it is an essential part of it.

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

Not only did Melkor, his thought and his discordant music have their source in Eru, but because Melkor decided to enter the physical world, his power was inherently and eternally bound to the circles of the world (which possibly explains why the Void was such a good prison for him - he would be separated from his power out there, it remained down in Arda - fantastic concept). The Valar are the life of Arda, and Arda is their life - so not only are Varda and Orome and Yavanna etc a part of Arda, but so too is Melkor, irrevocably.

And Eru allowed this to happen, but as is said above, "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me". That is one of the essential mysteries of Eru, why he makes Melkor the way he does, and allows Melkor the freedom to be part of this creation; who knows why evil is part of Eru's plan, but it is.

It's all there in the books.

Problems only arise when we try to get our heads around the nature of what we read in Tolkien's stories. It doesn't matter if we apply our religion or non-religion to it, if we apply our sense of human rights, or our sense of animal rights, or lefts or ups or downs. The only way to comprehend why things happen is to look at the books and what they give us. And if you look at the books, then evil is part of Eru's plan. It has its origins in him. It's something I find hard to accept but there it is. And why? Well...I suppose Tolkien gives us the best explanation possible. Eru describes the world he has created as:

Ea, the World that Is

It is. It is what? Is just is.

Tar-Telperien

01-17-2007, 03:49 AM

As you might be able to guess, this issue interests me greatly. I have never been able to decide my feelings on it. As I plan to show here though, there are a lot of aspects to the events that people seem to be overlooking.

First off, we must look at what exactly happened during this Earth-changing event. I tend to vigorously oppose equating Eru and his deeds with those of any monotheistic (or other) God in the Primary World. To me, Eru is presented in a fashion that makes him look too different from them (but that is outside the scope of this thread).

What did Eru do? He merely responded to the request of the Valar to do something, because by laying down their guardianship of the world, they showed that they weren't going to do anything. To the extent that it is possible for one of his creations to do so, they "forced" Eru to make a move.

Eru responded to their laying down of the guardianship by "breaking the world", which means that he took the Undying Lands "away from the reach of Men forever". To the extent that one can guess the meaning of Eru's act, it seems pretty clear that this was done so that Men would never be tempted, or able, to make the mistake the Númenóreans did again. In other words, though the Valar had not been able to keep the Númenóreans from breaking their Ban, Eru ensured that the rule would be kept intact, and that Men in the future would not have to work at maintaining their obedience in order to "keep their half of the deal" like the Númenóreans were required to do. In other words, Eru made life easier for people in the future. Furthermore, Men were now completely free in the world they had, to do whatever they liked with it. They could sail as far West as they wanted and not be stopped by an artificial, arbitrary line set by a mysterious group of aloof Powers for reasons incomprehensible to them.

But...

That still doesn't solve the problem of the present, does it? But again, we must remember that Eru did not strike against Númenor directly! Everything that happened was an inevitable physical consequence of the Breaking of the World. Insofar as the sinking of Númenor can be called "evil", it must be called that in reference to Eru's seeming negligence in keeping Númenor intact, not in what he actually did against anyone. It wasn't direct punishment, it was not paying attention to the island, that Eru did. The only thing that directly suffered as a result of the deed was the shape of Arda!

So we could stop here and say, "Since the Númenóreans had decided not to believe in Eru, he basically decided not to believe in them. He completely neglected them, because they had done the same. He wasn't going to make them believe anything they didn't want to, so he wouldn't perform any miracles on their behalf. Rather, he let physics take its course. Eru's main point in acting was to correct a mistake that really had chiefly been made by the Valar, namely their poor dealings with the race of Men in making Númenor and the Ban in the first place. The Númenóreans were basically unfortunate but simultaneously not-so-innocent bystanders."

But if you are not satisfied with this answer, let's consider this for a bit. The Númenóreans, as a nation, had taken a gamble a few decades before. And gambles sometimes include property other than what one owns. The Númenóreans gambled their society for a belief in Melkor over Eru. They had decided to believe that Eru did not exist, because they felt the advantages for believing in Melkor were greater. That the "contract" was social in nature is reflected by their killing of people who would not take part in it, namely the Faithful.

But Eru made a move, which proved that they had put their chips on the wrong deity. Their bets were called in! And "society" includes a lot of things that individuals do not own. Namely, children. The Númenóreans were in a terribly desperate situation. Because they now had to deal with the person they had made the bet with. Sauron. The role of Sauron in all this seems to be continually overlooked in this discussion.

Sauron hated the Númenóreans. They had had a long history of thwarting his plans, and they had lately humiliated him. In "Myths Transformed" in Morgoth's Ring, Tolkien notes that "Sauron's whole true motive was the destruction of the Númenóreans" (my emphasis). Why would he have stopped with the departure of the Great Armament? After all, once nobody returned after a protracted time period, it would be clear to the Dúnedain once and for all that Sauron had deceived them. And the women would promptly make more babies to hurt him, and the children would grow up with nothing but revenge on their minds against this person who had led their fathers, and their King, into death. Clearly, once the Great Armament (and thus all the military power that the country had to use against him) had left, Sauron's policy of "destroying the Númenóreans" would just have been beginning. He would not have wanted them to replenish their population so they could start fighting against him again. And he would not have been nice and quick about it, either. Surely Sauron would have tortured them cruelly, since there was no one to put up a large resistance against him, and he loves doing that sort of thing.

Even if the Valar (or Eru; look at how well Sauron managed to survive even his actions) had tried to intervene on the women's and children's behalf, there would have been a terrible war in which many would have died cruelly. Sauron would not have let them leave, and he would have fought the Valar with all the strength he had. Which, again according to "Myths Transformed", was actually greater than Morgoth's was at the end of the First Age. And doubtless at that point in time he would have still have had many loyalists who would have aided him. And in the last war of the Valar against a Dark Lord, an entire continent... oh, what's the word again? Sank.

Furthermore, Sauron had already been making the Númenóreans suffer for years; they were simply too corrupted and deceived to even realize it: "madness and sickness assailed them... and they cursed themselves in their agony," we read in the Akallabêth.

Now, a word about Eru: I really can't see him as a moral figure. He can't really be bound to morality himself. Furthermore, he did not "punish" Melkor for being "immoral", he simply let him be and do as he wished, though he did warn Melkor of the consequences of his actions (namely, that his plans would not ultimately be successful). If Eru made the quintessential "moral" and "immoral" figures of Arda, namely Manwë and Melkor, but is neither beholden to them nor gives any of his creatures any moral code to follow (this is the way in which he perhaps differs most from any Primary World deity), then how are we to assume he is moral? Eru simply creates. Morality is a product of the fact that his creatures were designed in a certain way, and have limitations (namely, the ability to be hurt by others of his creatures). Morality rises from design and the practical facts of life in Arda, not by divine command. Like language, the ability to conceive of a morality was probably a gift of Eru to his creatures, to make life easier for them. But they are not required (or even, as far as we can tell, encouraged) by him to follow their moral strictures; that's something they have to decide to do on their own. Eru doesn't seem to like telling people what to do: he wants them to act for themselves!

And also, human death is "a gift of Eru". He does not consider it a punishment. The chief error of Mankind is viewing it so. The administration of death, when done justly and not carried out in a way that would protract suffering, cannot be called a punishment, then, even if you do consider Eru a moral figure. Not unless you want to be deceived as the Númenóreans were (who, as we can tell by the existence of the Athrabeth, had conditioned themselves to think this way (even if only subconsciously at times) for thousands of years).

This brings us back to the Númenóreans, who as we can see with their decision to bring Sauron to their land, painted themselves into a very bad corner indeed. There would have been no easy way out for those women and children (actually, were there even any children of Melkor-worshippers? Maybe they considered children an annoyance, and so, since they were planning on being immortal anyway, decided not to have any! Nowhere is this disputed; it's a very real possibility, in which case the "innocent children" idea doesn't work, since Melkor worship had been going on for decades). They had given so much power and influence to Sauron that he would have done something nasty before he would leave/be captured by the Valar.

So, in light of all this, was it really so injust that their deaths came about by a sudden wall of water?

Whoever actually bothered to read this whole thing has my gratitude. ;)

EDIT: To those who have asked about the need to keep Men out of Valinor: it's a fair question. Luckily, Tolkien answers it for us in detail in Essay VII of "Myths Transformed". To summarize it, Men would basically have been "out of sync" with the longer, slower rhythms of life in the Undying Lands. They would have felt fundamentally out of place, and envied everything and everyone else, to an even greater extent than they did while living in mortal lands. And if they were granted immortality of the body somehow, their souls would basically go insane after a while, since they were given the desire to leave Arda after a relatively short time. Thus, a Man's soul and body would be completely opposed and in hatred of each other, and Tolkien wrote of the nasty consequences of that; I won't bother to recount them here. So basically, life in Aman would only be more torturous for Men, not less, as the messengers of the Valar told the Númenóreans generations before their Downfall. It was really for their own good that they were kept out (and I'm not just saying this; the essay paints a pretty squicky picture of the consquences).

Rune Son of Bjarne

01-17-2007, 04:16 AM

Okay, I hope this is meant as a joke...

You could call it a joke or me being silly and unconstructive. . . .;)

Lalwendë

01-17-2007, 05:34 AM

Now, a word about Eru: I really can't see him as a moral figure. He can't really be bound to morality himself. Furthermore, he did not "punish" Melkor for being "immoral", he simply let him be and do as he wished, though he did warn Melkor of the consequences of his actions (namely, that his plans would not ultimately be successful). If Eru made the quintessential "moral" and "immoral" figures of Arda, namely Manwë and Melkor, but is neither beholden to them nor gives any of his creatures any moral code to follow (this is the way in which he perhaps differs most from any Primary World deity), then how are we to assume he is moral? Eru simply creates. Morality is a product of the fact that his creatures were designed in a certain way, and have limitations (namely, the ability to be hurt by others of his creatures). Morality rises from design and the practical facts of life in Arda, not by divine command. Like language, the ability to conceive of a morality was probably a gift of Eru to his creatures, to make life easier for them. But they are not required (or even, as far as we can tell, encouraged) by him to follow their moral strictures; that's something they have to decide to do on their own. Eru doesn't seem to like telling people what to do: he wants them to act for themselves!

I'll agree with all of this (and the rest, actually ;))! I think that's the crucial point (even in this world, let alone the secondary one created by Tolkien) - that you cannot assign good/bad to the creator. A creator just is. It's from living in and experiencing the world as given to them that the peoples learn what is right and what is wrong.

And going on from that, if rules were set out about where people could go within the circles of the world then we must presume that if broken, then something would happen. I won't go so far as to say it was 'punishment', as I think it was just an inevitability.

To those who have asked about the need to keep Men out of Valinor: it's a fair question. Luckily, Tolkien answers it for us in detail in Essay VII of "Myths Transformed". To summarize it, Men would basically have been "out of sync" with the longer, slower rhythms of life in the Undying Lands. They would have felt fundamentally out of place, and envied everything and everyone else, to an even greater extent than they did while living in mortal lands. And if they were granted immortality of the body somehow, their souls would basically go insane after a while, since they were given the desire to leave Arda after a relatively short time. Thus, a Man's soul and body would be completely opposed and in hatred of each other, and Tolkien wrote of the nasty consequences of that; I won't bother to recount them here. So basically, life in Aman would only be more torturous for Men, not less, as the messengers of the Valar told the Númenóreans generations before their Downfall. It was really for their own good that they were kept out (and I'm not just saying this; the essay paints a pretty squicky picture of the consquences).

That about sums it up for me too. Men and Elves are at root very different beings. The nature of Elves in time necessarily makes them temporal creatures living a temporal existence, yet at the same time, they have incredible permanence. They are like Time Lords. (Sorry, I knew I'd manage to tie in a Doctor Who reference somewhere... ;) ). The Elves, with their greater experience (i.e. eternity's experience, not the mere fleeting one hundred years or so of experience which most ordinary men could hope for - even the couple of hundred of a faithful Numenorean was nothing in comparison to a Elf's lifespan) of timelessness truly understand why it would be heartbreaking for all for Men and Elves to live side by side.

Elves know whereas Men must learn, and keep on learning as they die and a new generation comes along.

Elmo

01-17-2007, 06:49 AM

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-17-2007, 07:36 AM

Yes there was children on the Akallabêth (spelt it right this time :p ) "and Numenor went down into the sea, with all its children and its wives and its maidens and its ladies proud" So Eru is a child killer and also do the Valar really need to kill every mariner who has the misfortune to accidently reach the undying lands?

I think I could've said many more, but now I am reacting just to this little post of yours. If we go back in time to the beginning, Eru creates Eä - he creates the whole world. I don't know if I didn't say it somewhere earlier, but aren't these drowned children (with small c) also his Children (with big C)? I am quite sure he didn't want them killed. But, there was probably not another solution at the moment.
The idea that even the children face the death as well as the parents reflects that the whole society is responsible. I think you'll agree with me that the parents, although they might have denied it to themselves, must have known - or if confronted with truth, they must've admitted, that by all the evil deeds they put a of punishment upon themselves. Why not, of course, this is their problem. You can do wrong, but you cannot be surprised that you have to face the consequences later then. If it's just your own life, no problem. But they could've thought on that they also might influence the life of those around themselves. I think we all agree on that parents take responsibility for their children as long as they are not grown up enough to take care of themselves, right? So, it was the parents' role to think of what would become of their children. They could've reared their children in a way of wrong deeds, for example teaching them that human sacrifice is o.k., fine, but the responsibility is theirs - they reared them (here comes, I think, the idea of passing on the sin of parents on the next generation - but not somehow "supernaturally", but just because the parents teach the children to behave that way). So, if I say it another way, the "cold-blooded murderer" is not Eru, but actually, these are their parents. I imagine that in some final Judgement, Eru says he's sorry for the children, but the parents are now shown any mercy, for they have the blood of their children on their hands, literally.

And to that mariner thing - I think you mean "some" mariners, not those who went with Ar-Pharazon, right? Then I'd say it was not possible for anyone to reach the Undying Lands: the Valinor was hidden, there were the Shadow islands and Shadow seas, and even Eärendil spent all his lifetime searching for the coast of Valinor and didn't find it, until Valar themselves allowed him. Only Elven ships were able to reach the coast, so no "accidental landings" could take place. The only others who ever landed there were Eärendil, maybe (but I doubt) Amandil, and Ar-Pharazon - all of them very special cases (old AP because he was just given what he wanted).

Elmo

01-17-2007, 10:01 AM

no after reading this little discussion i decided to reread the akallabeth and stumbled upon this passage Mariners 'who by some fate or grace ir favour of the Valar, had entered in upon the Straight Way and seen the face of the world sunk below them, and so had come to the lamplit quays of Avallone, or verily to the last beaches on the margin of Aman, and there had looked upon the White Mountain, dreadful and beautiful, before they died.'

I took this to mean that they were killed when they reached the undying lands through no fault of themselves.

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-17-2007, 11:37 AM

Hmm, I'll quote once more the beginning part of the passage you cited:
who by some fate or grace or favour of the Valar, had entered in upon the Straight Way
To see the Undying Lands is a gift, not a curse. To visit the beautiful lands of Faërie in a mortal body would be, let's say, a thing worth dying. Who of us, here on this forum, has not seen just a glimpse of the lands of Faërie? I think we all did, reading Professor Tolkien's books, at least at one point. But is it our fate to dwell there forever? No, we are (and some would say unfortunately) bound to this world of Men, and the fate of the Elves is not ours, literally spoken. We've been just given the chance that we "might look upon other times than those of our bodies' life" and nothing more. And so it is with the Men in Middle-Earth...

Tar-Telperien

01-17-2007, 01:14 PM

Yes there was children on the Akallabêth (spelt it right this time :p ) "and Numenor went down into the sea, with all its children and its wives and its maidens and its ladies proud" So Eru is a child killer and also do the Valar really need to kill every mariner who has the misfortune to accidently reach the undying lands?

Ah. You got me there; it's been a while since I looked at the "long sentence" describing Númenor's destruction. But the fact that there were children in Númenor at the time does not invalidate my point!

I don't know if you read that whole long post of mine above, but one of my main points is that the Númenóreans weren't just sitting there happy and content when the Great Armament left. Sauron was still in Númenor! And, as I said, because of his hatred of the Númenóreans and his desire to keep them from ever interfering with his purposes again, he would eventually have killed off all the remaining people (once the military power that had kept him from making a move was gone from the island) to keep their population from increasing again. And Sauron would not have been very nice in his methods, I think we can all agree. He was Morgoth's Chief Torturer, after all. And it was the Númenóreans' fault for bringing Sauron to their land and giving him enough trust so that he could hurt them. They chose that for themselves and their children; the act of bringing Sauron to Númenor really can't be blamed upon the Valar or anyone else aside from the Númenóreans.

In light of that, there was no easy way out for the residents of Númenor. The options for dealing with that island were:

1. Nobody did anything, and Sauron was left to do with the Númenóreans as he wished. He would surely have tortured and killed them all now that the Númenórean army was gone. As I have tried to indicate, this is the worst possible option, as far as their wellbeing is concerned.

2. There would be a long war between Sauron and the Valar. Probably the second-worst option, given how difficult it would be to defeat Sauron. Even if the Valar tried to evacuate the Númenóreans, they would have to build the ships (since most of the Númenóreans' were gone in the Great Armament), which would have taken years. By then, Sauron would have succeeded in killing most of them off anyway; see Option 1.

3. Númenor is suddenly destroyed, and Sauron gets "punished" (though I still don't think it was active punishment, rather neglect) along with the society he helped corrupt. This is what happened, and I still think it was the best option out of a series of very bad ones.

The Númenóreans had put themselves in a situation beyond easy repair, is what I mainly want to illustrate. Defending Eru's action is only secondary to the sense of sympathy I have for the Númenóreans, who suffered so horribly under Sauron, and would have continued to do so if not for this act. It is because of that sympathy that I can see the mercy in this act.

In short, there are worse ways to suffer than by dying suddenly and unexpectedly (which is, actually, one of the best ways to die). And if you don't believe that, if you think rather that any and all death is cruel punishment, then you are in the end bound to be incensed by this story. (As for myself, I too think it might have fared better if Tolkien continued to ascribe the deed to the Valar, as he did in the earlier versions of the story.)

And if you do indeed think that all death is an injust punishment, then why are you defending the Númenóreans? Their society had been constantly dealing out death to innocent people for decades.

Child of the 7th Age

01-17-2007, 01:22 PM

I'll agree with all of this (and the rest, actually )! I think that's the crucial point (even in this world, let alone the secondary one created by Tolkien) - that you cannot assign good/bad to the creator. A creator just is. It's from living in and experiencing the world as given to them that the peoples learn what is right and what is wrong.

Lal,

Interesting. I can definitely understand how a person reading LotR (or viewing the real world) would feel that way. In a real sense, there is no right or wrong way to view Eru given Tolkien's stated preference for "applicability" in terms of his readers and the experiences they bring to the text. Plus, Eru's position in Middle-earth is not clear cut. There are ambiguities and layers of contradiction, at least partially brought on by Tolkien's "contrasistency": his conflicting desires about the role of religion in a subcreated world. We can find quotations that emphasize the author's preference to keep religion out of the subcreated world, and others that suggest the opposite: that Tolkien incorporated Catholic elements within the revisions of the text.

Still, I keep coming back to one queston. Is it possible to have an "absolute" sense of right and wrong if that choice is defined solely in the experiences of the individual character rather than an outside agent? I am using the term agent loosely here, whether a god or another absolute construct like that envisioned by Plato. Your post suggests that morality and its application lie solely within the province of the individual. Yet the one thing I've always felt in Lord of the Rings is that Tolkien did not regard moral virtues as a matter of subjective preference or social norm. There is good and there is evil: an objective morality that may become blurred in application but that constitutes a non-changing framework that gives meaning to everything Tolkien writes.

Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men.

To me, this says it all. If morality comes solely from "living in and experiencing the world", you would have more than one standard since people bring such diverse experiences and backgrounds to this task. In our own world, for example, there have been cultures that accept the validity of suicide, like classical Roman or Japanese, and others like Christianity that do not. In Tolkien's world, things are clearer. There are instances where characters sacrifice themselves to save others and Aragorn is able to order the hour of his own death, but that is different from suicide. When the deranged Turin initially tries to take his own life, he is stopped by his companion. Turin's later suicide and that of his sister Nienor who carries an unborn child (modeled on the Kalevala) as well as the scenes with Denethor are depicted in such a way that the deeds are both moving and horrific. There is no suggestion of honor. (Lost Tales II, 115-116, suggests that there will be a redemption for turin and Nienor at the end of the world.)

Given what I know about the author, I can not help but feel that an objective morality exists in Arda and that it is grounded on some level in Tolkien's personal theology. In that sense, I am less willing to let Eru off the hook than you are. I went back and reread some of the Numenor material and was struck by how debased the culture had become: hauling off men into slavery from Middle-earth, the imposition of blood sacrifice, willful disobedience to the dictates of the ban. If I had been one of the occupants of the lands across the Sea, I would have cheered the drowning of Numenor as it would have brought some hope of relief. It is possible to say that all the men and women in Numenor were responsible for the evil. Even if these people did not actually foment evil, they stood by and did nothing when human sacrifices took place. (This assumes that there is some kind of absolute standard that says human sacrifice is wrong.) But where does that leave the children?

Tolkien does not tell us what happens to men after their death, only that they go beyond the circles of the world. If you assume that what happens to an innocent child is horrific, then there is clearly no justice. If you assume a different and more favorable ending for the innocent child, then you might argue that, by removing the child from the world, Eru is doing them a favor....that there is actually no way they could grow up in Numenor and not be corrupted by Sauron and the Ring. At least this way, they are removed from the mess and are able to keep their moral compass.

Still, that's an uncomfortable argument for me to make. I think the true answer can only be that, in a world corrupted by evil, which Middle-earth clearly was, there can be an absolute standard for good and evil but things get mightily blurred in the application. Simply it is impossible to have an absolutely good act, even by Eru, in a world where evil is woven into the fabric of existence.

Numenor had clearly become a blight on the world: a force for evil that was destroying not only the lives of its own inhabitants but those across the Sea whom they imperiously ruled. If Eru destroyed only the attacking fleet, that blight would still be there, capable of rejuvenating and expanding outward. Whatever action is taken--destroying the island or not destroying it, the evil will not go away. On the one hand you have the continuing existence of an evil Numenor and on the other hand you have innocent children killed. The only answer seems to be that you weigh one evil against another and make a choice based on that, taking the path that will eventually lead to the greatest healing.

As men, we certainly do not have the knowlege that would allow us to do this cosmic weighing or make a choice. (I too do not believe in capital punishment.) But Eru is in a different position and could possibly have made such a choice with clear understanding of its consequences. This is essentially a no-win situation. Whatever Eru does, there will be evil consequences. He is trapped by his own creation and the latitude he has given to his children. What it comes down to in terms of the individual is "trust". Some readers "trust" Eru enough to believe that his choice was just. For them it is not an atrocity--just a sad, sad choice. For others, the action by Eru can only be seen as an amoral or immoral one because there were certainly bad consequences and he had foreknowlege of those. Rather than a choice, it becomes an atrocity. There is no easy answer here.

Lalwendë

01-17-2007, 01:47 PM

The point though is that Eru is beyond good/evil, he is at once both of them, and he creates the circumstances in which both enter the world. Eru just is. And why should that be a bad thing? I certainly haven't got a dislike of Eru, in fact this seems much more natural.

It's up to the people of Arda to discover what is right and wrong, and there are indeed things which are right and wrong, for them (but not equally for Eru), it is not a moral free-for-all. Likewise its up to the reader to discover these things too. They are not necessarily set down on the page for us - Gollum is an example of that. If there was a strictly laid out moral objectivity then Tolkien's work would have been incredibly didactic and that's one thing that it is not - or else why would be discussing this now? ;)

This world is not corrupted by evil, it is created from the very beginning with evil inbuilt, into the very fabric of its being. There is no 'paradise' from which the Children can fall because the world was fallen before it even began. That's an essential and crucial difference between the way Tolkien's own religion saw the world and the way he created his own secondary world. It underlines the Long Defeat. But I reckon, Child, that you get around to that thought anyway! The problem is that if we apply Tolkien's own earthly religion to this idea of Eru being a whole law unto himself (which he clearly was, as Tolkien tells us that) then we start to get into torturous argument because it just doesn't 'fit' snugly. And thus, if we look at the Drowning of Numenor in the context of Eruism, it becomes less morally contentious.

Břicho

01-17-2007, 01:49 PM

Then why would Eru punish them at all? Why should he protect the rest of the world from Numenor? Why would he care if men picked a fight with the Valar?

Lalwendë

01-17-2007, 02:18 PM

Tar-Telperien explains it well earlier. But basically the Numenoreans were granted a special gift by Eru, who does not interfere much at all, with the condition that they did not seek to go to Valinor. But they did, and Eru had to reshape the world so that no Men could ever attempt it again. This was for their own good as Elves and Men were in essence very different creatures. Eru did not do it to protect the ordinary Men of Middle-earth.

Tar-Telperien

01-17-2007, 03:11 PM

Then why would Eru punish them at all? Why should he protect the rest of the world from Numenor? Why would he care if men picked a fight with the Valar?

People are too dead set on looking at this as a punishment!

As I said before, Eru reacted to the request of the Valar to do something. He repaired the problem that had been there in the first place: namely, giving Men an unfair command not to sail beyond an arbitrary line. The Valar should not have put Men in such a tempting situation; they should have known that the "Ban system" is an ultimately untenable situation for Men to be in.

So Eru fixed that problem in the best (i.e., most permanent) way possible. Since the Númenóreans had decided not to have any concern for Eru's existence and/or actions in Arda, he ignored them accordingly. It was willful ignorance repaying willful ignorance. Eru wasn't going to perform any miracles in keeping Númenor afloat on their behalf if they hated him and didn't want him interfering with their lives and beliefs (they did, after all, think him a malicious phantom invented by the Valar). This concept is a bit difficult to explain, but don't you think that, if the Númenóreans spent their lives saying and acting as if Eru did not exist, he was justified in acting as if they did not exist? Eru does not "baby people". He lets them see the logical conclusions of their beliefs. This is an example of that.

That the physical aspects of the Breaking of the World included the Downfall should not be considered amazing. Eressëa was saved from it because it was taken off the world proper and thus protected from physics as we know it. But Númenor was still on the world, and was included in the catastrophe. Of course, that it happened to bring down a very unjust society while simultaneously greatly injuring its seducer and terrorizer is, perhaps, a little more than coincidential.

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-17-2007, 03:22 PM

This world is not corrupted by evil, it is created from the very beginning with evil inbuilt, into the very fabric of its being. There is no 'paradise' from which the Children can fall because the world was fallen before it even began.
Actually, I dare say not. If by the term "world" you mean just "Arda", then you are right: the evil was inbuilt in it. But in our case I'd change the term "world" for "creation" here: because this is what we are dealing with if we ask for Eru. Arda was actually not created just by Eru, it also (and as we know, VERY MUCH) contained thoughts made by Manwë, Varda, Melkor etc.: and this happened at the point in which they were individual entities. They were no way linked to Eru at that time: it was their own ideas what they put into the world. Melkor brought in the dischord, and this way, evil was inbuilt to the history of the newly created World. We all know the story of Ainulindalë, and what Eru said to Melkor. When Eru put the plans of the Great Music before Valar, there was nothing of what Melkor later did. In the beginning, there was nothing evil: not even Sauron, as it was said here many times. Eru created beings (meaning the Ainur now) with completely free will. He gave them their powers, yes, but he did not imprint in them "You Melkor are going to behave like this and this". And since there was no dischord in Eru's original plans for the Music of Ainur, we have to conclude that everyone of the Ainur behaved as he wished: and Melkor has chosen to behave differently.
Then Ilúvatar said to them: 'Of the theme that I have declared to you, I will now that ye make in harmony together a Great Music. And since I have kindled you with the Flame Imperishable, ye shall show forth your powers in adorning this theme, each with his own thoughts and devices, if he will. But I win sit and hearken, and be glad that through you great beauty has been wakened into song.'
ye make in harmony together=in harmony, no dichord was in the plan
I have kindled you with the Flame Imperishable=they are now "real" beings with their own life (cf. Dwarves when Aulë tries to get them working without Ilúvatar)
each with his own thoughts and devices, if he will=their own thoughts and devices, since they are free beings. Ilúvatar gave them powers, let's say, "you have now the ability to create nice bricks, you have now the ability to be a good architect, you have the ability to be a good gardener, etc., etc., now make me a nice house with garden". You can build a house in Victorian style, in postmodern style, as you wish - it's up to you if you put one or two doors there. But if you decide to build a rocket silo instead, it was not what I asked of you. (I am sorry, I am neither an architect nor a mason, but I hope you catch my meaning.)
and be glad that through you great beauty has been wakened into song.=I don't consider dying children, or dying Thingol, or the Kinslaying, or Saruman's destruction of the Shire, or death of Denethor being beauty. This was not Eru's plan. But when it happened, he accepted Melkor's free will, as much as he accepted the free will of anyone else: this is justice. And what he said to Melkor, we know.
Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'
I know this is the source of "Eru wanted Melkor to do this!" opinions, but I say, nay, as I said above, Eru didn't want this in the first place, and if you read this quote carefully, you'll probably see for yourselves. Eru is not saying "You cannot play anything which I didn't want to do". Eru is saying: "But that ye may know that I AM ILÚVATAR" = so there is no way you could make anything which will overthrow me, most crudely said. It does not mean "if you play this, Melkor, it means that I wanted to play this as well" but "you cannot play this. And you cannot play anything new. I created all. You might choose whether the grass would be green or yellow or pink, but you cannot invent a new color. You might choose whether the balrogs will or will not have wings, but you cannot invent other shape for them than putting the bull's head or pig's head together with human body." I know this is bad example, since the Ainur actually created even the shapes, but since we are bound by the material world and cannot imagine invisible things, I think this is the best.
Someone might point out (and I think you, Lalwendë, inclined to that) that Eru surely is not "stupid" and that he could've known that the evil would come and that he could have, crudely said, for example "erased" Melkor. I think it is like this: if you create something with its own free will, you have to count with that it may - or even be sure that it will - do things you didn't want it to. But is it better just to sit in the void and not create anything? Please leave now aside that the World itself was created after the creation of Ainur: we know that Melkor had the thoughts of dischord in him even before the Music itself. These were his thoughts. But if you look into the world after creation, Eru also wouldn't censore every single baby's genetic structure to make sure that no possible thief is born. They have free will, if they want to steal, it is their choice.
So, if I sum it all up: before the Great Music, Eru didn't know what will the Ainur play. He also didn't know what all would happen: even if he would have some suspicions on Melkor, he couldn't ve known if he would play alone or if some Saurons and Balrogs would join him, or if he would be "overshouted" by the others. During the Music, when it seemed really bad, he intervened (!). And when it was probably unbearable (?), he said "ok, that's enough of suffering - let's cut it" and he ended the Music. And after the Music, he didn't just say: "Okay, I wanted this to be a nice piece of music and I wanted to create a world according to it, but you screwed it up, so on second thought nothing," but he said: "Okay, Melkor, so you screwed it up, but that you all know that I am Ilúvatar, now watch what you have done."

Macalaure

01-17-2007, 03:35 PM

There's an argument which I read several time so far, that death was maybe a good thing for the children of Númenor. I don't agree with this. Throughout Tolkien's work killing another person (undeservedly) is an evil act. Even though death is the Gift of Eru to Men, I think this moral standard should also hold for him, regardless of the quality of the afterlife and regardless of whether life for the children would inevitably become very bad.

If indeed Eru is beyond good and evil, then obviously it doesn't hold for him. But I doubt this. Like Břicho said, if Eru has no preference for good or evil and just is, then why does he care at all. He created both good and evil beings, but he clearly seems to prefer the good side. So no matter if he was entirely good or also somewhat evil, the standards of good and evil should apply to himself as well.

The contradiction remains. Innocent children (though parents are responsible for their children, children are not responsible for their parents - and I don't buy the argument that they were too strongly influenced by their evil parents in the short span of their upbringing (we're talking about young children)) died in the Drowning, no matter whether it was a punishment or 'collateral damage'. This happened at the hands of Eru, who in turn, by the standards Tolkien's work gives, cannot be entirely good.

But maybe, at the time, the Drowning was simply the best choice that was left to Eru? This is possible. In fact, it would perhaps solve our dilemma. However, I think it leads to another question: Is Eru omnipotent or not? If he is, then he must have had the possibility to punish the evil and/or remove Valinor while sparing the innocent Númenoreans (I confess I'm growing increasingly uncomfortable with this black-and-white painting of the society of Westernesse). Is there any textual support for either one of the positions?

Lalwendë

01-17-2007, 04:20 PM

Legate - bear in mind though that Eru created Melkor. When Eru tells him "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me" he is telling Melkor that he may have free will, but he was put there by Eru and Eru made him what he is, whether for good or for bad.

I suppose in one way you might almost feel sorry for Melkor as he simply cannot help what he is. ;)

The Ainur sing of the world and Melkor's discordancies create those things which would go on to be evil things - and no theme can be played which does not stem from Eru, therefore this logically tells us that Eru caused this to be (unwittingly or not, whichever you prefer, I prefer wittingly).

thou, Melkor, wilt discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind, and wilt perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary to its glory

I'll use this again, as it's about the very design which Eru came up with. Eru tells Melkor that he will soon enough find out what his darkest thoughts are, and that at some point, he will also see that such dark thoughts are a very part of the whole of existence and a part of the glory of existence.

This concept in fact ties in with poetry written by Tolkien's friend Smith, about the death of their friend Gilson in which he says that God cannot be glorified unless there is suffering.

One piece declares a stark view of divine providence: Gilson's death is "a sacrifice of blood outpoured" to a God whose purposes are utterly inscrutable and who "only canst be glorified by man's own passion and the supreme pain"

It's a very bloody and unforgiving concept of God, but nevertheless it is one that Tolkien seems to have held. In the situation that Tolkien was in on the Somme you either become an Atheist or you come to a view that God is quite a dark figure, a figure who at the very least will permit, if not commit, atrocities.

EDIT
Ultimately, there are two ways of looking at this:
1. We assume Eru is good - therefore everything he does is good too, it must be good because he does it. But this also means he can do anything and it is still good.
2. We look at what happens and work out if it was good or bad. If it was bad, then Eru has done something bad, and he is neither wholly good nor bad.

This all depends of course on whether sets of abstracts like good and evil control Eru's actions. They must do for 2 to be true so is he still omnipotent? But if we then go back to saying that 1 must be true, then there is no good or evil anyway as there is no moral standard apart from what we decide. Which brings us back to 2 again....and on and on and on.... Can Eru create a rock that's so heavy he cannot move it? ;)

Tar-Telperien

01-17-2007, 04:27 PM

However, I think it leads to another question: Is Eru omnipotent or not?

So far as I know, he is nowhere stated to be, and this is a very good thing. It's the only thing that lets his character (that of a deity) make any sense. To me, certain religions in the Primary World make a major error in trying to declare their deity is omnipotent.

Because if Eru is not omnipotent, it may be that there are certain consequences of his creatures attempting to rebel against him that he cannot change qua being their creator (in other words, the idea would be that in the "Tale of Adanel", the story of the Fall of Man in Middle-earth, Eru did not "punish" Men, but merely described what would inevitably happen to them because of their attempt to rebel. He could not stop the changes that would occur in them (shortened life, weakness, etc.), because he is not omnipotent. Eru is called Sanavaldo, the Almighty, but being Almighty is different than being omnipotent.)

Tar-Telperien

01-17-2007, 04:37 PM

Throughout Tolkien's work killing another person (undeservedly) is an evil act.

Are you sure that that's not just humans' opinions? From the Athrabeth, it is made plain that Men, even the Edain, had fallen into a belief that Death was an "abominable" punishment brought on for evil deeds Men committed in their early history. There was almost no way they could find the strength of mind to look at it neutrally. It always carried an aura of punishment or "Doom" for them. So naturally this worked into their justice systems, which are human constructions.

Remember, Eru does not give anyone a moral or justice system to follow, nor does he announce any rules he has for his own conduct. All such systems are devices of his creatures, for dealing with life in Arda and in their societies. This hardly means they are "worthless"; they are extremely important in their context. But demanding that Eru be subject to one of these devised justice systems is taking it completely out of context.

The only promise, warning, or Doom Eru ever pronounces is that anyone who tries to rebel against him will not succeed, and that ultimately, rebellion itself is an illusion, since Eru's Will (Indómë, as I prefer to call it) is still being done through them. The evil of this "rebellion" is not that it works against Eru, but that it constitutes lying to oneself about successfully working against his Will.

(As an aside, these idea strongly hint to me that this mythology is not about a dualistic war of Good against Evil, with Good being the winner... someday. It's about learning. It's about moving from a state of ignorance to a state of enlightenment. It's about tearing down those comfortable illusions and self-deceptions and accepting the hard facts of Indómë. In the "Tale of Adanel", Eru tells Men that "eah of you in a little while shall come to me, to learn who is your Lord: the one ye worship, or I who made him" (my emphasis). People tend to forget that when the Children are deceived by Melkor, and when Melkor deceives himself, it is because they want that. Lies are so much easier to deal with than truth.)

Lalwendë

01-17-2007, 04:46 PM

Remember, Eru does not give anyone a moral or justice system to follow, nor does he announce any rules he has for his own conduct. All such systems are devices of his creatures, for dealing with life in Arda and in their societies. This hardly means they are "worthless"; they are extremely important in their context. But demanding that Eru be subject to one of these devised justice systems is taking it completely out of context.

To understand this you (not you, but the reader in general of course) need to clearly separate out your own personal idea of God from what you read about Eru as the two are not compatible unless you happen to personally share Tolkien's view of Eru in your own conception of God. Of course God gave rules to people (if we take the notion that the Bible is the Word of God), but Eru does not. This is why it's important to take your own belief and put it into a little mental box while you consider how Eru works. I know I've had to, in order to understand Tolkien's literary creation. And while I personally find what Eru did to be bad within the bounds of my own morality, in the context of the world Tolkien writes about, it works.

Tar-Telperien

01-17-2007, 04:52 PM

To understand this you (not you, but the reader in general of course) need to clearly separate out your own personal idea of God from what you read about Eru as the two are not compatible unless you happen to personally share Tolkien's view of Eru in your own conception of God. Of course God gave rules to people (if we take the notion that the Bible is the Word of God), but Eru does not. This is why it's important to take your own belief and put it into a little mental box while you consider how Eru works. I know I've had to, in order to understand Tolkien's literary creation. And while I personally find what Eru did to be bad within the bounds of my own morality, in the context of the world Tolkien writes about, it works.

Exactly. This is to me why Eru is one of the most interesting conceptions in Tolkien's entire mythos. He seems like a humdrum monotheistic God on first inspection, but gradually you realize he is completely different.

I am not so sure that what Eru did with Númenor is bad, when one looks at the alternatives. Would leaving "innocent women and children" alone with Sauron have been any better of a solution!?

TIf indeed Eru is beyond good and evil, then obviously it doesn't hold for him. But I doubt this. Like Břicho said, if Eru has no preference for good or evil and just is, then why does he care at all.

He cares because he made everything.

He created both good and evil beings, but he clearly seems to prefer the good side. So no matter if he was entirely good or also somewhat evil, the standards of good and evil should apply to himself as well.

I'm not so sure that's a conclusion we can make at all. He gave Melkor the most attention after Melkor's discord. Eru sternly but kindly warned Melkor before he did anything else discordant that he would be unsuccessful in any attempt to rebel against him, but did not punish him, reprimand him, or take away his freedom. He let him act just as he let the other Valar do. Eru did not command Melkor not to lord himself over the Children or mar Arda, no more than he warned Manwë.

The reason why it's tempting to say Eru "prefers" one side is because of the behavior of the creatures themselves. Naturally, if you are concerned about keeping close to what you believe Eru's design to be, you will converse with him more and try to determine that will for you. If you don't care what Eru might want, you're not going to do that. Melkor didn't for precisely that reason. He tried to forget Eru's existence because of the misfortune it had for his plans (namely, that he could not be the supreme power in Eä).

Macalaure

01-17-2007, 05:25 PM

Are you sure that that's not just humans' opinions? From the Athrabeth, it is made plain that Men, even the Edain, had fallen into a belief that Death was an "abominable" punishment brought on for evil deeds Men committed in their early history. There was almost no way they could find the strength of mind to look at it neutrally. It always carried an aura of punishment or "Doom" for them. So naturally this worked into their justice systems, which are human constructions.Ah, I see I didn't make clear what I meant. Death itself is not evil, of course not. It's simply the fate of Men. Killing, however, is evil, unless the killed one is evil, because it violently severs hroa and fea, and this is not meant to be. There isn't even a difference between Elf, Man, Dwarf or whatever in this sense, I think.

Let's put it differently. Evil is defined as rebellion against Eru's will. Eru's will was so far that Men, or Incarnate Beings in general, shall not kill each other (again, only if innocent). Now Eru does kill innocent people. Does this now mean that Eru's will is inconsistent? Can Eru rebel against himself? ;)
Just trying to understand this.

I am not so sure that what Eru did with Númenor is bad, when one looks at the alternatives. Would leaving "innocent women and children" alone with Sauron have been any better of a solution!?I think Eru's goal in destroying Númenor was to eliminate the evil/rebellion that spread from it. If we agree that he wasn't omnipotent (bear with me, but why isn't almighty=omnipotent?), then it's quite possible that he wasn't able to sort out the innocent and the guilty ones in the process. Leaving anybody to Sauron isn't even a real alternative, I'd say.

Tar-Telperien

01-17-2007, 05:49 PM

Evil is defined as rebellion against Eru's will.

I define "evil" as the self-deception, and the effects that rise from it, of believing that such rebellion is even possible.

As for killing, it's wrong because it breaks the moral rule of: "what people can't re-create they shouldn't destroy without consent, because someone else might want it there" (the someone being that person's loved ones, etc.). The consent would be, of course, capital punishment, etc. But Eru is in the position of being able to create Incarnates, and so does not fall under this (again humanly-constructed) rule.

Also, killing falls under the Golden Rule of course. But since our "selves" are fundamentally different from Eru's "self", quite probably this social rule doesn't apply either. Also, if Eru didn't want "violent separation of hröa and fëa to take place, obviously he would never have bothered to place Incarnates into Arda Marred! Obviously, then, this is a poor assumption. I would rather think that such separation is indeed part of Indómë. Either that or abandon estel altogether and not bother believing in Eru.

I think Eru's goal in destroying Númenor was to eliminate the evil/rebellion that spread from it. If we agree that he wasn't omnipotent (bear with me, but why isn't almighty=omnipotent?), then it's quite possible that he wasn't able to sort out the innocent and the guilty ones in the process. Leaving anybody to Sauron isn't even a real alternative, I'd say.

My theory of the Downfall, which I have written and alluded to a few times above, is still that Númenor's destruction was a secondary aspect of the Breaking of the World, and hardly the main reason for that Breaking. When we consider Eru in that context, we can either assume that Eru chose (if he is not a moral figure) to ignore that the island was there when he broke the world, since its inhabitants had chosen to ignore him. If he is a moral figure, the island was allowed to be caught in the destruction both because of the people's deeds, but also to deliver them (and their children!) from Sauron.

(Keep in mind that this is a very complex and many-sided issue, and I haven't thought about every aspect of it. There may well be holes in my argument/presentation.)

As to almightiness vs. omnipotence:

Y is almighty means that Y is not just more powerful than any creature; no creature can compete with Y in power, even unsuccessfully. In this account nothing like the omnipotence paradox arises, but perhaps that is because God is not taken to be in any sense omnipotent.

And that sounds exactly like Eru as he is presented in Tolkien's works: not stated to be omnipotent, but any attempt to rebel against him will in the end be unsuccessful.

Lastly, aside from the initial "miracle" of making a big crack in Arda, everything happened in accord with natural processes (the Faithful's escape may or may not have been the aid of the Valar). Númenor fell down into the Sea because that was according to the laws of physics. Sauron survived the Downfall because his ability to do so was part of his natural spiritual potency. Since Eru mostly decided (or was constrained) to let the laws of physics take place, it's no mystery why the innocent died as well in the huge catastrophe.

But I still think people's problem with this is to make Eru equal to God in their minds. Eru nowhere calls himself "good", "moral", or "right" that I know of, so he is not constrained to play nice. Eru is Sternness. That's the only attribute I've ever been able to ascribe to him consistently, anyway.

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-18-2007, 03:50 AM

(the Faithful's escape may or may not have been the aid of the Valar).
I don't feel like adding any long posts now, so I'll just add a little bit of my knowledge to this, because I remember it being written there:
But whether or no it were that Amandil came indeed to Valinor and Manwë hearkened to his prayer, by grace of the Valar Elendil and his sons and their people were spared from the ruin of that day.

Bêthberry

01-18-2007, 07:30 AM

Other than Gandalf's words to Frodo about pity and staying his hand against Gollem, which, in terms of the chronology of the Legendarium, come much later than the Akallabeth, where in Middle-earth is there a specific commandment against killing?

littlemanpoet

01-18-2007, 09:21 PM

There is much to respond to and I haven't the time right now. However, this much I have time to respond to now:

Problems only arise when we try to get our heads around the nature of what we read in Tolkien's stories.

On the contrary. Problems only arise when we fail to account for all the facts in the text. For example, an emphasis on "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me" while ignoring "There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought".

'Holy' means 'pure'. Perfect. Flawless. In the beginning even Melkor was holy. Thus, evil, in the Ainulindalë, is equal to 'flawed'.

Also, "Nothing is evil in the beginning. Not even Sauron was so." Elrond is one of Tolkien's primary truth tellers. He cannot be wrong without doing violence to the story of LotR.

Therefore, evil cannot have its origins in Eru. And "Melkor was filled with shame, of which came secret anger" - - if Melkor is filled with shame, how can it be that Eru is responsible for Melkor's rebellion? If Eru is responsible for Melkor's rebellion, then Melkor would have no reason for shame.

So account for ALL the text.

Tar-Telperien

01-18-2007, 10:25 PM

For example, an emphasis on "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me" while ignoring "There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought".

'Holy' means 'pure'. Perfect. Flawless. In the beginning even Melkor was holy. Thus, evil, in the Ainulindalë, is equal to 'flawed'.

Actually, "holy" has a bunch of different meanings. Most of them refer to being in the service of God. As the Ainur (which actually is not even a native Elvish word; it is adapted from Valarin) were his direct servants in bringing about the creation of Eä, wouldn't this be a better interpretation of the intended meaning of "holy" in this context? Especially since Tolkien directly contradicts the notion that the Valar were "perfect": "Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations" (Essay VI, "Myths Transformed"). This was in direct reference to the actions of the Valar upon Arda. Thus, I reject the notion that any of the Ainur were at any time "flawless". The explanation that they were holy because they were created to serve Eru directly seems to make much more sense.

And to me, that very imperfection of the Valar was something Eru used; it was part of how they served him, by being imperfect.

Also, "Nothing is evil in the beginning. Not even Sauron was so." Elrond is one of Tolkien's primary truth tellers. He cannot be wrong without doing violence to the story of LotR.

And what exactly is "evil" in this context? Doesn't it refer to incarnate-constructed notions of good and evil? Generally people aren't raising Orc-armies from day one of their being on earth, no. In that sense I would agree with Elrond. But if you use evil to mean "flawed", then "all finite creatures" are very much evil, by Tolkien's own statements. Being flawed is an intrinsic aspect of their finititude.

Therefore, evil cannot have its origins in Eru.

I won't bother quoting Eru's declaration about where all themes have their source, since you've already done that... and contradicted it with this statement.

So account for ALL the text.

Indeed!

Tar-Telperien

01-18-2007, 10:40 PM

And "Melkor was filled with shame, of which came secret anger" - - if Melkor is filled with shame, how can it be that Eru is responsible for Melkor's rebellion? If Eru is responsible for Melkor's rebellion, then Melkor would have no reason for shame.

I might as well respond to this, too. Melkor's shame didn't arise as a result of anyone's responsibility. It came about because Eru matter-of-factly told him that his course of action would fail. Whether or not it was your fault that your desire to do something would fail, wouldn't you feel ashamed and angry about being informed of that in front of your peers?

Lalwendë

01-19-2007, 09:55 AM

On the contrary. Problems only arise when we fail to account for all the facts in the text. For example, an emphasis on "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me" while ignoring "There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought".

'Holy' means 'pure'. Perfect. Flawless. In the beginning even Melkor was holy. Thus, evil, in the Ainulindalë, is equal to 'flawed'.

This only works if we project particular concepts of the meaning of 'Holy' onto the Valar. As Tar-Telperien says, the Valar were indeed flawed. As is shown in the topic of this whole thread. The Valar created Numenor and gifted it to favoured Men but did not account for the possibility that Men might, under the influence of Sauron or under their own steam, wish to break the Ban. The only way they could then get around this was by appealing to Eru who had sent them into Arda to remain in Arda for good. If Eru made them then he made all of them with the possibility of making errors of judgement and mistakes. And there is also Aule's little rule-breaking exercise in sub-creation when he made Dwarves.

I suppose we could say that Holy means 'perfect' in Eru's mind, but then this would clearly have to mean that 'perfect' in Eru's mind was not our concept of 'perfect', it was one that included the ability to make mistakes and learn.

Also, "Nothing is evil in the beginning. Not even Sauron was so." Elrond is one of Tolkien's primary truth tellers. He cannot be wrong without doing violence to the story of LotR.

Therefore, evil cannot have its origins in Eru. And "Melkor was filled with shame, of which came secret anger" - - if Melkor is filled with shame, how can it be that Eru is responsible for Melkor's rebellion? If Eru is responsible for Melkor's rebellion, then Melkor would have no reason for shame.
So account for ALL the text.

If wanting to find out how this world was forged it makes sense to go right back to its earliest stories, its creation myths, tales of the times before Elves, Men and Rings. Otherwise we are running the risk of looking at the creation myth of Tolkien's world as viewed through the interpretations of creation given by generation upon generation of descendents.

Aside from that, what is Elrond actually saying here? Is he saying that evil was at a later stage imposed upon certain Ainur? If so, who by? If Eru created everything then he also created evil? Did he put it into Melkor? Or is he saying that good/evil was simply not an issue when Eru created his Gods?

Remember:

no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-19-2007, 10:28 AM

Actually, "holy" has a bunch of different meanings. Most of them refer to being in the service of God.
'Holy' means 'pure'. Perfect. Flawless. In the beginning even Melkor was holy. Thus, evil, in the Ainulindalë, is equal to 'flawed'.
Really, it is just as Tar-Telperien says: "holy" has a bunch of different meanings. One of them is being in the service of God (in our case, Eru), one is also being "pure". If we reach for the examples to ancient Israel (I think a very good source of examples for this), we can read both the meanings:
Deuteronomy 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
and
Leviticus 11:44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
(Just for explanation for those who don't know, the Israelites considered many of the insects, lizards&co. - those "creeping things" - being "unclean", thus, unholy in the meaning of unclean: they couldn't eat it. I wonder if they could eat Gollum... okay, jokes aside for now.)
Since, mainly in the Catholic environment (and we know Tolkien being Catholic), the second (elempi's) meaning is used often, I am inclined to believe that Tolkien might have used the word "holy" in this meaning (or both of them), also considering his area of interest being the language, I'd suppose that he was aware of the meanings of this word and he might have used it because he was content with all its meanings and they all conveyed what he had in mind. This is just a hypothesis however, we'll need some proof from his Letters or something like that, touching this subject... if a thing such as this exists? ... But as I said, I find it quite likely that Tolkien considered Valar both "pure" and "serving to Eru" (from which, in the end, Melkor retained neither) and used the word "holy" to express this.
If Eru created everything then he also created evil? Did he put it into Melkor? Or is he saying that good/evil was simply not an issue when Eru created his Gods?
I think we are in need to bring in the definition of what "good" is, in the Middle-Earth. (Please consider this when reading my thought above that the "Valar" were "holy" meaning "pure, good".) Here is, I think, a fine explanation of "good": meaning "pure", "unflawed" (the meaning elempi used for "holy"). Good=unflawed. Eru puts his plan before the Valar. They do it, each his own way. Fine. But remember Galadriel's grieving after lost Lórien. Remember the Elves saying that the stars are less bright because the shadow of Melkor is cast over them from afar. This is not "good", this is "flawed". In the beginning, there is Fëanor the Best Craftsman who could create the most beautiful things in the world. In the end, there is Fëanor performing the Kinslaying, betraying his relatives and letting them to go over Helcaraxë. I hope everyone is clear about what "good" in M-E means. And "evil", thus, means straying away from the course of things what it was like in the beginning - flawless. Thus, Eru did not create evil. I hope this is obvious. This is why Eru himself must be good: because "evil" is just a product of other beings than himself. Eru is the creator, so that everything he does is "good". If in the normal course of action Eru put in the plans of Music an idea of destroying mountains or killing people, then destroying mountains and killing people would have been considered "good" in this M-E universe. I hope this is understood. In the beginning, Eru's plan was perfect, good. Some of the Valar (and later Men and Elves and so on) strayed from it - because they were given independant free will, and free will means that you can do whatever you wish - decide whether to move your left hand or move your right hand; as well as whether to move your hand to shake your friend's hand or to break his neck. Simply said: what the creator of the world himself considers ok, is "good" - other is evil. That he allows it, doesn't mean he agrees (as Eru said to Melkor). But he might somehow use even what is done against his will: that well-known Ulmo&frost&hot part. The people of ME clearly might be happy that they have snow and not just simple water, but on the other hand, no one could have died by freezing hadn't there been for Melkor's creation of cold. So, a flaw, even though Eru turned it to a thing Melkor didn't have in mind in the beginning (as he told).

Okay, one final note - I used my own logical aparate as much as I could. But in the end, these are transcendental thoughts we are attempting to make here, we must've been gods to undestand Eru as our equal, because his thinking clearly couldn't be that of human.

Lalwendë

01-19-2007, 12:13 PM

Good cannot be linked with pure in Tolkien's creation as otherwise we would have very few if any heroes. All of them are flawed, even those who are incredibly good. So Good cannot be defined as Flawless.

Now, of course Eru's plan is 'good', but who does this idea of good belong to? It belongs to Eru. It's his 'good'. Which may in fact include a lot of what is 'bad' or 'wrong' or 'tragic' in the eyes of those in his creation.

Eru says that nothing can be done in his despite, which means that even 'bad' things are allowed by him. Simply put, he creates free will from the very beginning, and that the name Illuvatar means all-father, universe, everything, suggests that Eru is All. Illuvatar is his name within the world he creates, and outside it, wherever he is, in the void maybe, he is Eru, which means The One, which suggests that he is everything, and if evil exists then he must also be that too.

There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar.

When the Ainur sing the Music they are creating a 'map' of everything that will exist in the world Tolkien creates; Melkor creates discordancies, and again:

no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me

Considering that Melkor and Melkor's works, and Aule's meddlings with creating Dwarves and the Valar's creation of Numenor all ultimately stemmed from Eru works. It makes sense of the fact that evil has been built into the fabric of this world from the very beginning (different to Middle-Eastern originating views of our own world where there was a Fall - there was no Falling to be done in Arda as there was no state of grace to begin with due to Melkor's discordancies...if there was a state of grace it was presumably when there was nothing but Eru, seeing as he says he created everything).

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-19-2007, 03:25 PM

I completely agree with Lal's previous post. Seems that we came to a place where the two of us meet. Only one thing:
It makes sense of the fact that evil has been built into the fabric of this world from the very beginning (different to Middle-Eastern originating views of our own world where there was a Fall - there was no Falling to be done in Arda as there was no state of grace to begin with due to Melkor's discordancies...if there was a state of grace it was presumably when there was nothing but Eru, seeing as he says he created everything).
If I use your terminology, then the Fall in ME happened before the creation of the world itself. That's just the sole difference, but it actually happened.
The thought of mine that the Arda was flawed has its roots here:
Here ends the SILMARILLION. If it has passed from the high and the beautiful to darkness and ruin, that was of old the fate of Arda Marred; and if any change shall come and the Marring be amended, Manwë and Varda may know; but they have not revealed it, and it is not declared in the dooms of Mandos.
Marring of Arda. You are right that there was no "state of grace" for the Creation: but for Ainur, there was - before they played, let's say. I'd compare Melkor's music to the eating of the apple by Adam&Eve. The point is, that the flaws appear with the first beings independant on the Creator's will: someone of them just in time decides to do something which goes against the plans, or let's say, orders put to them by the Creator.

P.S. What was the original question of this forum? :o

Lalwendë

01-19-2007, 03:47 PM

P.S. What was the original question of this forum?

The best conversations always end up going off on mad tangents! ;)

Now about the Fall happening at the point where Melkor adds his discordancies to the Music, I can go for that. But firstly it means that in Tolkien's creation, The Fall was not due to Man but to a God, which is interesting. And secondly, it still leaves me wondering if Eru placed the possibility there anyway, as all themes came from him; this allows room to discuss whether Eru planned this to happen or if he simply laid possibilities in the essence of his Ainur and then allowed them the free choice of which themes to sing. But in that direction discussions of Free Will lie and that's even thornier.

There is an interesting point to consider - if Eru drew a distinction between good/evil then who or what framed these concepts to Eru? Obviously the answer is nobody as Eru is The One, the beginning and end of creation in this world. In that case, there are simply an infinite number of possibilities of thought, behaviour etc and can Eru decide which ones he wants his creations to do? Which ones he wants to reward and which to punish? Can Eru change the rules? He clearly can exercise which rules he likes, as shown by his intervention in Numenor, at the pleading of the earth-bound Valar. Scary.

Tar-Telperien

01-19-2007, 04:35 PM

There is an interesting point to consider - if Eru drew a distinction between good/evil then who or what framed these concepts to Eru? Obviously the answer is nobody as Eru is The One, the beginning and end of creation in this world. In that case, there are simply an infinite number of possibilities of thought, behaviour etc and can Eru decide which ones he wants his creations to do? Which ones he wants to reward and which to punish? Can Eru change the rules? He clearly can exercise which rules he likes, as shown by his intervention in Numenor, at the pleading of the earth-bound Valar. Scary.

I still have not been convinced by these people's arguments that Eru does make such a distinguishment. They define "evil" as going against Eru's Will (Indómë). But to me Eru's statements to Melkor show that no one can "get outside" Indómë, no matter how hard they try! It will just evolve and continue right along with their changing choices. It's laughable to think of a creation actually having any success in defying its creator, and that is what Eru is trying to show. His creatures have freedom of choice, yes, but they will never truly interfere with the Will of Eru. Rebellion is thus an illusion, and this is what is bad about it; it constitutes lying to oneself by thinking that one can escape Indómë even though one can't really possibly imagine a situation outside of Eru's influence.

This is why I say the mythology is not about Good and Evil, but about learning. Each creature has to learn how bound up it is with Indómë, and stop lying to itself about its ability to defy it. "The lies of Melkor thou shalt unlearn in bitterness," Mandos sternly tells Fëanor. It's not about defeating Melkor, it's about escaping falsehoods. This is why I can't believe that Eru really would prefer "good" over "evil", because he has not been shown to be bound to a specific morality, since morality is a constructed notion. Eru prefers it when people can see through lies, and he knows that everyone will eventually, so why hurry?

This is probably also the reason that Eru does not try at all to destroy evil and suffering, but merely waits on people to come to enlightenment. This inevitably takes time and experience, and generally a good deal of suffering, too. But Eru has all the "time" he needs, and more: he can outwait their stubborn smallmindedness.

As for Melkor, it was when he went into the Void outside the Timeless Halls that he first got his "strange thoughts". This is, I think, because it was then that he began lying to himself, because he thought he could imagine a place without Eru, this empty Void. (Eru's creatures have the ability to perceive difference; this is what allows them to lie to themselves. Melkor could perceive what made the Void different from the Halls, mainly its apparent featurelessness.) It was for this reason that he wanted the Flame Imperishable, so that he could rule in the Void. As with every other instance of what we call evil, this idea originally came from a lie, from a self-deception, from seeing something as different from what it actually was. Melkor viewed the Void as an empty place without Eru, so he came to view himself as a possible ruler of that Void, without Eru's influence. But Melkor could only contrast the Void with the Timeless Halls because he thought Eru wasn't in the former, which again shows that Eru is the ultimate source of all his ideas (namely because Eru created Melkor, and knew all the possible ranges of his thoughts).

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-19-2007, 05:09 PM

littlemanpoet

01-19-2007, 08:52 PM

Eru's definition of what constitutes guilt and innocence is very, very strict indeed. Here's your answer: Ilúvatar sat and hearkened, and for a great while it seemed good to him, for in the music there were no flaws. Flawlessness is Eru's standard.

Melkor's discordant theme and even his thoughts are a product of Eru.
Melkor's first flaw was to think wrongly of Ilúvatar: "and it seemed to {Melkor} that Ilúvatar took not thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness. Yet he found not the Fire, for it is with Ilúvatar. But being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts of his own unlike those of his brethren." Melkor's second flaw was to desire that the Void be not empty before it was Ilúvatar's will to fill it. His third flaw was to isolate himself from his peers. His fourth was, of course, based on these first three: the discordant theme.

And Eru allowed this to happen, but as is said above, "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me". That is one of the essential mysteries of Eru, why he makes Melkor the way he does, and allows Melkor the freedom to be part of this creation; who knows why evil is part of Eru's plan, but it is. I have already answered the contention that evil comes from Eru. To summarize again, the text indicates that this is not so. 'Evil being a part of Eru's plan' must be understood in this context. Thus, evil may be permitted to exist (or else Eru does violence to the very freedom with which he has created the Ainur), but Eru's introduction of the 2nd & 3rd themes indicates that he works against evil. Eru is declaring that evil cannot undo his purpose; rather, Eru makes of Morgoth's evil a tool "in the devising of things more wonderful..."

And if you look at the books, then evil is part of Eru's plan. It has its origins in him. But Elrond, one of Tolkien's truth speakers, says, "Nothing is evil in the beginning. Not even Sauron was so."Elrond cannot be wrong without doing violence to the story of LotR. Therefore, evil cannot have its origins in Eru.

littlemanpoet

01-19-2007, 09:03 PM

What did Eru do? He merely responded to the request of the Valar to do something, because by laying down their guardianship of the world, they showed that they weren't going to do anything. To the extent that it is possible for one of his creations to do so, they "forced" Eru to make a move.First, thank you for adding valuable information and perspective to this thread that, until you first posted to it, was lacking.

That death is a gift from Eru to Men is a critical fact that certainly alters the discussion in terms of "innocents being killed".

It is a little much to say that the Valar forced Eru to make a move. By laying down their guardianship they submitted to the authority of their Master. He acted as He had planned from the beginning, as the Ainulindalë shows: "Ilúvatar called together the Ainur and declared to them a mighty theme, unfolding to them things greater and more wonderful than he had yet revealed; and the glory of its beginning and the splendour of its end amazed the Ainur, so that they bowed before Ilúvatar and were silent." This indicates that Eru's will was at work throughout the whole Theme, which is to say that his will was at work throughout the entire history of Arda, including the events of the Akallabêth as well as the War of the Ring.

It must be remembered that Eru is the one who introduced the 2nd theme: the Valar that remained faithful (and their deeds for good in battling against Melkor), and the 3rd theme: the Children of Ilúvatar. "For the Children of Ilúvatar were conceived by him along; and they came with the third theme, and were not in the theme which Ilúvatar propounded at the beginning, and none of hte Ainur had part in their making. Therefore when they beheld them, the more did they love them, being things other than themselves, strange and free, wherein they saw the mind of Ilúvatar reflected anew, and learned yet a little more of his wisdom, which otherwise had been hidden even from the Ainur." So Elves and Men are free and not controlled by the Valar; they are only governed by them. Eru remains the power behind Elves and Men.

{Eru} completely neglected {the Numenoreans}, because they had done the same. Eru propounded the themes and the Ainur listened - thus, Eru was from the beginning the only active agent in Elves and Men; he gave their governance to the Valar, but not control of their lives. Every Child of Ilúvatar has a fëa (spirit in the form of fire/light), something the Valar have not the power to bestow: a fëa comes from Eru. Therefore, Eru's hand and will are present in the making of every Elf and Man. Bodies and mind and will may come through lineage, but a fëa is fire and light, and as such cannot pass through lineage; it can only be created in each Elf or Man by Eru.

Now, a word about Eru: I really can't see him as a moral figure. He can't really be bound to morality himself.

Eru is not bound by morality, or it would be his master; rather, he is the creator of it, and as such, morality comes from him.

Furthermore, he did not "punish" Melkor for being "immoral", he simply let him be and do as he wished, though he did warn Melkor of the consequences of his actions (namely, that his plans would not ultimately be successful).

As to Punishment: what, if Eru "did not 'punish' Melkor for being 'immoral', is being cast into the Void? Furthermore, "But Manwë was the brother of Melkor in the mind of Ilúvatar, and he was the chief instrument of the second theme that Ilúvatar had raised up against the discord of Melkor; and he called unto himself many spirits both greater and less, and they came down into the fields of Arda and aided Manwë, lest Meklor should hinder the fulfillment of their labour for ever, and Earth should wither ere it flowered. And Manwë said unto Melkor: 'This kingdom thou shalt not take for thine own, wrongfully, for many others have laboured here no less than thou.' And there was strife between Melkor and the other Valar; and for that time Melkor withdrew and departed to other regions and did there what he would; but he did not put the desire of the Kingdom of Arda from his heart."

Manwë, "dearest to Ilúvatar", names Melkor's deeds, drawn from his discordant theme in the Music, as wrongful; that is, full-wrong: a moral judgement.

If Eru made the quintessential "moral" and "immoral" figures of Arda, namely Manwë and Melkor, but is neither beholden to them nor gives any of his creatures any moral code to follow (this is the way in which he perhaps differs most from any Primary World deity), then how are we to assume he is moral? The moral code is at first presented in the form of Music: that which is presented as pleasing to Ilúvatar are: harmony, flawlessness, unity, beauty; that which is presented as not pleasing to Ilúvatar are: discord, despondency, disturbance, faltering, turbulent sound, wrath, dismay, violence, singing no more, confusion. Only a few of these adjectives, which Tolkien sprinkles through the account of the Music, has to do with music, per sé; the remainder have strong moral connotations and implications.

As to "how are we to assume {Eru} is moral", it is not an assumption we make; rather, it is a necessary logical conclusion. If Eru is creator of all things, and not moral, then morality cannot be part of his creation. If it is not part of his creation, then it can only have preceded him. If it preceded him, it necessarily has to have created him, for if he is not first, then something had to create him; and morality would therefore be superior to him; and this is of course an impossibility, since it is at odds with what Tolkien wrote. Therefore, Eru must be the creator of morality; and since this must be so, morality necessarily exists according to the nature of Eru.

Eru simply creates. Morality is a product of the fact that his creatures were designed in a certain way, and have limitations (namely, the ability to be hurt by others of his creatures). Morality rises from design and the practical facts of life in Arda, not by divine command.If design is not divine command, what is it? In fact, it cannot be anything other than part of divine command; therefore, if morality is a product of design, then it must be a product of Eru's command. Your distinction is erroneous.

littlemanpoet

01-19-2007, 09:17 PM

Simply it is impossible to have an absolutely good act, even by Eru, in a world where evil is woven into the fabric of existence.It would be more accurate to say that it is seemingly impossible. Evil is not woven into the fabric of existence, but of Arda. The Valar, not Eru, are bound by Arda. If Eru is good, as I have demonstrated from the text, and all that Eru does is morally upright because morality itself stems from the nature of Eru, then nothing that Eru does can be tainted by evil. Therefore, Eru's permission of evil (necessitated by the freedom designed into his creatures to do other than his will), and use of evil as a tool for his ultimate purpose, is necessarily a morally upright act. That the characters in the story cannot perceive this to be so, underscores the fact that they are not equal to Eru and cannot stand as his judge.

That death is a gift of Eru to Men, actually makes the goodness of Eru easier for Men of Middle Earth to perceive than is the case of their counterparts in the real world, for if death is good, then the death of all those who died in the sinking of Numenor, is not an evil deed at all. This is a separate matter from the mysterious afterlife fate of Men who did evil on Arda.

Eru is in a different position and could possibly have made such a choice with clear understanding of its consequences. This is essentially a no-win situation. Whatever Eru does, there will be evil consequences. He is trapped by his own creation and the latitude he has given to his children.

This is a rather dire picture of the situation as compared to the text: "it has been said that a {Music} greater still shall be made before Ilúvatar by the choirs of the Ainur and the Children of Ilúvatar after the end of days. Then the themes of Ilúvatar shall be played aright, and take Being in the moment of their utterance, for all shall then understand fully his intent in their part, and each shall know the comprehension of each, and Ilúvatar shall give to their thoughts the secret fire, being well pleased.: This seems far from no-win. The end consequences, once all is said and done, will not be evil, for all evil deeds will have been Eru's "instrument in the devising of things more wonderful" than anything his creatures could imagine.

littlemanpoet

01-19-2007, 09:22 PM

The point though is that Eru is beyond good/evil, he is at once both of them, and he creates the circumstances in which both enter the world.If this were true, then Eru has no basis by which to condemn Morgoth to the Void, except pure whim. This does violence to the inner consistency of reality Tolkien built into his cosmos/mythos, and therefore cannot be accurate.

We all know the story of Ainulindalë, and what Eru said to Melkor. When Eru put the plans of the Great Music before {the} Valar, there was nothing of what Melkor later did. In the beginning, there was nothing evil: not even Sauron, as it was said here many times.Precisely.

Legate - bear in mind though that Eru created Melkor. When Eru tells him "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me" he is telling Melkor that he may have free will, but he was put there by Eru and Eru made him what he is, whether for good or for bad. ... I suppose in one way you might almost feel sorry for Melkor as he simply cannot help what he is.Such determinism is not reflected in the text. Melkor had choices and made wrong ones. Eru created him to have the greatest potential of all, and Melkor fell to pride and lust for dominion outside the will of Eru. On what account, then, would one feel sorry for Melkor?

littlemanpoet

01-19-2007, 09:34 PM

Sorry for the multiple posting, but I felt my responses needed to be broken up by topic and original poster (more or less).

Even though death is the Gift of Eru to Men, I think this moral standard should also hold for him, regardless of the quality of the afterlife and regardless of whether life for the children would inevitably become very bad.If Eru became subject to this moral standard, then the moral standard would be greater than Eru, which is an impossibility, as if: "In the beginning was Moral Standard, and Moral Standard created Eru."

But maybe, at the time, the Drowning was simply the best choice that was left to Eru? This is possible. In fact, it would perhaps solve our dilemma. However, I think it leads to another question: Is Eru omnipotent or not? If he is, then he must have had the possibility to punish the evil and/or remove Valinor while sparing the innocent Númenoreans (I confess I'm growing increasingly uncomfortable with this black-and-white painting of the society of Westernesse). Is there any textual support for either one of the positions?

The Ainulindalë does nothing if it does not indicate the omnipotence of Ilúvatar. The oft quoted phrase, "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me", indicates this. However, "sparing" the innocent Numenoreans (if such a thing exists in the context of what Tolkien presents), is unnecessary, as death is a Gift.

Tar-Telperien

01-20-2007, 03:16 AM

Well, yeah, that's just it! But what about it? His Creation can anyway look at him not the way he really is but only the way he had himself presented to them (because he certainly is not in the same sense as for example this computer screen is): Eru, as nicely quoted by Maedhros in Silmarillion, is unreachable for them, so the only way they might know him is that he will present himself to them, and how he will present to them, is his way, and what he allows them to do is also his way...

Indeed! I base my conclusions off how I understand Eru to be based directly on his presentation in the texts. We don't disagree on this point.

(continuing my previous thoughts) ...so if he presents (or lets present) something as evil to his Creation, even if he didn't distinguish something like this himself, he wanted his Creation to distinguish it... otherwise he'd put Melkor's dischord right into the first plan for the Music. I mean: you cannot go outside of the possibilities allowed by Eru; but he might allow them but not approve them. Hm...
...and not against that lying part, it seems a good observation to me...

I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make here. Why would Eru put Melkor's discord into the Music? He explicitly told the Ainur to add their thoughts to the Theme however they liked: "...ye shall show forth your powers in adorning this theme, each with his own thoughts and devices, if he will". Melkor's additions just happened to interact with the Theme in a rather strange way. In fact, it was not the fact of Melkor's adding his own thoughts into the Music that caused discord. It was only the way his ideas meshed with others' (namely because they were based on illusions).

Good=unflawed.

Again, I disagree with this notion, because it means that no finite creature could at any time be called good, due to the quote I posted earlier. If they can't be good, how can they be bad? The two define each other.

Eru is not bound by morality, or it would be his master; rather, he is the creator of it, and as such, morality comes from him.

We don't disagree here. Everything comes from Eru. How couldn't it? But suggesting Eru acts in accordance with our moral systems is rather nonsensical. Why does he need to? And how could he fit into a moral system?

As to Punishment: what, if Eru "did not 'punish' Melkor for being 'immoral', is being cast into the Void?

That was done by the Valar, not Eru.

Furthermore, of course Manwë would call Melkor's actions "wrong". They weren't helping Arda get built. No mystery there.

If Eru is creator of all things, and not moral, then morality cannot be part of his creation.

You might as well say, "If Eru is the creator of all things, and not mortal, then death cannot be part of his creation". Beings are not held to the workings of the things that they themselves create. I draw pictures of assassins and pilots. Am I an assassin or a pilot? Nope!

So yes, Eru created morality, as a possible guide to life in Arda. And this is precisely why Eru himself cannot be described in moral terms. After all, if he was "moral", wouldn't it be moral of him to tell his creatures to act morally? Not doing so would be unfairly negligent and thus immoral. But that's precisely what Eru did (or rather, didn't do). At least JHVH had the courtesy to give out the Ten Commandments, but then, he was a moral figure.

Because Eru created the Gift of Men, too. But has he died yet?

If design is not divine command, what is it? In fact, it cannot be anything other than part of divine command; therefore, if morality is a product of design, then it must be a product of Eru's command. Your distinction is erroneous.

I meant "divine command" in the sense of "instruction given explicitly by Eru". Eru may have designed his creatures in such a way that their societies work best when adhering to moral precepts, but did he ever tell them to act according to those precepts? No. They devised their own laws and enforced them on their own.

After all, when raising your children, are you going to not give them any moral teaching and assume they will gain moral understanding because they were designed that way? I hope not. So yes, design and divine command are two different things here. Since you are a moral person, you feel compelled to pass your morality on to the next generation. Apparently, Eru saw no such reason to do the same for his Children. Which, if we say he is moral, is completely incomprehensible.

I'm also not so sure we can make such snap judgments about what is and is not pleasing to Ilúvatar, either; considering he said that Melkor's discord would only bring about better things, it can't have been that "displeasing".

Evil is not woven into the fabric of existence, but of Arda.

No. Melkor's theme affected all of Eä.

That death is a gift of Eru to Men, actually makes the goodness of Eru easier for Men of Middle Earth to perceive than is the case of their counterparts in the real world, for if death is good, then the death of all those who died in the sinking of Numenor, is not an evil deed at all.

If Eru were moral, then we should follow his example, correct? Because obviously no being could act more morally than Eru. Therefore, since Death is the Gift of Men, we should clearly administer it to everyone like Eru did here, since Eru is the best of all moral examples.

If Eru became subject to this moral standard, then the moral standard would be greater than Eru, which is an impossibility, as if: "In the beginning was Moral Standard, and Moral Standard created Eru."

But this is exactly what you have been doing by taking human notions of morality (which is clearly intended for controlling human life on Earth, I hope we don't disagree there) and taking them out of context by equating them with Eru and his actions. Morality has certain strict standards, as understood by humans. To transgress these standards is immoral. Thus, you are attempting to control Eru by saying he is "moral", because that limits what he can do: wouldn't he cease to be moral upon doing an immoral act? And according to human standards of morality, destroying an entire civilization for the acts of some of its people is wrong, because it hurts innocent people. Therefore, how can you really say Eru is moral? I tried to look at his actions from a moral perspective earlier in this thread, as well, and while I think they were probably the best out of a series of bad alternatives, I'm sure we can agree that a being as powerful as Eru could have done better, especially if he felt morally obligated to do so.

Lalwendë

01-20-2007, 04:27 AM

As to "how are we to assume {Eru} is moral", it is not an assumption we make; rather, it is a necessary logical conclusion. If Eru is creator of all things, and not moral, then morality cannot be part of his creation. If it is not part of his creation, then it can only have preceded him. If it preceded him, it necessarily has to have created him, for if he is not first, then something had to create him; and morality would therefore be superior to him; and this is of course an impossibility, since it is at odds with what Tolkien wrote. Therefore, Eru must be the creator of morality; and since this must be so, morality necessarily exists according to the nature of Eru.

Eru is moral. He is also immoral. Eru is everything and everything springs from him. Eru is good, Eru is evil. If Eru is indeed omnipotent, if he is indeed the beginning and end (as Tolkien says he is) then he must have created everything. And in fact Tolkien says so. Again:

no theme may be played that does not have its uttermost source in me

Where, precisely, could concepts of evil or immorality have come from if they did not come from Eru? These are parts of his being. But who decides which things are immoral, which things are moral. Eru does. And isn't he still omnipotent? Then where do the rules come from which force Eru to choose which things are so? Nowhere. Eru chooses, and he can choose as he sees fit at any time, that's the nature of omnipotence.

If this were true, then Eru has no basis by which to condemn Morgoth to the Void, except pure whim. This does violence to the inner consistency of reality Tolkien built into his cosmos/mythos, and therefore cannot be accurate.

Eru had no part in this.

Such determinism is not reflected in the text. Melkor had choices and made wrong ones. Eru created him to have the greatest potential of all, and Melkor fell to pride and lust for dominion outside the will of Eru. On what account, then, would one feel sorry for Melkor?

Who gave Melkor those choices? Who created the potential for pride and lust? Where did they come from? Eru cannot be 'everything' if there are outside forces at work putting concepts of pride and lust about, he instantly loses his omnipotence and Authority.

I have already answered the contention that evil comes from Eru. To summarize again, the text indicates that this is not so. 'Evil being a part of Eru's plan' must be understood in this context. Thus, evil may be permitted to exist (or else Eru does violence to the very freedom with which he has created the Ainur), but Eru's introduction of the 2nd & 3rd themes indicates that he works against evil. Eru is declaring that evil cannot undo his purpose; rather, Eru makes of Morgoth's evil a tool "in the devising of things more wonderful..."

Then where does it come from if not from Eru? There is not a twin creator somewhere unless you want to head down the path of some of my mad ramblings about Ungoliant. Better to stick with what Tolkien says in the books and he says that everything has its source in him. Even Free Will must be a construct by Eru. And Tolkien says something about Free Will and the Valar:

For the Children of Ilúvatar were conceived by him along; and they came with the third theme, and were not in the theme which Ilúvatar propounded at the beginning, and none of the Ainur had part in their making. Therefore when they beheld them, the more did they love them, being things other than themselves, strange and free, wherein they saw the mind of Ilúvatar reflected anew, and learned yet a little more of his wisdom, which otherwise had been hidden even from the Ainur.

The Children are 'other than themselves, strange and free'? Is this the point at which Eru actually creates Free Will, namely he gives it to the Children but not to the Valar? This is a bit of a revelation! The Valar learn something new looking at this vision, the possibility that you can act outside of Eru's intentions, which tells us that previously they had been acting within his intentions. Therefore Melkor could indeed have been bidden to act the way that he did. And remember when Eru tells him that he has still to learn some of the secrets of his thought, obviously things in his mind that even Melkor, a being in existence, does not know, things placed there that only Eru knows about. That's further backed up by the fact that nothing in the music can be played unless it has its source in Eru. It seems that Eru created evil, and probably to be 'tributary to glory'. He wanted Darkness and Light both. And that underlines the idea of The Long Defeat.

But Manwë was the brother of Melkor in the mind of Ilúvatar, and he was the chief instrument of the second theme that Ilúvatar had raised up against the discord of Melkor; and he called unto himself many spirits both greater and less, and they came down into the fields of Arda and aided Manwë, lest Melkor should hinder the fulfillment of their labour for ever, and Earth should wither ere it flowered. And Manwë said unto Melkor: 'This kingdom thou shalt not take for thine own, wrongfully, for many others have laboured here no less than thou.' And there was strife between Melkor and the other Valar; and for that time Melkor withdrew and departed to other regions and did there what he would; but he did not put the desire of the Kingdom of Arda from his heart.

It seems to me that Melkor's crime is in not being willing to share. He wants all of Arda for himself and does not want to share the Darkness with the Light, which is where he prompts strife. And an important note to remember is that Eru is not here at this time, the Valar are outside of him and now are earthbound. Eru is not in charge. Manwe knows of Eru's second theme however, and he has to manage that. The second theme, which was one of Eru's intentions for Arda, is that the Valar shall work together - Melkor can have some of Arda to mould (note what it says in the text about how Melkor creates cold and hence snow and ice, which are terrible, but are in the end beautiful also - an example of how his 'evil' is in the end tributary to the glory and a necessary part of it all) but he cannot have it all.

It is a little much to say that the Valar forced Eru to make a move. By laying down their guardianship they submitted to the authority of their Master. He acted as He had planned from the beginning, as the Ainulindalë shows: "Ilúvatar called together the Ainur and declared to them a mighty theme, unfolding to them things greater and more wonderful than he had yet revealed; and the glory of its beginning and the splendour of its end amazed the Ainur, so that they bowed before Ilúvatar and were silent." This indicates that Eru's will was at work throughout the whole Theme, which is to say that his will was at work throughout the entire history of Arda, including the events of the Akallabêth as well as the War of the Ring.

I believe that the Valar simply could not act against the wishes of Men in Numenor. Note what I found above about the seemingly unique free will that the Children possess. The Valar are of a fundamentally different nature and so had to appeal to the father of the Children to do something. Note also the difference here in dealing with situations. When the Valar's help was sought to deal with Melkor they could and did do something as they were acting against a being of their own nature but they fundamentally could not do anything against Children not of their nature. In the Akallabeth it also tells us something about individual Children and how their nature simply cannot be altered except for the half-Elven where Eru has delegated Authority to the Valar in enabling them to become mortal or not; pure blood Men and Elves, the Valar are forbidden from altering.

littlemanpoet

01-20-2007, 04:39 PM

Actually, "holy" has a bunch of different meanings. Most of them refer to being in the service of God. As the Ainur (which actually is not even a native Elvish word; it is adapted from Valarin) were his direct servants in bringing about the creation of Eä, wouldn't this be a better interpretation of the intended meaning of "holy" in this context? Especially since Tolkien directly contradicts the notion that the Valar were "perfect": "Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations" (Essay VI, "Myths Transformed"). This was in direct reference to the actions of the Valar upon Arda. Thus, I reject the notion that any of the Ainur were at any time "flawless".The explanation that they were holy because they were created to serve Eru directly seems to make much more sense. ...And what exactly is "evil" in this context? Doesn't it refer to incarnate-constructed notions of good and evil? Generally people aren't raising Orc-armies from day one of their being on earth, no. In that sense I would agree with Elrond. But if you use evil to mean "flawed", then "all finite creatures" are very much evil, by Tolkien's own statements. Being flawed is an intrinsic aspect of their finititude.

A distinction is needed between imperfect as limitation and imperfect as morally flawed. Aulë is not at his best in the Air while Manwë is, and vice versa. These are limitations designed into them, and thus they are inadequate out of their arenas of strength; this fits with the quote from Myths Transformed. This is not equivalent to moral flaw. On the other hand, Melkor is morally flawed, resulting from choices made in his pride that violate the Music.

It's equally important to consider what "holy" does NOT mean. Holy obviously does not mean evil. Thus neither Melkor nor any of the other Ainur can be understood to have been evil from the beginning.

I might as well respond to this, too. Melkor's shame didn't arise as a result of anyone's responsibility. It came about because Eru matter-of-factly told him that his course of action would fail. Whether or not it was your fault that your desire to do something would fail, wouldn't you feel ashamed and angry about being informed of that in front of your peers?On the contrary. Eru says, "...nor can any alter the music in my despite..." Eru names Melkor's act as one of despite against Eru himself; that is, malice or hatred against Eru. That goes beyond mere predicted failure.

They define "evil" as going against Eru's Will (Indómë). But to me Eru's statements to Melkor show that no one can "get outside" Indómë, no matter how hard they try! It will just evolve and continue right along with their changing choices. It's laughable to think of a creation actually having any success in defying its creator, and that is what Eru is trying to show. His creatures have freedom of choice, yes, but they will never truly interfere with the Will of Eru. Rebellion is thus an illusion, and this is what is bad about it; it constitutes lying to oneself by thinking that one can escape Indómë even though one can't really possibly imagine a situation outside of Eru's influence.

I agree up to a point: they will never truly overthrow the Will of Eru, no matter how much interference they attempt. This must be the case, for if rebellion is a mere illusion, then Eru has no basis for punishing anyone who attempts to disobey his Will ... unless that is illusion also; but if you argue this to its necessary end, then the whole thing is illusion and nothing is real, including the Will of Eru.

I also agree that self-deception is at the core of Melkor's evil, and is a fundamental aspect of it. It is in lies that evil beliefs and actions find their justifications.

It's not about defeating Melkor, it's about escaping falsehoods. This is why I can't believe that Eru really would prefer "good" over "evil", because he has not been shown to be bound to a specific morality, since morality is a constructed notion. Eru prefers it when people can see through lies, and he knows that everyone will eventually, so why hurry?

If morality is not absolute, then Eru has no basis for punishing anyone who does evil, for if evil is a constructed notion, then who is to say that Melkor was evil and Manwë was good? It could be argued that it was vice versa, and a raging and vain debate would ensue that could not have a solution, and Tolkien's themes in The Silmarillion, which are presented in the Ainulindalë, are a sheer vanity and can hold no weight. So morality cannot be a constructed notion; it must come from Eru.

Lalwendë

01-20-2007, 05:11 PM

If morality is not absolute, then Eru has no basis for punishing anyone who does evil, for if evil is a constructed notion, then who is to say that Melkor was evil and Manwë was good? It could be argued that it was vice versa, and a raging and vain debate would ensue that could not have a solution, and Tolkien's themes in The Silmarillion, which are presented in the Ainulindalë, are a sheer vanity and can hold no weight.

What is anything in Arda if it is not constructed? Everything is constructed by Eru, he is everything, he is omnipotent. Please tell me where evil comes from if Eru did not make it? Because if he did not make it then Eru's Authority instantly falls apart. Tolkien states it plainly - Eru is All. Those are the rules we begin, and end, with.

Let's imagine that one day in Middle-earth the Orcs were suddenly blessed with a lot of good luck, which happened to come from Eru (and bear in mind that the text also states that the Ainur do NOT know all of Eru's intentions, he keeps rather a lot back, in fact most of time is known only to Eru), and that Elves and Men suddenly started to fail. we would say that evil had come to Middle-earth. But would we still consider this evil if Eru did it? And I know what's going to be said now, that Eru would never do such a thing! How can you think that?! Well he could if he wanted to. Is Eru bound by your rules, my rules, the rules of Men, the rules of Melkor? No. If he is bound by anyone's rules but his own then yet again he loses his Authority. All anyone can do is hope that Eru is on their side, and sometimes he isn't, as shown by those innocents who die at Numenor.

So morality cannot be a constructed notion; it must come from Eru.

So where did the concept come from if Eru did not make it? If he made everything?

That means someone, something, else is at work which has Authority over Eru. And that doesn't work. If Eru is not omnipotent in this world then the entire work falls apart.

littlemanpoet

01-21-2007, 07:37 AM

I stand corrected on the matter of Eru banning Morgoth to the Void; as you say, it is the Valar who do so. But that does not change my point. Eru is the author of Eä, and gives authority to the Valar who do his will. They enter Eä at his invitation; Melkor enters of his own accord. My point is that if the Valar have the authority to ban Morgoth, it came from Eru. To say "Eru is in his very nature moral", is not saying the same thing as "Eru is subject to morality".

It's like this: either morality flows from Eru, or amorality flows from Eru. If amorality flows from Eru, then why is there no terror, violence, and all the other negatives, in the Music originally propounded by Eru to which all the Valar listen? Why does it not rear up until it comes from Melkor? Further, why does Eru "dress Melkor down" for bringing discord to the Music "in despite of" Eru? ... if Eru is amoral? It just doesn't work. Therefore, morality flows from the very nature of Eru.

It's all there in the text; but since that doesn't seem to be enough to convince, let's take a look at words from Tolkien's Letters:

But in this 'mythology' all the 'angelic' powers concerned with this world were capable of many degrees of error and failing between the absolute Satanic rebellion and evil of Morgoth and his satellite Sauron, and the fainéance of some of the other higher powers of 'gods'. The 'wizards' were not exempt, indeed being incarnate were more likely to stray, or err. Gandalf alone fully passes the tests, on a moral plane anyway (he makes mistakes of judgement). - Letter 156, from 1954

The Knowledge of the Creation Drama was incomplete: incomplete in each individual 'god', and incomplete if all the knowledge of the pantheon were pooled. For (partly to redress the evil of the rebel Melkor, partly for the completion of all in an ultimate finesse of detail) the Creator had not revealed all. - Letter 131, from 1951 (before LotR was published)

Knowledge of the Story as it was when composed, before realization, gave [the Valar] their measure of fore-knowledge; the amount varied ver much, from the fairly complete knowledge of the mind of the Creator in this matter possessed by Manwë, the 'Elder King', to that of lesser spirits who might have been interested only in some subsidiary matter (such as trees or birds). Some had attached themselves to such major artists and knew things chiefly indirectly through their knowledge of the minds of these masters. Sauron had been attached to the greatest, Melkor, who ultimately became the inevitable Rebel and self-worshipper of mythologies that begin with a transcendant unique Creator. ...

The Creator did not hold himself aloof. He introduced new themes into the original design, which might therefore be unforeseen by many of the spirits in realization... - Letter 200, from 1957

The Ainur took part in the making of the world as 'sub-creators': in various degrees, after this fashion. They interpreted according to their powers, and completed in detail, the Design propounded to them by the One. This was propounded first in musical or abstract form, and then in an 'historical vision'. In the first interpretation, the vast Music of the Ainur, Melkor introduced alterations, not interpretations of the mind of the One, and great discord arose. The One then presented this 'Music', including the apparent discords, as a visible 'history'. - Letter 212 - 1958

Lalwendë, your debate is with Tolkien and not with me.

One final thing: I cannot find the document right now, but I have read that Tolkien understood evil to be negative, as in the absence of good. Thus, evil is flawed good. This can be seen in various place throughout Tolkien's writings, in which he uses the prefix, 'un-' to describe a thing, such as 'un-light'.

This quote address the original question of this thread:

That Sauron was not himself destroyed in the anger of the One is not my fault: the problem of evil, and its apparent toleration, is a permanent one for all who concern themselves with our world. The indestructibility of spirits with free wills, even by the Creator of them, is also an inevitable feature, if one either believes in their existence, or feigns it in a story. - Letter 211 - 1958

A divine 'punishment' is also a divine 'gift', if accepted, since its object is ultimate blessing, and the supreme inventiveness of the Creator will make 'punishments' (that is changes of design) produce a good not otherwise to be attained: a 'mortal' Man has probably (an Elf would say) a higher if unrevealed destiny than a longeval one. - Letter 212 - 1958

Why would divine eventiveness produce a good not otherwise to be attained if Eru is not good but both good and evil combined? It just doesn't work.

Lalwendë

01-21-2007, 09:46 AM

I've no debate with Tolkien, I have read what he wrote and it's all there in the text. There is no need to seek further clarification as it's there. Simple as. I can fully accept what he says about Eru, the god of this world he creates, despite it being wholly alien to what I believe and wholly alien to what I was taught in Church (a Protestant church). As time has gone by though, I see where it may stem from, from Catholicism. Everything has its root in Eru? Hmm, sounds strikingly similar to the (to me) slightly frightening concept that everything has its root in God as expressed by Catholics in my family, with the only difference being that it was not Men who realised the concept of The Fall but a God.

I have no debate with Tolkien.

But I will ask yet again, where does evil come from?

Does Tolkien lie? When he says:

no theme may be played that does not have its uttermost source in me

Is he putting a Lie into the mouth of Eru?

All that is needed to see this is to accept that this god which Tolkien created was omnipotent and by the very definition of that, he created Everything, yes, even Darkness.

Let's go right back to basics, to the beginning:

There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Iliivatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought, and they were with him before aught else was made.

First there is nothing but Eru. No void. No Ea. No Valar. No good. No evil. There is the All-Father.

Then he makes the Valar, offspring of his thought. And they are Holy Ones because they are the first things he makes, before he makes anything else. They are embodiments of his thought, given the Flame Imperishable to live to exist. They are in fact aspects of Eru himself.

Now the following supports the idea that Holy=Flawless is wrong:

But in this 'mythology' all the 'angelic' powers concerned with this world were capable of many degrees of error and failing between the absolute Satanic rebellion and evil of Morgoth and his satellite Sauron, and the fainéance of some of the other higher powers of 'gods'. The 'wizards' were not exempt, indeed being incarnate were more likely to stray, or err. Gandalf alone fully passes the tests, on a moral plane anyway (he makes mistakes of judgement). - Letter 156, from 1954

Ah! So here's Tolkien underlining just what I had read in his work! That Holy does not in fact equal flawless!

The Ainur took part in the making of the world as 'sub-creators': in various degrees, after this fashion. They interpreted according to their powers, and completed in detail, the Design propounded to them by the One. This was propounded first in musical or abstract form, and then in an 'historical vision'. In the first interpretation, the vast Music of the Ainur, Melkor introduced alterations, not interpretations of the mind of the One, and great discord arose. The One then presented this 'Music', including the apparent discords, as a visible 'history'. - Letter 212 - 1958

They were shown by Eru the 'plan' they had all created and then were sent to make it - Ea is formless when they enter. In their music they sing of what it will be and Melkor alters his tune, but we cannot get away from the fact that no theme may be played that does not have its uttermost source in Eru. So despite him thinking he can be altering it to his own advantage, he still cannot alter what Eru has put there, which is the potential for darkness. Have you heard of Elgar's Enigma Variations? This is a suite of music, each tune said to possess a mysterious melody which cannot be identified, but each very, very different; that is how The Music works - each Valar sings a tune from one source, each of their tunes is unique but they all share the common source.

The Knowledge of the Creation Drama was incomplete: incomplete in each individual 'god', and incomplete if all the knowledge of the pantheon were pooled. For (partly to redress the evil of the rebel Melkor, partly for the completion of all in an ultimate finesse of detail) the Creator had not revealed all. - Letter 131, from 1951 (before LotR was published)

That tells us nothing about where Melkor came from and why he is how he is, but it does tell us something about why Eru did not reveal all the Vision, something which Tolkien does not tell us in the text. So Eru wants it kept secret in part to battle the evil he created the world with?

Knowledge of the Story as it was when composed, before realization, gave [the Valar] their measure of fore-knowledge; the amount varied ver much, from the fairly complete knowledge of the mind of the Creator in this matter possessed by Manwë, the 'Elder King', to that of lesser spirits who might have been interested only in some subsidiary matter (such as trees or birds). Some had attached themselves to such major artists and knew things chiefly indirectly through their knowledge of the minds of these masters. Sauron had been attached to the greatest, Melkor, who ultimately became the inevitable Rebel and self-worshipper of mythologies that begin with a transcendant unique Creator. ...

The Creator did not hold himself aloof. He introduced new themes into the original design, which might therefore be unforeseen by many of the spirits in realization... - Letter 200, from 1957

Again, Tolkien underlines what I'm saying, that this all beagn with the Creator, Eru.

Have you actually considered what Arda would have been like if Eru had not created Melkor? There would be no snow, no storms, no ice, no dragons, no failing Frodo, no heroic Aragorn, no jealous Boromir, no sneaky Gollum, no proud Feanor, etc etc...all of these are as a result of Melkor 'marring' the vision. In fact the creation of Men and Elves is seemingly as a direct result of Melkor's dicordancy - Eru raises his hand and brings that thought into the vision after Melkor has sung.

Melkor's trouble is that having been made possesing all of the aspects that all of his kin possess, he effectively has everything that Eru has, apart from the Flame and Eru's Authority. And he wants that. But Eru made him. There is no way of getting away from that fact unless you care to rewrite the Silmarillion and issue it as your own book.

EDIT: I've been looking for this, which may illuminate some of Tolkien's thought:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Elmo

01-21-2007, 02:00 PM

just to claim the 100th post of my own post I realise why I thought the Valar were responsible for the Akallabeth because in 'Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age' Tolkien states that Sauron 'had forgotten the might of the Lords of the West in their anger.' as has already been stated somewhere in this very interesting debate Tolkien changed his mind about who was responsible for the carnage. As to why CT never changed this contradiction when they are merely pages apart in the Silmarillion is another matter...

littlemanpoet

01-21-2007, 03:03 PM

Sigh.

Lal, you insist on taking that quote out of context.

Allow me to remind you of this, which may have been overlooked: I have read that Tolkien understood evil to be negative, as in the absence of good. Thus, evil is flawed good. This can be seen in various place throughout Tolkien's writings, in which he uses the prefix, 'un-' to describe a thing, such as 'un-light'.

As to the verse, I would be interested what the original Hebrew says, for my New King James version has Isaiah 45:7 this way:

I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

Just to add oil to the fire.... :P .... Amos 3:6 says:

If a trumpet is blown in a city,
will not the people be afraid?
If there is calamity in a city,
will not the LORD have done it?

It is also interesting that Tolkien says that there is no humanly acceptable answer to the problem of evil if one posits a wholly good God (or Eru), which I still insist The Silmarillion does, in spite of how it can be taken out of context. ;)

Lalwendë

01-21-2007, 03:40 PM

I fail to see how this is taken out of context. I could in fact say exactly the same thing but I won't (or have I just? :eek: )...I'm trying to understand what Tolkien says about Eru from the text he gives us, nothing else.

Even if evil is an absence of Good then if Eru is omnipotent then he must have caused the situation for that absence to happen.

If you have a can of petrol and a match and you give them to someone and he then burns down your house, who is to blame? You might beat yourself up over it and not trust anyone again. How about if you give your best mate a can of petrol and he offers to fill up your car, and then asks if he can borrow a match to light a cigarette when he's done, but then he burns down your house? Who's to blame then? Of course we might say he was simply using his free will and as we did not realise the consequences, he was our best mate after all, it wasn't our fault. But what if the petrol and the match never even existed? Or we did not choose to put him into that situation? We caused him to be in contact with the petrol and the match, even if we had no idea what he would do.

If evil in Tolkien's world is the absence of something then Eru (as creator of all) causes Melkor to be missing something.

Add into this that Eru knows what will happen. If he does not know, and if he does not cause everything to be, then he is impotent, not omnipotent.

And if we try and solve it by saying "OK then, Eru is not omnipotent" then who is the Authority and how do we ever distinguish between good and evil?

Having Eru also put evil into the world does not mean that he prefers it, nor even that he likes it. It's just there. It's the understanding why that's the really interesting question.

It is also interesting that Tolkien says that there is no humanly acceptable answer to the problem of evil if one posits a wholly good God (or Eru), which I still insist The Silmarillion does, in spite of how it can be taken out of context.

The problem here is that you are confusing one type, one interpretation of God with Eru. Whereas there are many, many possible answers to this problem. The whole pursuit of Theodicy is devoted to this problem and that has continued for thousands of years and probably will continue as long as people have religions. Lots of answers have been turned up - and I'll get to one fully commensurate with Tolkien's writings at the end.

This essential problem is why Tolkien creates an Eru who is omnipotent, who creates All and causes All to be. This ties in completely with the concept of the Long Defeat, an idea that critics (including Christians) of Tolkien's work put down simply to the problem that evil can never be fully defeated but we must try to do it all the same or else existence is futile. It ties in with what Eru says about how evil is simply 'tributary to glory'; the only thing which evil can ultimately do is serve to greater increase Glory. It also ties in with the existence of Free Will as without options from which to choose, there is no point in having Free Will in a universe with a fully omnipotent God; the Children may as well be automatons otherwise, flawless Cybermen without the burden of choices to make. This rounding off of even the theological aspects is entirely what we might come to expect of a writer like Tolkien who covers his bases and sought out complete internal consistency and continuity in his world

This concept of an all-creating, all-powerful God is also to be found in the Book of Job in which God repeatedly smites Job with troubles (and allows Satan to do so). Job's comforters advise him to 'repent' as misfortune is always a divine punishment and fortune is always a divine reward, but Job won't do that. His wife tells him to renounce God as he cannot possibly exist if he does this; Job won't do that either. He says: "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away". Job is eventually (it seems that way anyway, it's not wholly clear) released from his troubles. The lesson is that God simply exists, and he should be worshipped even if he does bad things to the good. It's about God's divine right to do as he pleases, as whatever he does it's in our best interests. Not comforting. not even something I personally agree with, but that's what comes out in Tolkien's work whether I like it or not.

Son of Númenor

01-21-2007, 05:41 PM

This essential problem is why Tolkien creates an Eru who is omnipotent, who creates All and causes All to be. This ties in completely with the concept of the Long Defeat, an idea that critics (including Christians) of Tolkien's work put down simply to the problem that evil can never be fully defeated but we must try to do it all the same or else existence is futile. It ties in with what Eru says about how evil is simply 'tributary to glory'; the only thing which evil can ultimately do is serve to greater increase Glory. It also ties in with the existence of Free Will as without options from which to choose, there is no point in having Free Will in a universe with a fully omnipotent God; the Children may as well be automatons otherwise, flawless Cybermen without the burden of choices to make. This rounding off of even the theological aspects is entirely what we might come to expect of a writer like Tolkien who covers his bases and sought out complete internal consistency and continuity in his world

This concept of an all-creating, all-powerful God is also to be found in the Book of Job in which God repeatedly smites Job with troubles (and allows Satan to do so). Job's comforters advise him to 'repent' as misfortune is always a divine punishment and fortune is always a divine reward, but Job won't do that. His wife tells him to renounce God as he cannot possibly exist if he does this; Job won't do that either. He says: "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away". Job is eventually (it seems that way anyway, it's not wholly clear) released from his troubles. The lesson is that God simply exists, and he should be worshipped even if he does bad things to the good. It's about God's divine right to do as he pleases, as whatever he does it's in our best interests. Not comforting. not even something I personally agree with, but that's what comes out in Tolkien's work whether I like it or not.Tolkien's Middle-earth is a self-contained, completely rational model of reality. It is not a metaphor for an ideology or a statement about some Supreme Unknowable. It has nothing to say about the world you live in: it is a metaphor for the individual - for you.

Melkor in this metaphor is the Only Lie Which Exists: the lie that you have ever done anything wrong. There is nothing transcendental about this: it is pure logic, yet we fail to actualize this principle in our dealings with others. We are overly apologetic, sympathetic - we feel the need to speak, to reassure - these are lies which keep us from seeing each other: you are a mirror to everyone and the world is a mirror to you.

We empathize with Frodo because he was nice, he did the right thing, he failed, and he was unfulfilled - but there was still hope for him! This hope is born of Morgoth, The Only Lie Ever Told.

Son of Númenor

01-21-2007, 06:01 PM

It is also interesting that Tolkien says that there is no humanly acceptable answer to the problem of evil if one posits a wholly good God (or Eru), which I still insist The Silmarillion does, in spite of how it can be taken out of context. ;)
:D Yes, context!

I think the missing link in understanding Tolkien's cosmology is in the process by which it was assembled.

The process of writing The Lord of the Rings was holographic, not creative. He assembled a beautiful Metaphor out of a tiny fragment of human experience - his own. It was testament to nothing more than the word-thoughts which arose in him as he experienced reality unfolding, yet in it each of us can find our entire lives reflected.

Gandalf tells Frodo to take pity on Smeagol. Why? There are two possibilities.

1) Pity is an epiphenomenon of random processes, and it 'feels' biologically good to express pity.

2) Gandalf knows that Smeagol has never done anything wrong in his life.

It would not have mattered if Frodo fried Smeagol on the spit and feasted on him with Sam. But hey, we all read the book: we know he didn't! :)

littlemanpoet

01-21-2007, 06:46 PM

If evil in Tolkien's world is the absence of something then Eru (as creator of all) causes Melkor to be missing something.I don't follow how you get from your 'if' to your 'then'. Please explain.

Pity is an epiphenomenon of random processes, and it 'feels' biologically good to express pity.Huh? :eek: What are you talking about, pray? And are you certain that these are the only two possibilties?

Beleg Cuthalion

01-21-2007, 08:34 PM

In The Lord of the Rings, there is no God. This is the first thing you have to realize in approaching The Lord of the Rings: there is no God. That's Sauron speaking.

Son of Númenor

01-21-2007, 08:46 PM

That's Sauron speaking.Through me, or Tolkien?
:p ;)

Beleg Cuthalion

01-21-2007, 08:48 PM

You, obviously. The consistent message of your posts here seems to be that nothing that Tolkien did, nothing that he said, really means what it should mean. That we can't trust the word of the creator of Middle-Earth in explaining hiw work and purposes, but instead have to accept the radically different spin that you're putting on it. It's very similar to Sauron's seduction of the Numenoreans, coincidentally enough, considering the topic of the thread.

Beleg Cuthalion

01-21-2007, 09:31 PM

That's not what I'm saying at all, I did not mean to imply in any way that I know more about J.R.R. Tolkien than J.R.R. Tolkien: I do not and never will. 'I', in fact, cannot understand anything that does not exist in my own mind: I cannot understand something as simple as why I ate pizza and salad for dinner this evening, much less understand the reality of a deceased South African hobbit.Regarding the pizza and salad, one would assume that it was because you inhabit a physical body with dietary needs, and must therefore fulfill them. Perhaps the reason you chose pizza and salad in particular was because you've enjoyed eating them in the past and are favourably disposed to eating them again. Maybe that's all that was in the refrigerator. Really, the possibilities for interpretation are endless, but if you look long and hard enough, you'll only find one true answer.

A question has plagued me since I first met J.R.R. Tolkien - that is, met him through Peter Jackson - whom I met through a video screen... etc. etc.

The question is this:

Can a piece of writing exist as a complete metaphor for my own life and as a metaphor for the person who wrote it?

The answer is yes.Is it? Is that truly the answer, or is simpy what you've been led to believe is the answer? Perhaps the answer is that it just feels biologically good to attempt to interpret Tokien's works as a metaphor for your personal experiences.

Again though, don't you think that's interesting? How you, intentionally or not, are echoing Sauron and his appeals to the Numenorians turning them away from Eru and the Valar? The connection is an intriguing one, really. Perhaps you don't understand it, but nothing happens for no reason.

Son of Númenor

01-21-2007, 09:36 PM

Don't you think that's interesting? How you, intentionally or not, are echoing Sauron and his appeals to the Numenorians turning them away from Eru and the Valar? The connection is an intriguing one, really. Perhaps you don't understand it, but nothing happens for no reason.You're seeing what you want to see in my words.

By a few logical conceits I could say that you are accusing me of being Evil, of being the Serpent. Or am I just playing that role right now, on the Barrow-downs, vis-a-vis a Faerie tale?

Beleg Cuthalion

01-21-2007, 09:46 PM

You're seeing what you want to see in my words.Am I? Possibly, but then, it's just possible that you're also seeing what you want to see in what you've said.

By a few logical conceits I could say that you are accusing me of being Evil, of being the Serpent. Or am I just playing that role right now, on the Barrow-downs, vis-a-vis a Faerie tale?Either way, I would still find it intriguing.

Son of Númenor

01-21-2007, 09:58 PM

Am I? Possibly, but then, it's just possible that you're also seeing what you want to see in what you've said.

Either way, I would still find it intriguing.Sadly, I usually do see what I want to see in what I write. But that doesn't mean that what you see isn't valid!

Everything happens for a reason. Sauron knew this and seized his chance.

Lalwendë

01-22-2007, 02:26 AM

If evil in Tolkien's world is the absence of something then Eru (as creator of all) causes Melkor to be missing something. I don't follow how you get from your 'if' to your 'then'. Please explain.

Simply that if we decide that in Tolkien's world that evil means something is missing then as a world with an omnipotent creator God, we must also assume that this creator left something out of Melkor's creation. Everything comes back to him, even the gaps.

To use a metaphor, Melkor is rather like the talented son of a supremely talented father, but the talented son who the father has failed to give any guidance to; he has had all the gifts money can buy, and has had the best schooling, but the father did not guide him. Eventually, this son saw all the power his father had and decided for himself he wanted to have that. The good thing to come out of this situation though is that the eldest son's lack of guidance and his thirst for power has made all the younger siblings work all that harder (by and large, they aren't perfect) not to make the same mistakes. Nobody can say if the father intended this all along, but he was the father, nothing can take that away.

Tolkien's Middle-earth is a self-contained, completely rational model of reality. It is not a metaphor for an ideology or a statement about some Supreme Unknowable. It has nothing to say about the world you live in: it is a metaphor for the individual - for you.

I agree, I don't think it is a 'lesson' or anything of that type - it is to me primarily Art.

But...

It was testament to nothing more than the word-thoughts which arose in him as he experienced reality unfolding, yet in it each of us can find our entire lives reflected.

...this does not mean I think it has no structure or internal meaning. It has a lot of this, and it is good mental exercise to argue about that. And no matter how much I simply relax into the poetics of it all and like to speculate (it is after all fantasy, which encourages this sort of thing like no other literature can, apart from Poetry, which is perhaps even more like that), it is about a whole other world and there are boundaries, rules and frameworks.

But then who is to say that even what we read is correct if we choose to fully immerse into the concept of the secondary world? Like in the real world, how do we know that what we are told is the truth?

But that way madness lies... ;)

Son of Númenor

01-22-2007, 09:30 AM

...this does not mean I think it has no structure or internal meaning. It has a lot of this, and it is good mental exercise to argue about that. And no matter how much I simply relax into the poetics of it all and like to speculate (it is after all fantasy, which encourages this sort of thing like no other literature can, apart from Poetry, which is perhaps even more like that), it is about a whole other world and there are boundaries, rules and frameworks.

But then who is to say that even what we read is correct if we choose to fully immerse into the concept of the secondary world? Like in the real world, how do we know that what we are told is the truth?

But that way madness lies... ;)The funny thing about Tolkien is we have access to such a wealth of words about his personal life, and we have three major works which exist as part of self-contained, utterly paradoxical cosmology. But that's not all we have. We also have access to other maddening pieces of information:

1) The finished product of the Trans-moral (Silm) was tampered with by people other than J.R.R. Tolkien
2) Tolkien himself was furiously revising major principles of the cosmology (orc - immortal Elf or Man doomed to die?) until his death - as well as offering seemingly contradictory statements about the books (i.e. it is fundamentally Catholic but is only an adventure story)

The question to ask is this:

How does a Trans-moral Cosmology give birth to a children's Faerie Tale and a Moral Epic, and how do the Faerie Tale and the Moral Epic force their Creator to revise the Trans-moral Cosmology?

Where you see madness I see Keanu Reevers saying, "Whoa!" :eek:

Lalwendë

01-22-2007, 09:52 AM

I'm personally quite happy with the Sil as it is. I fully trust Christopher to have produced the work as his father would have wanted it. And then there's the not very small point that the Prof appointed Christopher to have full control over his work (including to burn it all, should he so wish) which demonstrates his own level of trust.

But as for ancillary works - such as Letters, we have to use those more carefully as they are secondary texts only; they can only serve to illuminate (or confuse) what we gather from the primary texts. Even so, the status of such documents can change over time. From reading the Companion & Guide it becomes apparent that even Humphrey Carpenter's Biography was flawed, as for example it gives the impression of a mousish, overly-studious man when he was quite the opposite, very outgoing and fond of pranks.

Anyway. Now when I ask if what we read is the truth - I mean that what we read is only one point of view of Middle-earth, most of it in fact seen through the eyes of either high ranking Elves or Hobbits. We don't see much through the eyes of Men or Dwarves or Wood Elves or Woses or Wizards or Orcs...not apart from reported speech and inserted documents. Heading down that path where we examine if what we read really is the truth of Middle-earth really is tempting madness...all kinds of questions about authorship, and not least maybe going over the edge of the fact that this is still just a book.

Son of Númenor

01-22-2007, 10:15 AM

littlemanpoet

01-22-2007, 10:45 AM

Okay, let's say the Eru caused Melkor to bring discord into the Music after Eru propounded it himself; why would he do that? And why would Eru then proceed to blame Melkor for having malice toward Eru as part and parcel of the discord, which Eru himself made Melkor do? The only answer is that Eru is evil; not that he is both good and evil, but that he is more evil than Melkor, more evil than Sauron.

I reach this conclusion because Eru has propounded the Music to the Ainur in the first place as flawless, and then blames Melkor for introducing flaw that Eru himself has caused Melkor to introduce. That is trickery. "Even though I made you do it, I'm not to blame because you hate me."

If Eru is capable of such trickery, then he is more devious and evil than any evil figure Tolkien presents in any part of his legendarium. If this really were the case, we should expect to see that Manwë gets tricked, that Aulé gets foisted, that Elbereth gets shammed, that every last Elf can expect to die in some horrible and tragic and tortured way, and that any beauty is mere trickery too.

But we don't see that.

Lalwendë

01-22-2007, 12:49 PM

Firstly, you have to consider what Melkor does. Is it evil? I'll come to that later. But even if it is evil, and he was made that way by his father Eru, it is Eru's perogative to do what he likes. That's why the Why is so interesting.

And secondly, does Eru put the theme of the Music as a flawless thing?

Iluvatar called together all the Ainur and declared to them a mighty theme, unfolding to them things greater and more wonderful than he had yet revealed; and the glory of its beginning and the splendour of its end amazed the Ainur

The theme has might, wonder, glory and splendour. Is it flawless? We can only assume that if we want to read it that way. Now if we assume it is all good, then it's worth considering what Eru later says:

'Behold your Music! This is your minstrelsy; and each of you shall find contained herein, amid the design that I set before you, all those things which it may seem that he himself devised or added. And thou, Melkor, wilt discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind, and wilt perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary to its glory

This reveals that Melkor's discordancy is futile as it will not result in the things he assumes it will, only in things which in the end, will contribute to glory (for example snow and ice will result from his creation of cold). So what does Melkor assume his discordancy will result in? Now that brings me back to whether what Melkor does is 'evil'.

Melkor has all the powers of all his kindred, but instead of joining with them he seeks to follow his own path. This is interesting. He is the Mightiest and was made as the First of the Ainur, and it seems he decided he was going to challenge his Maker and have his own power. This is his 'sin', to attempt to seek his own way, not doing evil. There is nothing to say that Eru did not decide that 'evil' things like cold or despair or sadness were to be part of the theme; look at the words when he creates the vision of the Children:

The one was deep and wide and beautiful, but slow and blended with an immeasurable sorrow, from which its beauty chiefly came.

The Children are created with essential sorrow, which is also beautiful. So what we perceive as 'evil' can indeed be beautiful in Eru's eyes. All of Tolkien's stories are filled with strange combinations of sadness and joy, death and glory. It seems that Eru knew there needed to be Darkness in order for the Light to be all that more wonderful.

As to the why, I think it is Melkor's independence that rankles Eru. Melkor is filled with shame when he is 'found out' by Eru, presumably he has attempted something futile; his ongoing 'sin' then is to forget this lesson and continue, when he is in Ea, to pursue his goal of power and independence. If Eru wanted to create Ea with Darkness and Light, then it would have to be carefully balanced; I see that Melkor's discordancy puts that 'out of balance'.

It might in fact help to consider Tolkien's cosmology/theology not in terms of our Earthly Good/Evil axis but in terms of Light/Darkness, certainly that seems to be the way Eru intended them.

And just one more thing. Eru does trick Aule. He makes him think that he has smote down his Dwarves even before they have been given the Flame, but he hasn't:

Then Aule took up a great hammer to smite the Dwarves; and he wept. But Iluvatar had compassion upon Aule and his desire, because of his humility; and the Dwarves shrank from the hammer and were afraid, and they bowed down their heads and begged for mercy. And the voice of Iluvatar said to Aule: Thy offer I accepted even as it was made. Dost thou not see that these things have now a life of their own, and speak with their own voices? Else they would not have flinched from thy blow, nor from any command of thy will.' Then Aule cast down his hammer and was glad, and he gave thanks to Iluvatar, saying: 'May Eru bless my work and amend it!'

davem

01-22-2007, 03:12 PM

One must be careful in one's analysis of Eru. Clearly Eru is not an 'interventionist' deity in the beginning. Apart from Ainulindale he is not present in BoLT (one might suggest that Tolkien introduced him because he needed a Creation myth & as a monotheist himself he uses such a figure. Interestingly, Illuvatar is translated 'All Father' a title of Odin).

Whatever. Once the story proper begins Eru plays no real part. In fact his main intervention is in Akallabeth, where he appears as a kind of weapon of mass destruction unleashed by the Valar.

Eru, it seems, is only 'necessary' to the story as an explanation of how things originated (as far as BoLT is concerned) & in practical terms the Secondary world is not monotheistic, but polytheistic. Which leads to an interesting digression.

The period in which Tolkien's creation takes on a new life & energy is the 1920's, where there is a movement away from the 'fairystory' world of much of BoLT, to a much 'higher' & more mythic world - yet this decade is one in which Tolkien turns away from his religion - he tells Michael in a letter that 'he ceased to practice his religion while at Leeds & at 20 Northmoor Road'. This period covers the whole of the 1920's & we must remember that for Tolkien the heart of his faith was the Mass & the Blessed Virgin, so that for him to cease to practice his religion was effectively to forget the whole thing.

Yet during this period the Legendarium is transformed, the Silmarils become the dominant theme & the Legendarium we know finds much of its form. Yet during this whole time Eru remains a very distant figure, & only really becomes an active participant in Arda with the appearance (& destruction) of Numenor. He's there, but basically passive all through. One can speculate he was responsible for this or that (Gollum's fall (even perhaps his Fall), but there is little evidence for direct interevention by Eru.

So, taking what we are actually given in terms of factual statements about Eru's nature we have very little to go on. He announces the themes to the Ainur, stops & starts the Music, & creates the Children. He effectively lights the blue touch paper & retires. Then, a very long time later, he totals Numenor - something Ulmo could have done - & reshapes the world - something the Valar could have done (at least in their early days).

In short, he is actually far, far less 'necessary' (in practical terms) to the plot than old Tom. What he does is add 'depth' & 'flavour' to the story. Yet he would hardly be missed - which one would expect given his secondary importance in BoLT. In fact, he is not necessary to the story at all, & a polytheistic M-e would work just as well.

As a character we know next to nothing about Eru beyond his talent for composition & we cannot, it seems to me, speculate too deeply on his morality, desires or intentions. Eru is a cypher, playing the part assigned to him & then disappearing till he is needed to drive the plot forward again (though it would not take very much rewriting to get rid of him altogether).

Eru, actually, is the most two dimensional character Tolkien created & the least necessary from a literary perspective. He appears first in the fairy world of BoLT, continues through the transformation of the Legendarium when Tolkien has little (practical) interest in religion at all (& thus probably only continued as part of the story because Ainulindale worked as a creation myth).

Speculating about who or what Eru is may lead to some interesting theories, but given the actual statements within the text, & avoiding as far as possible, conflating Eru with God, we have too little to go on.

As I said, Eru is the least important & certainly the least interesting character Tolkien invented. He's basically two dimensional & exists only to serve a purpose - making something happen to start things off & then disappearing. He is, effectively, equivalent to the impersonal source one finds in many myths. There is so little to the character that virtually anything one attributes to him in terms of motives & intentions is going to come from the reader rather than from the text.

Gets my vote for the most boring & gap filling character Tolkien created.

davem

01-22-2007, 04:17 PM

What you're doing, davem, is promoting through your analysis of Tolkien and his Legendarium an atheist worldview.

The fact remains that there is one thing missing: you do not know J.R.R. Tolkien. You know his words through whatever media you've read them or had them repeated to you, the words of others about him, and you know yourself. Your reasons for posting this analysis are basely illogical and a disservice to a deceased man.

I was attempting an analysis of the Character of Eru - I don't see where any 'athiest worldview' (actually I'm not an athiest but an agnostic with Pagan leanings) comes into what I posted. I was trying to explore the nature of the character Eru, the role he plays in the narrative & the reason for his existence. I find the character superfluous in the main, serving little purpose.

I don't see what is gained by challenging my knowledge of Tolkien. I have studied & loved the works of Tolkien for 30 odd years. I cited a letter from Tolkien's own hand to his son in which he clearly stated that for the whole of the 1920's he neglected his faith, & pointed out that this is exactly the period when the Legendarium undergoes a major transformation towards the form in which we know it. I further pointed out that during the whole of the development of the Legendarium, from its early fairystory form in BoLT, through Tolkien's 'faithless' period of the 20's, & on through the period of development in the 30's when his faith returned, the role of Eru is very much that of a secondary character.

In short, my analysis was logical, backed up with source evidence, & an attempt to make sense of the role & purpose of the character Eru. I can't see a single shred of evidence for your assertion that anything I said constituted the promotion of an athiestic worldview (something which is entirely legal anyway). I avoided any comment on religion at all, merely noting that Tolkien's own faith (or lack of same) seemed to play no part in the depiction of of the character of Eru.

In short, I'm confused by what you say, but have a slight forboding of where this all may end......

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-22-2007, 04:31 PM

Eru, it seems, is only 'necessary' to the story as an explanation of how things originated (as far as BoLT is concerned) & in practical terms the Secondary world is not monotheistic, but polytheistic.
If you take it like this, then I'd say the secondary world is no-theistic (I don't want to say "atheistic", because this is not the right term nor it is true), because the Valar hardly intervene even during the First Age, much less after the departure of Noldor (not including the War of Wrath), and after the Fall, they lay down the rulership over Arda and then they just send the Istari (quoting Tolkien: "and perhaps with calling Eru for advice?").
But it is also about what you call "polytheistic": there are fourteen different powers, but they all stand together. Like the colors which make a rainbow, if I am to use a metaphore.

Gets my vote for the most boring & gap filling character Tolkien created.
As a character in a story, well, why, he might be, for someone. But since we spent this whole thread speaking mostly about him, I wouldn't consider him as boring and gap filling as you say. And as Lal said, "he is". I don't suppose a Creator would fill his time in running around Beleriand and make Legolas-movie-like stunt moves.

And just one more thing. Eru does trick Aule. He makes him think that he has smote down his Dwarves even before they have been given the Flame, but he hasn't:
Well, "trick" is such an awful word. But I know, I know. However this might be "trick", in the end Aulë has more joy than he'd possibly have if everything went fine and Eru agreed rightaway. I always considered this part to be a very beautiful part, since I first read it (and I was about... eh... 10 years old?), I always almost feel the joy of Aulë when his creation was not only allowed, but blessed.
I think also this "trick" has a good reason for it to be done:
Aulë is driven to make a choice, like Melkor did: Melkor wanted to have things of his own, but he did not come before Eru with them. I mean: when it was realized that he has his secret plans, he kept them to himself and "so what, I'm gonna sit on them like a hen on its eggs". Aulë chooses to admit he did something against Eru (please note now that I am now leaving out all the points about that Eru of course had this in plan, because it comes from him etc., but we are talking about Aulë as independant being - HE does not know, it seems). This is, I think, really about the learning which has been very nicely pointed out by some people here. Aulë is left to discover himself that Eru knows even about his secrets (for those who were interested in it, possibly proof that Eru is omnipotent!), and more important, he has to discover that Eru wants Aulë to surrender his works to him. Meaning: when Aulë surrenders the Dwarves to Eru, like "I will even destroy them if you wish", Eru tells okay, you gave them to me, you didn't want to make them just for yourself and hide them from me (which, if you admitted it to yourself, is impossible: "That you all know that I am Eru... no one can play any theme against me"). So you see, had Melkor asked Eru "could I tear down this mountain", "could I destroy these Lamps", Eru might even told him "yes, you can" (but more likely "no, you cannot", but then, when Melkor asked, he'd accept it and instead go and for example help Manwë with the winds, or sit and do nothing, or think of another thing to do).
Okay pals, now when I stop at what I just wrote, I think that I accidentally resolved the debate about what is or what is not "allowed" in M-E. I think this is pretty clear now. The dischord could have been OK, had Melkor not tooth and nail held it to himself. This is the slight difference, and it is really a slight difference, but I think it is important and I hope I hit the nail here: the definition of what is "good" and what is "bad" is defined by Eru; since he is All, he defines it. And I daresay he defines it on the basis of many factors, and the main is if the one goes with his plan = not that Eru had any plan like "Manwë goes there and Ulmo comes to him at 3 AM" but "can I go to Manwë at 7 PM? I want to make one more river here". In certain points, Eru might say "no" (for example, I think, to a question "Can I kill Manwë?" According to what I am able to guess from Tolkien's works, the latest possible answer would be "Ask him first", unless, of course, there was any reason why Manwë would have to be killed). As I said, I quite stand with the opinion that it is about learning. The reason why Eru has let the dischord and the evil to take place is, that he gives everyone (no "evil ones" or "good ones" distinction here during the process) a chance to learn. And on this basis the "good" and "evil" are defined. So Eru says: If you know what you are doing, I will bless it. (I know this sentence is quite simple and can be interpretated in many ways, but applying this Secondary World thesis on us here, who wants to learn, will find the right meaning in it. Who wants not, might argue until the end of this thread :D )

One last example for illustration: the all-known Gollum case. He had the possibility to learn, seemingly he did not take it. By the way, from this it also seems that learning has its time (in the mortal world).

Lalwendë

01-22-2007, 04:45 PM

Do I get you correct SoN in that you mean we cannot 'know' Tolkien as we are not Tolkien? Yes I can see that of course (I often say it myself), but to counter it, biographical detail is one of the few things we do have to go on for a solid grounding in understanding, which is why it remains so popular today in literary analysis, like it or not.

Couple of relevant quotes from anarticle (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/visualart/story/0,,1995799,00.html) in today's Guardian about an art show by the Chapman brothers:

I have to admit to a thought crime. I found my own response to the work - moved, shocked, impressed by its craft - far more appropriate. I'm aware that this is not the right attitude. Artists have more or less given up thinking about what response a work might get. We live in more democratic times, in which the artist just makes the work, and the public make whatever they want of it.

So I should learn to relax. When the Chapman brothers' work comes to London, I plan to see it again, and this time I'll try to follow the dictums of postmodern art appreciation. Art is what you make it. I shall have my response to the work. And other people - even little people aged about seven - will have their response. All of our responses will be equally valid. I just hope I don't get that nagging feeling that, when it comes to works of art, some responses are more equally valid than others.

Gets you thinking this. Is there really a democracy inherent in Reader Response or is it a fraud? Does it actually have any qualitative purpose? Or is it just hot air leading to the need to democratise and intellectualise the opinions of seven year olds? Will it lead ultimately to utterly meaningless and trivial Art? We've already seen that happen in television, will literature go that way?

Anyway....

Onwards and upwards...

An atheist reading of Lord of the Rings would not only be permissible but it also works and the text supports that view too. Without any forcing. ;) I'll do something on it one day. I've been tempted to do a Marxist reading. I know someone who has and it also works.

Of course now I'm going to say that this is all grist to the mill that Tolkien's work is in fact Universal, but that is not a popular opinion with everyone. Whereas Universal is correct to me - even under SoN's triple analysis theory, including the effect that the text has on many and diverse peoples. Universal also supports both Reader Response and paying close attention to text only (now before someone jumps in, I'm talking Lord of the Rings here). Universal stops fights, stops claimings and also has everyone skipping about merrily and holding hands. What could be better? ;)

davem

01-22-2007, 05:10 PM

Of course, Eru is at first the dominant figure in the story. He is 'replaced' by the Valar, who themselves subsequently fade in to the background. In the end the gods follow their father & are left behind. That is both tragedy & liberation for the peoples of Middle-earth.

Eru is 'necessary', in that things must have a source, but he is a pretty boring source & not much to write home about. Hence one can project all kinds of things onto him in terms of values & motives which are not present in the text.

The Valar are a much more interesting bunch altogether, their motives (& flaws) make them more real, (& more importantly more necessary from a literary pov). 'Perfect' is not interesting. In fact it seems from a reading of this thread that the only way Eru becomes interesting is when people start attributing things to him which call his perfection into question. Come to that Melkor is by far the most interesting of the Ainur because of his flaws. I suspect that this is another reason Eru is left in the background until something spectacular is needed (bit like Superman is only interesting when the Kryptonite is brought out - when he's at full strength he can do anything & there's no drama).

So, 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.

The reason the Akallabeth seems like an 'attrocity' is that what happens is essentially unfair because Eru is too powerful & its not a fair fight. He shouldn't have done what he did. The Numenoreans basically didn't want to die (who does?) & that's what drove them. If the Fall of Numenor had been a natural disaster it would have been awe-inspiring & humbling - man brought down by impersonal nature. As it is an overwhelmingly powerful being obliterates them with malice aforethought & in the end it seems vindictive because for all their 'power' they are weak mortals with no chance. One cannot rationalise the behaviour of Eru & make it equal 'good'. Once more we come back to Eru as a two dimensional 'Old Nobodaddy'.

Man facing the Dragon is moving & speaks to a deep part of our souls. Man trying to tiptoe around an angry Eru & avoid being smited is ultimately pathetic. So, for me the character of Eru doesn't work, & is the classic example of a deus ex machina which shatters the drama & undermines the tragedy.

Neurion

01-22-2007, 09:20 PM

By a few logical conceits I could say that you are accusing me of being Evil, of being the Serpent. Or am I just playing that role right now, on the Barrow-downs, vis-a-vis a Faerie tale?Are you quite sure that the one is very much different from the other? ;)

As I recall, the rites of most, if not all religions of the ancient world would revolve around, or at least include ceremonies where the priest was understood to assume the role of the god, often by assuming elements of his appearance (i.e. the Anubis mask in the ceremonies to prepare the dead of Egypt for the afterlife), hence to "play the role" of a god is, at a fundamental level, intrisically related to the worship of that god...

...But I kid, of course. ;)

The reason the Akallabeth seems like an 'attrocity' is that what happens is essentially unfair because Eru is too powerful & its not a fair fight. He shouldn't have done what he did.No, the Numenoreans should not have done what they did.

The Numenoreans basically didn't want to die (who does?) & that's what drove them.Rejecting the Gift of Men (as always :rolleyes: ) and turning away from God. The Tragedy of the Akallabeth.

If the Fall of Numenor had been a natural disaster it would have been awe-inspiring & humbling - man brought down by impersonal nature.If that had been the case, it would merely have been dull.

One cannot rationalise the behaviour of Eru & make it equal 'good'.I would have to disagree.

Man trying to tiptoe around an angry Eru & avoid being smited is ultimately pathetic.That, I think, is essentially the point. Man, whatever the extent of his works, ultimately IS pathetic next to the glory of God.

Lalwendë

01-23-2007, 03:27 AM

If that had been the case, it would merely have been dull.

I have to disagree with this. There are many natural disasters in the world today and we could describe none of them as 'dull'. Of course some people ascribe them to God but I do not (the only tragedies I ascribe to 'God' are wars and acts of terror and hatred driven by religious fervour - and even these are driven by people in extreme mental states rather than any 'God' I know). The Boxing Day Tsunami for example was no less tragic than 9/11 or 7/7 - the former caused by the plates of the Earth moving, the latter by an over-abundance of duty to God.

Interestingly the impetus behind the Killer Wave came from Tolkien's dreams of an all-engulfing wave, something which seems to loom large in the collective conscience of a lot of people today. Is this due to the rising sea levels that are threatening our very existence? To the horrors felt by seeing well-known tragedies such as the Boxing Day Tsuanmi and the New Orleans flood? Or do we share collective memories of older floods? There is a long tradition in Britain of flood myths, and archaeologists think these may have stemmed from real floods, from the cutting off of Britain after the Ice Age, from our genuine drowned lands, from the temporal merelands that once ran along our coasts... I'm sure this also true of other cultures, I know it is in Japan, France, Ireland etc.

So if Tolkien had merely written of a Killer Flood and not explicitly said Eru was behind it then it would have been just as effective, just as tragic. It would have given scope for people to wonder if Eru really was behind it (and some people ascribe seemingly every decision made in LotR to Eru) anyway.

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-23-2007, 05:20 AM

...in short words, "Now it is a strange thing, but things that are good to have and days that are good to spend are soon told about, and not much to listen to; while things that are incomfortable, palpitating, and even gruesome, may make a good tale, and take a deal of telling anyway." (The Hobbit) :D

Rune Son of Bjarne

01-23-2007, 10:55 AM

No, the Numenoreans should not have done what they did. I would have to disagree.
These where both replies to Davem's post and I would like to ask the simple question: Why?

davem

01-23-2007, 01:06 PM

The problem of Eru.

And it is. Is M-e monotheistic or polytheistic? It can't be both. the simple answer is that it is monotheistic - except Eru doesn't do very much after Ainulindule, & the world is effectively ruled by the Valar. So for 99% of the Sil we have a polytheistic world. In fact, in the early versions the Valar are called Gods, marry & have children. Until the invention of the Second Age & Eru's intervention in the destruction of Numenor Eru plays no part in the tale. And the point is he might as well not have existed. Even in the destruction of Numenor he is not necessary - the Valar could have destroyed the Numenorean fleet. The intervention is equivalent to Tom coming to the Barrow & instead of dealing with the Wight himself shouting for his dad to come & sort it out. Dad appears, a larger & more powerful version of Tom himself, capering & spouting poetry, & totals the Wight (along with half the Old Forest & most of Bree).

In short, we don't need Eru as part of the story. If Ainulindale had begun 'There were the Singers, & they sang The Great Song which brought the worlds into being...' the effect on the story would have been negligible.

Eru is a character who Tolkien attempts to make use of, & he is never more than a plot device. He can't be used without devastating effect, so he is hardly used at all & when he is used he replaces the Valar.

This is why attempts to analyse Eru's motives & character always fail. He propounds the themes or the Music, gives life to the Dwarves & the Children, destroys Numenor & that's basically it. We are not told anything about his personality because he doesn't actually have one & could, as I said, have been entirely replaced by the Valar without any loss to the Secondary World.

This is why I say one cannot rationalise the behaviour of Eru & make it good - though one can attribute all kinds of things to him, in order to make him 'good', but if one takes what Tolkien actually gives us, we have almost nothing to build on. It may be true that Man, whatever the extent of his works, ultimately IS pathetic next to the glory of God.

But we are not talking (at least I'm not) about God, but about the character Eru. I can't think of any point at which Eru displays compassion, mercy, tolerance. He rarely displays wisdom ('Of course you can enter into Arda, Melkor!')

What he does display is pride, lack of compassion & brute force. In the end, as I say, he is no more than a plot device, & an unnecessary one at that.

The Numenor story as 'allegorical'? Interesting. 'Elendil' contains the Elvish word for Star, 'Anarion' Sun & 'Isildur' Moon, so it containing all the elements of an allegory, a creation myth. Star, Sun & Moon gods come to the Earth form a place 'outside', bringing civilisation & the Arts. etc, etc - which was how I first read it.

Son of Númenor

01-23-2007, 01:15 PM

In short, we don't need Eru as part of the story. If Ainulindale had begun 'There were the Singers, & they sang The Great Song which brought the worlds into being...' the effect on the story would have been negligible.How could the story exist without input?

The creation of the Valar is the input needed for Smeagol to exert energy towards re-claiming the Ring on Mt. Doom.

Hookbill the Goomba

01-23-2007, 01:25 PM

I think that its a dangerous business to try and pin down theological theories on Eru, the Valar and anything the legendarium, really. People tend to forget that Tolkien was not a Bible scholar* and so it would be unfair to try and fit a lot of theological ideas into his legends.

Tolkien's Illuvatar may well have his roots in many legends as well as the Biblical accounts, as davem has pointed out he had a similar name to Odin from Norse. Tolkien's expertise were in language and legends and we can't expect him to have all the answers to all the most difficult questions of life the universe and everything. The fall of Numenor, then, may be derived from the Atlantis legend which does include an arrogant people plotting war against the gods and so some harsh punishment had to be dealt out.

To say that Tolkien's Eru is some how a picture of his beliefs of God is a dangerous thing to do because here we have Eru placed in a legend that had nothing to do with the Jewish God and so to pin ideas of 'God is a meanie' or 'The Numenorians had every right to do such and such' is not a good road. If we want to find out the motives behind Eru or the Numenorians it might be better to look into the Atlantis legend and see what it says about it. I don't think that Tolkien's personal beliefs came into it and I think he just wanted to tell a story here. It would be like looking at the killing of Balder by the trickery of Loki and then asking a Jew or Christian, "Why would your God allow that?"

At least, that's what I thought anyway...

*Okay, neither was C.S. Lewis who seemed to get his head around complex theologies, but that's not my point... so... ignore that fact. ;)

Lalwendë

01-23-2007, 01:44 PM

Exactly!

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. :)

davem

01-23-2007, 01:47 PM

How could the story exist without input?

The creation of the Valar is the input needed for Smeagol to exert energy towards re-claiming the Ring on Mt. Doom.

But why is it necessary for the Valar to have been 'created' - they could just as easily have been the creators themselves. If Eru can exist without any origin so could the Valar. What i don't see is the necessity of Eru to the story. He doesn't seem to serve any purpose that couldn't be supplied by the very slightest alteration to the nature of the Valar themselves & given the tiny part he plays I don't see that he is actually necessary.

One can only speculate that Tolkien, as a monotheist, felt the need to have a single supreme deity, even when the plot did not require it - maybe he just felt it should be that way. However, given the dominant role of the 'gods' in the Legendarium the place left for Eru was tiny, & when he did appear he tended to devastate whatever he came into contact with. Its easy to read an inner conflict in Tolkien in this 'twin powers' scenario. The Pagan legends he loved had Gods, the Religion he followed had a single God. In the Legendarium the two powers sit uncomfortably - for Eru to intervene in Numenor the Valar have to be (voluntarily) sidelined, when the Valar return, Eru is sidelined. Of course, bringing in Eru merely to devastate the planet doesn't serve to improve his reputation - they might as well have nuked the place.

Nogrod

01-23-2007, 02:24 PM

But why is it necessary for the Valar to have been 'created' - they could just as easily have been the creators themselves. If Eru can exist without any origin so could the Valar.That's a good point. In many of the traditional mythologies the setting of the first actions are there already: a host of deities just are (being) and then they will perform a thing or two, resulting in the creation of a middle-earth on the way.

In the beginning of the Ainulindalë Tolkien writes that the Ainur were the offspring of his thought (God, I still hate that masculine form here, more than earlier indeed). I think it's not too far-fetched to see the influence of the "second creation" myth in the Bible in this (in the beginning of John) and the overall monotheistic view overshadowing the early mythologies the prof wished to renew in a way.

If Eru can exist without any origin, so could the Valar In the early mythologies, yes, but within thinking that is twisted with monotheism, not. I think here the prof took sides. It was not probably very common of him to do that but one can guess that at the roots of one's most fundamental metaphysical beliefs it's hard to stay calm and not bring one's own beliefs into the play?

Hookbill the Goomba

01-23-2007, 02:45 PM

The Pagan legends he loved had Gods, the Religion he followed had a single God. In the Legendarium the two powers sit uncomfortably -

Perhaps...

Tolkien stated in the forward to the Lord of the Rings that he wrote it mostly for his own enjoyment. To me, this suggests that he would probably have wanted to get all (or as many as he could) of the things he loved about mythology and the Bible and mix them into one big bucket of fun! :D
I myself have experienced the process of taking different aspects of different things to build a pseudo mythology. Take all the bits you like and not the bits you hate and you have something that you yourself will enjoy, and if others like it then that is an added bonus.
I think the fall of Numenor is a perfect example of this; the mixture of a famous myth and the concepts of Judaic derived beliefs. I think there are many other examples of Tolkien wanting to get both and finding a way.

Certain stories from myth and from The Bible are present side by side. An interesting side note to make is that in one of (I think it was) Paul's letters he quotes a Cretan Prophet who said that 'Cretans are all liars and drunkards' or something and then he affirms that what he said was true. Perhaps Tolkien's intention was to sort of explore the ways in which something doesn't have to have the label 'God' or 'Christian' or anything in order for it to be good or true.
An american writer called Rob Bell once said,

"Is the greatest truth about the Adam and Eve story the fact that it happened or that it happens? The story resonates with us because we've all been there, we've all taken the 'fruit' we've all lost our way. Or the story of the Exodus; a lot of us have been in some kind of slavery or trouble and we've been brought out. It happened then... it happens now."

I think the same concept can be seen in Tolkine's work. Some stories can connect with people and some concepts can move us. Just look at the Barrow Downs alone. In the end, Tolkien's Legendarium is a fantastically enjoyable tale that seems to affect and keep affecting people, weather your just reading The Hobbit or are on your tenth History of Middle Earth.

After that random tangent...

But it all comes down to the fact that the Akallabêth was a story. Like the story of Atlantis. Its a story about some people who get greedy and want more. Again, if Akallabêth is framed after Atlantis we can't just copy and paste the God of The Bible and expect him to fit perfectly.

davem

01-23-2007, 03:05 PM

In the early mythologies, yes, but within thinking that is twisted with monotheism, not. I think here the prof took sides. It was not probably very common of him to do that but one can guess that at the roots of one's most fundamental metaphysical beliefs it's hard to stay calm and not bring one's own beliefs into the play?

The interesting thing to me is the use Tolkien makes of Eru - very little in fact. He seems to be there because Tolkien felt he ought to be. Yet his major appearances are, first, the propounding of the Themes & the Destruction of Numenor. But as 'creator' he 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'. Eru doesn't seem at all concerned with the suffering that will result on the human/Elven level from allowing Morgoth's dissonances into the creation, only with making sure its impressive, & redounds to his glory. It must be impressive, however much blood is shed. When he pops into Arda to sort out the Numenoreans its the same thing - do something impressive. Yet, the character is not necessary to the plot. So why leave it in? Yes the presence of Eru serves to make the world monotheistic (of you look hard enough) but it reduces him to an obessessed artist prone to hissy fits -when he can be bothered to intervene at all.

One begins to suspect that the real reason for the tradition introduced in the Athrabeth that one day Eru would enter into Arda personally has less to do with the desire to make the Legendarium conform to Christian belief (he stated the idea was too close to a parody of Christianity) & more to do with the idea of giving the character more depth & a real purpose within the Legendarium. Only if Eru plays such a significant role in the story does he have a real reason for keeping him around. Eru may work in the simpler world of the Lost Tales, but as far as the more mature developed legendarium is concerned he sticks out like a sore thumb, like some petulant Thunder God cowing the neanderthals...

EDIT

Its interesting that Eru is one of the few characters from BoLT who survives virtually unchanged throughout the Legendarium. All the others have time spent on them, they evolve, deepen & become more integrated into the Legendarium as it matures. Eru remains, until the Athrabeth, this simple (not to say simplistic) figure - as if Sauron had remained Tevildo, Prince of Cats. This seems to lend more weight to his being very much a secondary character, not worth developing, & used only when the plot required some spectacular event like the destruction of Numenor. Yet this very appearance reinforces his primitive nature. He is increasingly out of place in the Legendarium & Tolkien seems finally to acknowledge this & attempts to make something of the character. Yet the best he can do is produce a 'parody' of the Christian story. I wonder how long the character would have survived. He has to change if he is to remain in the story, yet changing him makes him into a parody of something Tolkien would have been very uncomfortable parodying. Perhaps Eru's fate would ultimately be to have gone the way of Tevildo, & be cahnged into something entirely, or to have gone the way of the three odd figures in BoLT, who were personifications of Days, Hours & Minutes & be lost altogether ...

Nogrod

01-23-2007, 03:27 PM

The Greek word kalos / kalon meant something like the "true-beautiful-good", all in one. It's the thing fex. Plato discusses and the one only the scholastics (in 13-14th century) opened conceptually by saying that in ratione (intellectually, or conceptually) one might divide these three into parts but in re (in truth-beaty-goodness, in fact) they are the one and the same. Sorry. I forgot the most important thing - even though it might be obvious to some of you. This kalos, the noblest or highest of the ideas by Plato was converged through the earlier neo-platonic St. Augustine to mark God and by his word was canonised as being the One of the Christians. So the train of thought is pretty understandable here?

EDIT: Oh, stupid me! I managed to "edit" my last post and this it what became of it... Darn imbecile I am! Most of my post lost...

But what I tried to say in my earlier post was that Tolkien probably knew the tradition of kalos and used it to his purposes. And most unfortunately we can see this triad again in Nazism where truth was good and beautiful too... I do not say we couldn't construct the trio with some "nicer" ends in mind, but the history of that looks pretty dark indeed...

Tar-Telperien

01-23-2007, 03:33 PM

But as 'creator' he 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'. Eru doesn't seem at all concerned with the suffering that will result on the human/Elven level from allowing Morgoth's dissonances into the creation, only with making sure its impressive, & redounds to his glory. It must be impressive, however much blood is shed. When he pops into Arda to sort out the Numenoreans its the same thing - do something impressive.

I often view Eru this way as well. I find him a rather disturbing character; not like "God" at all (though he is a lot more honest than God in that he doesn't claim to be all-loving and yet still allows suffering of the innocent). I completely fail how anyone (including Tolkien) can make such a comparison between Eru and God even though Eru gives out the Gift of Men and does not throw Melkor out of the Timeless Halls for attempting to defy him. Giving Death as punishment and throwing Satan out of Heaven are two of the acts that define our understanding of the Christian God, after all. So I don't see the similarity between them. Eru may be Almighty, but he is not omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent, and neither gives out a moral system for his creatures to follow nor follows one himself.

But even though he plays such a small part in the events (I tend to think it's so that he won't be anthropomorphized by his creatures who see him act), I still find Eru to be a very compelling character just for his inexorability, which is one of the few things he does promise. You can't attempt to rebel against his Will forever; you'll find your place in the end. (This idea also goes directly against the Christian God's statements about eternal damnation and whatnot.) I can definitely see your viewpoint that Eru is hardly necessary to the story and the it's the Valar who "really" run things, de facto. But I would be disappointed in the story if the Valar were the highest powers; they're even more foolish and negligent than Eru seems (or pretends) to be. I have little liking for them. Plus, "Melkor vs. the Valar" is annoyingly dualistic to me. Having Eru, the One, in the picture allows the story to be viewed more monistically.

I also agree with you in that Tolkien felt a conflict between his beliefs and the story he wanted to write. But I don't see why this is a bad thing. To me, Nordic values and Christian vision (Eru is not like the Christian God, but his "feel" is Abrahamic, I will definitely admit that) put together make for a stronger metaphysical background than either would alone. However, that's simply the way I see things.

And I still don't think that the Downfall of Númenor was a direct punishment. It actually got Men away from the arbitrary rule of the Valar.

Tar-Telperien

01-23-2007, 03:50 PM

Is M-e monotheistic or polytheistic? It can't be both.

It is neither. Middle-earth is monolatristic.

To continue some of the things I was talking about above: the uncertainty his creatures have of Eru's plans with Arda, and their uncertainty of his "goodness", is what allows estel to exist. And estel does seem to be a concept that Eru's devotees take seriously (apparently because they feel he himself does so). It is only because they know so little of Eru that the request to trust him is so hard to fulfill. Estel is like "a fool's hope"; unlike the Christian, the Elf or Man has no assurance that their faith will be acknowledged and their desires for eternity fulfilled. It is taking the ultimate "leap of faith" because it is so utterly blind (in fact, this concept of estel really makes me wonder whether Tolkien ever read Kierkegaard; estel seems to be right in the vein of that philosopher's ideas of absurdity and trusting in God). So yes, I think there is a "theological" reason for Eru's aloofness. Otherwise, trusting him would just be too easy and make too much sense. If Eru is nearly as much of an "artist" as he seems to be, of course he wouldn't want to fit into that mold ;)

Son of Númenor

01-23-2007, 03:53 PM

But why is it necessary for the Valar to have been 'created' - they could just as easily have been the creators themselves. If Eru can exist without any origin so could the Valar. What i don't see is the necessity of Eru to the story. He doesn't seem to serve any purpose that couldn't be supplied by the very slightest alteration to the nature of the Valar themselves & given the tiny part he plays I don't see that he is actually necessary.Music is not input - it is the synthesis of learning and action.

Tolkien understood that the only way to begin a proper allegory is for a whole to be divided.

davem

01-23-2007, 03:54 PM

To me, Nordic values and Christian vision (Eru is not like the Christian God, but his "feel" is Abrahamic, I will definitely admit that) put together make for a stronger metaphysical background than either would alone. However, that's simply the way I see things.

Of course. The problem I have with the character is its 'primitiveness' & 'simplicity' (in a bad sense). The character lacks the necessary depth & complexity to sit well in the developed Legendarium. I still feel this is Tolkien's motivation in the Athrabeth - not to bring the Legendarium into line with Christianity, but to try & salvage the character. To go back to the edit in my last post - if Tevildo had not evolved into Sauron he would either have had to be removed from the Legendarium altogether, or take on a role like Shelob.

Tolkien puts no real effort into developing the character because he doesn't need to - Eru's role is so minor that he might as well not exist other than as something that prevents things sliding into dualism. As long as there's something there which stops that happening (even though most readers will not care one way or the other, being caught up in the story) it doesn't really matter what that thing is - call if Eru & forget it. Yet it still becomes a problem as the Legendarium outgrows such simplistic figures & so Eru has either to be forgotten altogether, replaced, or changed into something else. The Athrabeth seems Tolkien's attempt to do just that.

Tolkien understood that the only way to begin a proper allegory is for a whole to be divided.

But its not an allegory. Its Art, & Art either works or it doesn't. And Eru isn't 'divided', he continues to exist, seperate from what he creates. Yet even conceding your point it still leaves Eru as a plot device rather than a fully developed character. He serves the purpose he is designed for & can then be safely forgotten. Say the Singers stepped forth from the Void, or sang themselves out of the Void & you have the same effect.

Nogrod

01-23-2007, 04:04 PM

Music is not input - it is the synthesis of learning and action.

Tolkien understood that the only way to begin a proper allegory is for a whole to be divided.Music is more than learning and action... It is the truth of the universe as such as the mathematical ratios in music are the very same the universe is built upon. The pythaghoreans already thought that way and later even Boethius (on fourth century if I'm not remembering this wrongly) whom all the monks during the middle-ages were drawing their information from.
EDIT: Sorry again. That is one view from our shared past, not mine... I forgot to mention it... :rolleyes:

The concept of dividing is also age-old. How many myths handle the primordial chaos or disarray being "ordered" by the gods / creative gods as their first act? One of our traditions says that this "ordering" is not random, but is based on music - and thence on mathematics. Tolkien surely knew that tradition as it's not an uninfluential one. :)

Nogrod

01-23-2007, 04:15 PM

But its not an allegory. Its Art, & Art either works or it doesn't. Would you care to elaborate this? Ars is tekhne, something that the humans can do, like know-how (to use an antique based but outdated term), things that can be taught and learned: skills, disciplines, technical stuff... If you're using the term 'art' in it's romantic version / meaning as something that is the contrary of the initial meaning - as something mystical, creative, personal, whatever - it's a different thing. But also an illusion, I'm afraid.

So who / what is an art? How it works or does not? (Sorry, it might be my broken English, but I really didn't catch your meaning here - I see what you're driving at, the arbitrariness - or whatever it is with proper English - of Eru in the whole, but how this discussion of art and it working or not is related to it?)

Child of the 7th Age

01-23-2007, 04:20 PM

And it is. Is M-e monotheistic or polytheistic? It can't be both. the simple answer is that it is monotheistic - except Eru doesn't do very much after Ainulindule, & the world is effectively ruled by the Valar. So for 99% of the Sil we have a polytheistic world.

Basically what we have is a monotheistic world that has been "deserted" by its Creator. I believe Tolkien says as much somewhere in the Letters. Whoever or whatever god is in the Legendarium, he is normally very distant. There are so few times when Eru puts his finger in the pot.

I guess I really have two issues that haven't been addressed on this very long thread..... Here goes.

The situation in Numenor was really a mess. The description of blood offerings and the enslavement of many in Middle-earth in the Silm was pretty disgusting. Frankly, if I had been living in Middle-earth at that time and had seen what was happening, I would have begged and pleaded for anyone to make the situation go away, even if that meant the death of a lot of people (though drowning the island would never have entered my mind). We don't have numbers for what is happening here, but it sounds as if a large number of people were affected by the atrocities (and they were atrocities).

So assuming that there really was a need for all this to stop, what would the alternatives have been short of drowning the island? Swallowing up the ships would not have done the job in my opinion, since there was still Sauron sitting with the Ring on top of his little hill. Taking out Sauron somehow? That would be a possibility, but could Sauron be gotten rid of so easily since he had the Ring? (Would it have been possible for the Valar to destroy the Ring while leaving everything outside the Temple boundaries nice and tidy?) And even if you took out Sauron and the fleet, the whole infrastructure of the Temple system would exist. The people of Numenor had the knowledge and resources to remake the ships. I doubt their behavior would change. Could anything effective be done short of what was actually done? What I am asking us to do is to look beyond the question of who does the punishment and ask if there were alternatives as to what was done.

**********

Now regarding the whole issue of a natural disaster versus a punishment….. Yes a tsunami would flatten the isle, and Eru could keep his hands clean. But isn't there a wider question? Tolkien is raising a moral issue concerning the behavior of the men of Numenor. To me that judgment is central to the story, whether the judgment is made by Eru or by the author himself. Indeed, I would say that moral element is central to all Tolkien's stories on some level. If that is the case, wouldn't a punishment be necessary, whether you agree with the form that the punishment took or not? A freak weather event just doesn't cut it for me in the context of the Legendarium.

This is myth, and much of myth involves questions of “why” and judgments concerning behavior (gods may get some leeway re behavior, but not men). Ancient cultures from around the globe have stories about massive flooding; such stories almost always involve a judgment made by the unseen powers that rule the world. Such stories says as much about the insecurity of man, the fact that everything we have can be swept away in the blink of an eye (and I’m not just talking physical possessions here), as they do about the nature of the ruling gods. Almost always, the ancient floods are explained in terms of a punishment given out for immoral behavior. That is certainly true of Atlantis, which is the closest analogy to Numenor. The most prevalent reason cited for the destruction of Atlantis and the Atlantean culture were the misuse of power and the moral decay of the Atlanteans themselves. Secondary emphasis is placed on the wrath of the gods.

In this sense Tolkien is following in the steps of myth with his tale of Numenor. When we raise questions about a god committing an atrocity by unleashing the flood, we are reacting like men and women of the twenty-first century rather than adjusting our brain to the mythic paradigms that Tolkien proposes. Myth rarely judges the power of the gods. It merely describes what is a real fact: the gods have amazing power and can pull the rug out from beneath your feet whenever they choose to do so.

The problem with focusing attention only on the question of whether or not Eru is just is that it pulls our personal beliefs from the twenty-first century into the equation. For those posters who’ve been here a while, I can pretty well predict what side of this question they are going to take. It depends how they feel about "religion" in real life. (And undoubtedly, you folk could predict my own answer as well). To keep the discussion from going in circles like a dog chasing his tale, aren’t we better off trying to look at this story not merely in terms of modern political/religious sensitivities, or the believer versus non-believer framework, and instead think in terms of myth itself?

davem

01-23-2007, 04:31 PM

The problem with focusing attention only on the question of whether or not Eru is just is that it pulls our personal beliefs from the twenty-first century into the equation. For those posters who’ve been here a while, I can pretty well predict what side of this question they are going to take. It depends how they feel about "religion" in real life. (And undoubtedly, you folk could predict my own answer as well). To keep the discussion from going in circles like a dog chasing his tale, aren’t we better off trying to look at this story not merely in terms of modern political/religious sensitivities, or the believer versus non-believer framework, and instead think in terms of myth itself?

And in arguing with myself I can only say we are 20th century readers of a book written by a 20th century man. The fact is we can only stomach what we can stomach. And what Eru does is too much. Well, too much not to be subject to our moral judgement. For all your points are true, Eru is responsible for his actions. Our ancestors burned people alive & felt it to be just - & it was. Yet we at the same time judge them harshly & call their actions barbaric.

The point is that Tolkien's heroes do not behave like our ancestors - they conform to our modern concepts of what heroes are & behave likewise. Now, the heroes of BoLT do behave in a more 'heroic' manner, but over time they develop into more 'modern' figures who we can relate to & sympathise with. Eru doesn't. He remains a simplistic 'jealous' deity, & is thus increasingly isolated within the Legendarium. The destruction of Numenor stands out as wrong because we don't think in that way anymore. Aragorn did not lead his armies on a crusade into Harad & embark on genocide, & while our ancestors may have approved of him doing so, we wouldn't.

Aiwendil

01-23-2007, 04:32 PM

I'm a little behind in reading this thread - this is chiefly a response to Davem's post 133.

Davem wrote:
Is M-e monotheistic or polytheistic? It can't be both.

Why must it be either? Why must we analyze Tolkien's mythos as belonging to one class or the other? In my opinion, forcing a label onto the mythology (or implicitly forcing a label via an excluded middle) is not productive. Tolkien's world is what it is. Sure, in some ways, it resembles a monotheistic world-view and in other ways a polytheistic one - but this does not mean that it must be (in some fundamental or mystical way) truly one or the other.

In short, we don't need Eru as part of the story. If Ainulindale had begun 'There were the Singers, & they sang The Great Song which brought the worlds into being...' the effect on the story would have been negligible.

I must disagree. Eru's existence and role as the Creator does more than a simple analysis of his actions might suggest. His existence does much the same thing that the God of the Abrahamic religions does for the Judeo-Christo-Islamic world view; it puts everything else in the universe into an overarching moral and teleological framework. Eru's existence defines the moral good (which is, incidentally, why it doesn't make sense to ask whether Eru's actions are "right"). The Valar are imperfect and flawed beings. Insofar as they do (or endeavour to do) good throughout the story, they are serving Eru. Now, if Eru did not exist, we would merely have a story about flawed 'gods' acting in whatever ways they wished; it would be, in that regard, like Norse or Greek mythology. Eru's existence adds an element to the mythology that is lacking in either of those counterparts. Now, I'm not saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing; that's a separate question (though personally I think it is good for the story) - but it is not nothing.

The idea of a God providing a moral framework may make some people uncomfortable. Indeed, I'm a non-theist, so the world-view presented in Tolkien's Legendarium is very different from that which I believe to be true. But when I think about the Legendarium, I must do so on its terms.

Son of Númenor

01-23-2007, 04:37 PM

But its not an allegory. Its Art, & Art either works or it doesn't. And Eru isn't 'divided', he continues to exist, seperate from what he creates. Yet even conceding your point it still leaves Eru as a plot device rather than a fully developed character. He serves the purpose he is designed for & can then be safely forgotten. Say the Singers stepped forth from the Void, or sang themselves out of the Void & you have the same effect.But Art does not step out of the Void. In Tolkien's case it is a process of creation which involves input (the unfoldment of reality as Tolkien perceived it), synthesis of that perception of unfoldment into word-thoughts, and output (the act of writing). The words which Tolkien creates can thus be seen not as Creation per se but as Metaphor. When one realizes that any literary criticism of Tolkien is a process of Artistic Creation (viewing the unfoldment of reality in the Legendarium, forming word-concepts, and writing) one realizes that it cannot be analyzed deductively or inductively. It can only be analyzed through metaphor.

davem

01-23-2007, 04:41 PM

Aiwendil But doesn't that require Eru to be 'moral'? In short he is not - not as he is described. He's just there, sparks things off, & disappears. The next thing we see of him is (unless this is merely a Dwarvish creation myth) is giving life to the Dwarves & then he pops up & trashes Numenor. In short, the character is not up to the role he is given in the Legendarium. He remains a plot device, he doesn't fulfil the role of providing a moral & ethical heart to the story, an ideal to be emulated, he is simply something which is intended to fill that gap - & as long as Tolkien can point to something within the story which does that he seems happy to forget all about it & get on with telling the story.

Tar-Telperien

01-23-2007, 05:54 PM

So assuming that there really was a need for all this to stop, what would the alternatives have been short of drowning the island? Swallowing up the ships would not have done the job in my opinion, since there was still Sauron sitting with the Ring on top of his little hill. Taking out Sauron somehow? That would be a possibility, but could Sauron be gotten rid of so easily since he had the Ring? (Would it have been possible for the Valar to destroy the Ring while leaving everything outside the Temple boundaries nice and tidy?) And even if you took out Sauron and the fleet, the whole infrastructure of the Temple system would exist. The people of Numenor had the knowledge and resources to remake the ships. I doubt their behavior would change. Could anything effective be done short of what was actually done? What I am asking us to do is to look beyond the question of who does the punishment and ask if there were alternatives as to what was done.

I did look at such alternatives earlier in this thread, and also failed to come up with any good ones; I too believe the story is about how a people painted themselves into a very bad corner, chiefly because they were proud and thoughtless and had no idea what they were getting themselves into by bringing Sauron to their island. If we want to read it in moral terms, we can almost view Eru's actions as merciful in that they fulfilled Amandil's wish for Men to be "delivered from Sauron the Deceiver". There was no easier way, and it's because the Númenóreans brought this upon themselves and their children. Foolishness kills. The only reason I don't hugely bother to see it this way is because I myself do not see Eru as a moral figure, and so don't bother to explain his actions in that light. But I did offer that sort of answer earlier for those who do see it that way.

Of course. The problem I have with the character is its 'primitiveness' & 'simplicity' (in a bad sense). The character lacks the necessary depth & complexity to sit well in the developed Legendarium. I still feel this is Tolkien's motivation in the Athrabeth - not to bring the Legendarium into line with Christianity, but to try & salvage the character. To go back to the edit in my last post - if Tevildo had not evolved into Sauron he would either have had to be removed from the Legendarium altogether, or take on a role like Shelob.

Tolkien puts no real effort into developing the character because he doesn't need to - Eru's role is so minor that he might as well not exist other than as something that prevents things sliding into dualism. As long as there's something there which stops that happening (even though most readers will not care one way or the other, being caught up in the story) it doesn't really matter what that thing is - call if Eru & forget it. Yet it still becomes a problem as the Legendarium outgrows such simplistic figures & so Eru has either to be forgotten altogether, replaced, or changed into something else. The Athrabeth seems Tolkien's attempt to do just that.

Odd. Because when I reread the earliest version of the Ainulindalë some time ago, my breath was taken away by how different Eru's character was. If anything, Ilúvatar was the character who changed the most over the varying traditions of that story. In the first version, he preached long messages about how Melkor's "ugliness" would bring forth "beauty" and that it would be the thing that made the Music most worthwhile. We are basically given a long sermon on theodicy in the first version. But as time goes on, Tolkien takes out huge sections of Eru's dialogue, making him a much more aloof figure whose motives are far more unclear. If Eru seems one-sided and overly mysterious, it's fairly obviously because Tolkien came to want him to be that way. He was actually more like the Christian God in the beginning than he afterwards became. Eru became more unique of a figure, not less of one.

Okay pals, now when I stop at what I just wrote, I think that I accidentally resolved the debate about what is or what is not "allowed" in M-E. I think this is pretty clear now. The dischord could have been OK, had Melkor not tooth and nail held it to himself. This is the slight difference, and it is really a slight difference, but I think it is important and I hope I hit the nail here: the definition of what is "good" and what is "bad" is defined by Eru; since he is All, he defines it. And I daresay he defines it on the basis of many factors, and the main is if the one goes with his plan = not that Eru had any plan like "Manwë goes there and Ulmo comes to him at 3 AM" but "can I go to Manwë at 7 PM? I want to make one more river here". In certain points, Eru might say "no" (for example, I think, to a question "Can I kill Manwë?" According to what I am able to guess from Tolkien's works, the latest possible answer would be "Ask him first", unless, of course, there was any reason why Manwë would have to be killed). As I said, I quite stand with the opinion that it is about learning. The reason why Eru has let the dischord and the evil to take place is, that he gives everyone (no "evil ones" or "good ones" distinction here during the process) a chance to learn. And on this basis the "good" and "evil" are defined. So Eru says: If you know what you are doing, I will bless it. (I know this sentence is quite simple and can be interpretated in many ways, but applying this Secondary World thesis on us here, who wants to learn, will find the right meaning in it. Who wants not, might argue until the end of this thread).

If I understand you correctly, I agree. And the reason it is good, bad, right, wrong, etc. in Eru's eyes seems to be whether it is possible according to his Will or not. Melkor and Aulë tried to pit themselves against the impossible, whether they knew it or not. If, like Aulë, Melkor had been willing to acknowledge the impossibility of his deeds, there would have been no problems for himself or anyone else, I think; or they would be quite lessened (there was, after all, still strife between the Dwarves and the Elves). But at least the Dwarves had been made into a coherent creation, and did not remain a vain imagining like Melkor's plans. If you go the route of vain imaginings, you will have to take a very long, hard road to get back into right thinking. This was the journey Melkor chose to take. Perhaps, in the long run, the fullness of his experience would give him more insight into the Will of Eru than he otherwise could have had, but it had to be bought with his own suffering and that of others.

Moderators: considering how off the main topic this thread has gone, it would probably be a good idea to split it now and name the new thread "Eru Ilúvatar" or something.

Neurion

01-23-2007, 07:17 PM

I have to disagree with this.Feel free to.

IThere are many natural disasters in the world today and we could describe none of them as 'dull'.In a historical sense, such things are VERY dull. A brief interlude of blind nature interfering in the vastly more interesting sphere of human affairs. Not even worthy of notice, really.

IOf course some people ascribe them to God but I do not (the only tragedies I ascribe to 'God' are wars and acts of terror and hatred driven by religious fervour - and even these are driven by people in extreme mental states rather than any 'God' I know).Again, I would have to disagree, both with the assertion that such events are essentially tragic in nature and that "extreme mental states" are inevitably the cause.

IThe Boxing Day Tsunami for example was no less tragic than 9/11 or 7/7 - the former caused by the plates of the Earth moving, the latter by an over-abundance of duty to God.Not an especially good comparison, I must say. On the one hand, you have a random and pointless act of nature. On the other, the latest major salvo in a very old war.

IInterestingly the impetus behind the Killer Wave came from Tolkien's dreams of an all-engulfing wave, something which seems to loom large in the collective conscience of a lot of people today. Is this due to the rising sea levels that are threatening our very existence?Since such evidence seems yet to have surfaced, I'd have to assume that the answer is a fairly defintive no.

ISo if Tolkien had merely written of a Killer Flood and not explicitly said Eru was behind it then it would have been just as effective, just as tragic.Again, it would not have. Such as it is, the destruction of Numenor recalls the Biblical flood in its parallel tale of over-weening human pride and abandonment of God, and thus derives its power. As a "killer flood" it would merely have been just another freak act of nature such as tend to occur every now and then, devoid of any emotional power save in the glorification of victimhood as seems to be the fashion these days.

These where both replies to Davem's post and I would like to ask the simple question: Why?Because they were wrong, simply enough. Because they violated the divinely-established conditions that had been set upon the men of Numenor.

But we are not talking (at least I'm not) about God, but about the character Eru. I can't think of any point at which Eru displays compassion, mercy, tolerance. He rarely displays wisdom ('Of course you can enter into Arda, Melkor!').And how is it that you know beyond doubt that this was not wisdom? ;)

Hookbill the Goomba

01-24-2007, 01:02 AM

The problem I have with the character is its 'primitiveness' & 'simplicity' (in a bad sense). The character lacks the necessary depth & complexity to sit well in the developed Legendarium

I hear you.
Perhaps the reason for Tolkien's lack of development of Eru is due to a sort of fear of getting it wrong or causing too much controvacy. To go into the character too deeply might make him too obviously an allegory of the God of the Bible and may have alienated some readers who just wanted to get down to the excitement, adventure and really wild things.
Now, the writers of the Bible seemed less interested in proving weather or not this God exists and were more interested in telling us what this God was like and who he is. The Bible is a long book and there are many aspects to the, shall we say for arguments sake, character of God. As I said, Tolkien wasn't a scholar and for every characteristic he might try to highlight, there might be an odd learned man or two to tell him how wrong he was. Polytheism is much easier to get away with on this level because, certainly in Tolkien's day, it wasn't as widely studied as Biblical theology and so to take assumptions and liberties in the characters of the Valar was much easier and less liable to be open to criticism.

Just a thought.

Lalwendë

01-24-2007, 03:06 AM

I hear you.
Perhaps the reason for Tolkien's lack of development of Eru is due to a sort of fear of getting it wrong or causing too much controvacy. To go into the character too deeply might make him too obviously an allegory of the God of the Bible and may have alienated some readers who just wanted to get down to the excitement, adventure and really wild things.

I think it's that Eru simply had no place in The Hobbit or LotR. However he does have a place, putting aside all other arguments about if he was necessary, in The Silmarillion, as that book deals with cosmology and creation. Myths have Gods, so at the most simple level, Tolkien gives us some. But I do think he found the Valar inherently more interesting which is why he concentrated more on them; and even beyond this, he found the Children most interesting of all, because around 90% of his work must be devoted to them. Tolkien said Lord of the Rings is not a 'religious' work, which is why it didn't 'do' to make too much of Gods. They didn't fit his story nor did they fit what he was saying with this epic tale, which is essentially about the amazing, mind-blowing struggles of the Children.

Feel free to.

In a historical sense, such things are VERY dull. A brief interlude of blind nature interfering in the vastly more interesting sphere of human affairs. Not even worthy of notice, really.

Again, I would have to disagree, both with the assertion that such events are essentially tragic in nature and that "extreme mental states" are inevitably the cause.

Not an especially good comparison, I must say. On the one hand, you have a random and pointless act of nature. On the other, the latest major salvo in a very old war.

Since such evidence seems yet to have surfaced, I'd have to assume that the answer is a fairly defintive no.

Again, it would not have. Such as it is, the destruction of Numenor recalls the Biblical flood in its parallel tale of over-weening human pride and abandonment of God, and thus derives its power. As a "killer flood" it would merely have been just another freak act of nature such as tend to occur every now and then, devoid of any emotional power save in the glorification of victimhood as seems to be the fashion these days.

Because they were wrong, simply enough. Because they violated the divinely-established conditions that had been set upon the men of Numenor.

And how is it that you know beyond doubt that this was not wisdom? ;)

First off, aside from it being ever so slightly sick to suggest that natural disasters are not worthy of notice (get caught up in one and you might think differently when other people are ignoring your cries for help), it's not even true that they do not make history, as they do.

And the 'glorification of victimhood' is some thing often trawled out by the extremes of right and left wing media these days just as a way of sying "Oh look at us, we're so rational we fail entirely to be moved by the deaths of other humans". It's quite frankly sad. Feeling sympathy, pity etc for those caught up in natural disaster is what separates us from the Apes - our inherent abilty to emphaphise, which is why Tolkien makes so much of this in his books; in contrast the Orcs do not empathise, displaying distict sociopathic tendencies - as lack of empathy is a common sign of that mental illness. It's not even a modern phenomenon. On March 11th 1864 a dam burst in the hills above Sheffield and the flood killed hundreds of people - the newspapers were full of stories for months afterwards (of great benefit to those if us who are interested in this as we have lots of documentary evidence to look at).

Oh, and the conditions set upon the Men of Numenor were not set by Eru but by the Valar.

Tar-Telperien

01-24-2007, 03:29 AM

In a historical sense, such things are VERY dull. A brief interlude of blind nature interfering in the vastly more interesting sphere of human affairs. Not even worthy of notice, really.

I kind of get your point, but you are not the arbiter of what is emotionally moving. For example, I think that Númenor's end was extremely tragic (more so than any other scene in the entire Silmarillion), but my opinions above outline my belief that it came about through (mostly) natural means. But if you want to believe otherwise, I won't stop you.

And how is it that you know beyond doubt that this was not wisdom?

No kidding. I oppose tacking "wisdom" or "foolishness" onto Eru for the same reason that I resist attempts to tack morality on him.

davem

01-24-2007, 08:00 AM

Odd. Because when I reread the earliest version of the Ainulindalë some time ago, my breath was taken away by how different Eru's character was. If anything, Ilúvatar was the character who changed the most over the varying traditions of that story. In the first version, he preached long messages about how Melkor's "ugliness" would bring forth "beauty" and that it would be the thing that made the Music most worthwhile. We are basically given a long sermon on theodicy in the first version. But as time goes on, Tolkien takes out huge sections of Eru's dialogue, making him a much more aloof figure whose motives are far more unclear. If Eru seems one-sided and overly mysterious, it's fairly obviously because Tolkien came to want him to be that way. He was actually more like the Christian God in the beginning than he afterwards became. Eru became more unique of a figure, not less of one.

.

What it seems to do is make him more of a cypher than he originally was. If Tolkien is trying to distinguish Eru from God (& as I noted before these changes seem to correspond exactly to the period of the 20's when 'out of wickedness & sloth' he almost ceased to practice his religion) then we have him seeking to produce a non Christian deity who will keep the mythology 'monotheistic' & stop it being 'dualistic' while removing him to such a distance that he effectively becomes little more than a get out of jail free card.

The myths Tolkien loved are effectively both polytheistic & dualistic & the myth he creates is, in fact, exactly the same. Its as if he feels for philodsophical reasons he must keep a 'God' figure, but he wants to remove him as far as possible from the work. He wants to have his cake & eat it. I suppose a more complex Eru would have required him to be a more active participant in the story. Yet at the end (Athrabeth) he seems to want him to be just that.

Ok, in other words, I accept that what you say is correct - except I'd argue that he doesn't so much develop the character as remove the little 'character' that he seems to have. After that he seems to lose interest in him at all. I wonder whether the changes are for philosophical or narrative reasons?

Rune Son of Bjarne

01-24-2007, 08:58 AM

In a historical sense, such things are VERY dull. A brief interlude of blind nature interfering in the vastly more interesting sphere of human affairs. Not even worthy of notice, really.This will be a short comment, where I pour some water on Lal's mill.

I think that Pompeii shows that natural disasters is/can be very interesting. . .not only has there been made countless documetarys on this subject, but it is also one of Italys leading turist atractions.

And on a personal note, I think the story of Krakatoa is ever so facinating.

davem

01-24-2007, 12:50 PM

It seems to me that natural disasters are more profoundly moving simply because they are both inevitable & unavoidable. Unlike acts of an angry God, who can be pacified by obeying his rules, a nature cannot. They bring home to us our essential transitoriness - whatever we do, however moral our behaviour. From that point of view they require courage of us, simply to live & look the 'Dragon' in the face. Avoiding the wrath of an angry deity merely requires us to do as we're told.

To read LotR from a 'secular' perspective makes the display of courage far more moving. 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?

Son of Númenor

01-24-2007, 01:00 PM

It seems to me that natural disasters are more profoundly moving simply because they are both inevitable & unavoidable. Unlike acts of an angry God, who can be pacified by obeying his rules, a nature cannot. They bring home to us our essential transitoriness - whatever we do, however moral our behaviour. From that point of view they require courage of us, simply to live & look the 'Dragon' in the face. Avoiding the wrath of an angry deity merely requires us to do as we're told.It seems to me that you are talking about your own interactions with the unfoldment of reality in the real world, not Tolkien's Legendarium. To read LotR from a 'secular' perspective makes the display of courage far more moving. 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?Are you suggesting that the 'secular' (whatever that means - horrible metaphor in my opinion) viewpoint is one which the reader should consciously adopt in reading Tolkien? Or just that you enjoy doing so?

davem

01-24-2007, 01:20 PM

It seems to me that you are talking about your own interactions with the unfoldment of reality in the real world, not Tolkien's Legendarium.

I was - but that was what was being questioned.

Are you suggesting that the 'secular' (whatever that means - horrible metaphor in my opinion) viewpoint is one which the reader should consciously adopt in reading Tolkien? Or just that you enjoy doing so?

The latter. There are different ways of approaching the text, without stepping outside it. One could read it, for instance, by missing out books 3 & 5, & just following Frodo's story, without the more 'action-packed' books. I'm sure that would produce a different effect on the reader. One can read it as a 'secular' work, assigning the references to the Valar as merely 'beliefs' held by various characters. My tendency is to read it fully accepting such things as 'facts' of that world, however, taking LotR as a stand alone work such a reading is entirely possible & we will get something entirely different from it.

Son of Númenor

01-24-2007, 01:29 PM

The latter. There are different ways of approaching the text, without stepping outside it. One could read it, for instance, by missing out books 3 & 5, & just following Frodo's story, without the more 'action-packed' books. I'm sure that would produce a different effect on the reader. One can read it as a 'secular' work, assigning the references to the Valar as merely 'beliefs' held by various characters. My tendency is to read it fully accepting such things as 'facts' of that world, however, taking LotR as a stand alone work such a reading is entirely possible & we will get something entirely different from it.My tendency is to do the same, but the problem is that the beliefs which motivate the protagonists are entirely un-compelling without Deity. It becomes a book about bodily functions - still beautiful though.

davem

01-24-2007, 01:51 PM

My tendency is to do the same, but the problem is that the beliefs which motivate the protagonists are entirely un-compelling without Deity. It becomes a book about bodily functions - still beautiful though.

I don't find that. Faith is moving in & of itself - whatever one places one's faith in it will inevitably be something bigger than oneself.* Frodo never expresses any belief in a deity. He simply does what he does for those he loves (someone has to give up the things they care about in order that others may keep them) That seems to be his only motivation. Hence, he is very much a hero for the secular 20th century. I relate to him much more strongly than I do to the believers who act out of their faith in 'Higher' things. Look the Dragon in the eye, & do what's right because its right, even if there's nothing beyond our 'bodily functions'.

*Remember Serenity: Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: "ah, h*ll shepherd, I ain't looking for help from on high..."
Shepherd Book: "Why when I talk about faith do you always assume I'm talking about god? "

Lalwendë

01-24-2007, 01:59 PM

My tendency is to do the same, but the problem is that the beliefs which motivate the protagonists are entirely un-compelling without Deity. It becomes a book about bodily functions - still beautiful though.

How come Lord of the Rings was so popular between 1954 and 1977 then? ;)

Are you suggesting that the 'secular' (whatever that means - horrible metaphor in my opinion) viewpoint is one which the reader should consciously adopt in reading Tolkien? Or just that you enjoy doing so?

Most readers probably do read Tolkien's work in that way or at the very least from different belief perspectives, as the majority of readers will not be active Christians, and of the Christian readers very few will probably pick up on any Christian element until they are told about it. They might at a push think "hmm, that reminds a bit of this..." but they will need external influence to start forging links, and who doesn't read a text, any text, and see links to all manner of things?

To read LotR from a 'secular' perspective makes the display of courage far more moving. 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?

The odd thing about Frodo going into the West is that he probably did die, and possibly much more quickly than if he had stayed in The Shire (laying aside the possibility that he may well have committed suicide had he not got any healing). Valinor is no place for a mortal:

'The Doom of the World,' they said, 'One alone can change who made it. And were you so to voyage that escaping all deceits and snares you came indeed to Aman, the Blessed Realm, little would it profit you. For it is not the land of Manwe 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.'

Tar-Telperien

01-25-2007, 02:09 AM

What it seems to do is make him more of a cypher than he originally was.

Yes, and I think that was the point of Tolkien's alterations. Eru is mysterious. But then, so is the existence and character of everything else.

The myths Tolkien loved are effectively both polytheistic & dualistic & the myth he creates is, in fact, exactly the same. Its as if he feels for philodsophical reasons he must keep a 'God' figure, but he wants to remove him as far as possible from the work. He wants to have his cake & eat it. I suppose a more complex Eru would have required him to be a more active participant in the story. Yet at the end (Athrabeth) he seems to want him to be just that.

What, really, would a "more complex Eru" have been like? How could he have been much different from one of the Abrahamic Gods? I think that Tolkien makes Eru more vibrant through his addition of estel to the Legendarium, an addition that would not work if Eru were as active in the world and as promising as the Christian God is portrayed to be. Admittedly, estel only shows up decades after the major changes to Eru's character are made, but they fit very well with Eru's presentation, much better than they would if Eru were very different than he is. Tolkien used a typical "God figure" to draw the (typical Western) reader into the story, and then used Eru as a vehicle for bringing out different themes and concepts than are often discussed in Western religion.

Ok, in other words, I accept that what you say is correct - except I'd argue that he doesn't so much develop the character as remove the little 'character' that he seems to have. After that he seems to lose interest in him at all. I wonder whether the changes are for philosophical or narrative reasons?

Though I have no way of ever knowing, I tend to think more philosophical. The original version of the Ainulindalë was written, of course, just about at the time that Tolkien was fighting in World War I. To me, Eru's speeches in the original read very much like Tolkien was, through his words, grappling with the troubles in the world that he had encountered. He would not put words into the mouth of the God he actually believed in, of course, so he used the similar-seeming deity in his newly-constructed world to work out his concerns about good and evil. As time went on, however, he did not need Eru for this role, and so he took out many of these lines and made him more opaque. That's just how I see it, anyway.

The odd thing about Frodo going into the West is that he probably did die, and possibly much more quickly than if he had stayed in The Shire (laying aside the possibility that he may well have committed suicide had he not got any healing). Valinor is no place for a mortal:

But then, it wasn't to Valinor that he was going. Technically, Frodo went to live in Tol Eressëa, which may not have had the same effects on mortals as the land of the Valar proper (I tend to think it didn't). Admittedly, I am biased by my hope that Sam got to see Frodo after sailing into the West in his old age.

Lalwendë

01-25-2007, 02:34 AM

But then, it wasn't to Valinor that he was going. Technically, Frodo went to live in Tol Eressëa, which may not have had the same effects on mortals as the land of the Valar proper (I tend to think it didn't). Admittedly, I am biased by my hope that Sam got to see Frodo after sailing into the West in his old age.

I suppose I ought to have said the Undying Lands really, as I think it's any of the land masses which can be perilous places to live for mortals (Valinor being to the Undying Lands as Britain is to the United Kingdom, i.e. the largest land mass); looking at the Akallabeth it seems that any of the islands lying off the Eastern coast are also part of the perilous realm.

Though I am not intending to shatter illusions and dreams about what happens to our heroes. Maybe Frodo managed to hold on long enough after his Elven healing to see his Sam? I like to think that myself; it would be like old Bilbo holding on to see them all again at the end.

davem

01-25-2007, 01:22 PM

Tar-Telperien Accepting much of what you say, it still leaves us with Eru as a cypher, while every other character is drawn in depth. He doesn't seem to fit. Maybe Tolkien didn't want to say to much about him for the reasons you give, but it still leaves him as as little more than a name. We don't know why he does most of what he does, what his intentions are, or why he bothers to do anything at all. He seems to exist only to make the world monotheistic. I suspect this is what leads readers to project their own God concepts onto him, & lead to religious arguments which get nowhere. He is probably the only character Tolkien invents who is not a 'character' at all.

An author can't do this! A theologian may speak of the 'ineffability' of God, but a storyteller must create characters - or if he doesn't he isn't doing his job right. If someone had just popped up in Mordor to hand Sam & Frodo a canteen of water & then just wandered off again, with no explanation as to how or why he was there, we'd rightly dismiss him as a 'get out of jail free' card Tolkien was playing. We'd demand to know who he was, why he was there. We might assume there was a reason for him being there, but if there was no reason to be found (if his appearance could not be accounted for in any way & if his existence in the story was logically impossible) we'd have to say Tolkien had failed in his creation of a logically consistent secondary world - particularly if he admitted that he'd put the character in there simply because he didn't want Frodo & Sam to die of thirst & couldn't be bothered to come up with a better idea.

Yet this seems to be exactly what he does in the case of Eru - he needs 'something' to make the world monotheistic, one who can 'fill the gaps' in the narrative, & so comes up with Eru.

Now this is not to say that Eru cannot be perceived by other characters as 'ineffable', but he shouldn't be so to the reader (or the writer), because the writer in this case is not writing a work of theology, but a story, & characters in a story must fit logically into the story & be explainable within the rules of the story world.

So, I find Eru unsatisfying, & try to ignore him, or put down his appearances to the character's belief systems. Accepting him as an actual character within the secondary world is too much for me. Ainulindale as 'fact' (the 'fundamentalist' approach) is something I can't stomach. Ainulindale as an Elvish creation myth, a metaphor or parable, just about works for me.

Tar-Telperien

01-25-2007, 07:17 PM

Accepting much of what you say, it still leaves us with Eru as a cypher, while every other character is drawn in depth. He doesn't seem to fit. Maybe Tolkien didn't want to say to much about him for the reasons you give, but it still leaves him as as little more than a name. We don't know why he does most of what he does, what his intentions are, or why he bothers to do anything at all. He seems to exist only to make the world monotheistic. I suspect this is what leads readers to project their own God concepts onto him, & lead to religious arguments which get nowhere. He is probably the only character Tolkien invents who is not a 'character' at all.

I thought I explained that not "knowing his intentions" is vital for the creatures he desires to make. They have to trust and learn for themselves. If there's one moral a person can get out of the "Tale of Adanel", it's that Eru isn't pleased when his creatures beg for easy answers, from him or anyone.

Of course, you are perfectly free to see him as a cipher. But then, I think that was exactly the effect Tolkien wanted. I have strong doubts that it was unintended by him.

An author can't do this! A theologian may speak of the 'ineffability' of God, but a storyteller must create characters - or if he doesn't he isn't doing his job right. If someone had just popped up in Mordor to hand Sam & Frodo a canteen of water & then just wandered off again, with no explanation as to how or why he was there, we'd rightly dismiss him as a 'get out of jail free' card Tolkien was playing. We'd demand to know who he was, why he was there. We might assume there was a reason for him being there, but if there was no reason to be found (if his appearance could not be accounted for in any way & if his existence in the story was logically impossible) we'd have to say Tolkien had failed in his creation of a logically consistent secondary world - particularly if he admitted that he'd put the character in there simply because he didn't want Frodo & Sam to die of thirst & couldn't be bothered to come up with a better idea.

What makes Tolkien's stories great is that he wasn't just "an author". He was a world-builder. And when you devise and describe an entire constructed world, yes you can put irreducible mysteries in it like this. After all, what do you think Tom Bombadil is if not an irreducible mystery? People have had "arguments that go nowhere" concerning his nature for decades, but you aren't complaining about that. And the mysteries must only get deeper and yet more impenetrable when you're dealing with the One who created them in the first place.

Now this is not to say that Eru cannot be perceived by other characters as 'ineffable', but he shouldn't be so to the reader (or the writer), because the writer in this case is not writing a work of theology, but a story, & characters in a story must fit logically into the story & be explainable within the rules of the story world.

Tolkien wasn't just writing a story, he was writing a history. And what is, for example, the Bible if it is not a history (especially to the people who believe in it most)? Yet the reader of the Bible perceives God as being quite ineffable indeed. So why shouldn't Eru be viewed the same way, if Tolkien's intent with how the text is to be read was similar?

So, I find Eru unsatisfying, & try to ignore him, or put down his appearances to the character's belief systems. Accepting him as an actual character within the secondary world is too much for me. Ainulindale as 'fact' (the 'fundamentalist' approach) is something I can't stomach. Ainulindale as an Elvish creation myth, a metaphor or parable, just about works for me.

I encourage you to read it as a parable. That is what the Elves themselves did, apparently.

If we consider the First History, which is called the Ainulindalë: this must have come from the Aratar themselves (for the most part indeed from Manwë, it is believed). Though it was plainly put into its present form by Eldar, and was already in that form when it was recorded by Rúmil, it must nonetheless have been from the first presented to us not only in the words of Quenya, but also according to our modes of thought and our imagination of the visible world, in symbols that were intelligible to us.

davem

01-26-2007, 08:16 AM

Of course this means that Eru is not actually a character as such - which is waht I've been arguing. I'm not sure the analogy with Tom works. Tom is enigmatic, but he has a character & plays a specific role in his world & in the story He is a person. Eru seemingly exists only to make the mythlogy monotheistic. Eru is so far outside the world & the events of the story that effectively he is not a part of it.

Yet Tolkien insists on bringing him into the story as an active participant at certain points, & this causes a problem due the fact of his one dimensionality. When he appears it is to do something & we don't really know why he does what he does because we don't know who he is. You can't just have a metaphor popping into the story & then popping out agan - not if this changes the story in a major way. If the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan had popped up in the Gospels as an actual person we'd be totally confused as to to the point of the parables - suddenly they would become reportage & not stories with a moral truth behind them. If Ainulindale is a parable/myth how 'true' is it? Is the 'mythic' Eru the same as the Eru who appears to trahs Numenor, or is he different? We need to know more about Eru if he is to become a physical fact within the world. If we'd never encountered him outside the Music, no problem. The point at which he enters in he becomes a problem, because he becomes a fact which changes the world of which he is a part.

drigel

01-26-2007, 10:58 AM

Ive been enjoying this thread. I think this story is about all of the afore mentioned reasons - Atlantis, the Old Testament, etc. It is not complete in it's message, as I believe that JRRT wasn't writing for theological reasons as the primary motivation. But it is there - and for a reason. Whether or not he wanted, or was able to completely flesh out his idea - is another question.

So why kill the innocents? The only way I can get my head around this, even within the context of the secondary world, is to assume that Eru allowed them to die too to underscore the tragedy which resulted from their fathers' wrongdoing. Which is poetic, but still a bit sick.
...could've thought on that they also might influence the life of those around themselves. I think we all agree on that parents take responsibility for their children as long as they are not grown up enough to take care of themselves, right?

As the parents are to the children, so are the shepherds are to the flock. And upwards... but that question is applicable today - why do bad things happen to good people? Or, in other words, what was the bigger atrocity - the sinking of Numenor, or the cruel fate of the rest of the mortals that were doomed to live out their wretched lives back on the squalor of what was left of the broken ME? Surely there were innocents caught up in that as well. Many more, plus all their cursed decendants as well. Generation after generation. Sickness, darkness, forsaken. Thousands of years.

Within the context of the story, mind you...., to call 'sick' Eru's retribution against the disobedience and evil to which the Numenoreans had fallen, is to take the side of the disobedient and evil Numenoreans.

No man knoweth the plan. Accordingly, no Vala or Elf knoweth the role of men in the music.

It always strikes me as interesting how those who have contact with Elves come out of it with one of two views: they either accept their fate and their 'special' role in Middle-earth or they do all they can to get what the Elves have.

Thats why Numenor, as well as the Sauron (and the lesser Maia) issue, to me, represented a huge mistake, or imperfection in the Vala's governing of order.

No, I don't agree--I don't think the Valar were "racist": they are the Guardians of Men as well as Elves and they loved them.

They loved mankind, but completely misunderstood them. Their role both in this world and in the next is a complete unknown to them.

This is why I say one cannot rationalise the behaviour of Eru & make it good - though one can attribute all kinds of things to him, in order to make him 'good', but if one takes what Tolkien actually gives us, we have almost nothing to build on.......What he does display is pride, lack of compassion & brute force.

To me your describing exactly what life was about on ME at that time for mortals (and to an extent our descendant as well - pre bronze age). Cruel, merciless, the brute force of life was not good at all. Yet there was hope. Which leads me to -
What the purpose of (IMHO) the Eru figure is.

Yet Tolkien insists on bringing him into the story as an active participant at certain points, & this causes a problem due the fact of his one dimensionality. When he appears it is to do something & we don't really know why he does what he does because we don't know who he is.

The way for salvation of pre-prophet man. There was a plan for him there, in that sub-creation. It was a bleak existance, dire circumstances, but grace could still be obtained. Not complete in it's explanation, I agree. Not satisfying in any way. But the motivation was to create a story of mankind's mortality, which to me explains the plot of Numenor. The changes in revisions show the difficulty in dealing with the issue - mainly, in driving the story away from it. But it's there, and that means something to me. I think it meant a lot to the Catholic JRRT as well.

davem

01-26-2007, 12:36 PM

Found an old post of mine on the 'Is Eru God?' thread, which is a quote from an essay by Verly Flieger: here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=432194&postcount=215). The most interesting point she makes is the following:

The supreme godhead, Eru/Iluvatar, who both proposes the theme and conducts the Music, is neither the Judaic God of Hosts who alternately punishes and rewards his people, nor the traditional Christian God of love and forgiveness. Rather, he is a curiously remote and for the most part inactive figure, uninvolved, with the exception of one cataclysmic moment, in the world he has conceived.

Inactive & uninvolved about sums him up. Of course, my earlier point about his existing in order to stop the Legendarium being dualistic must be qualified. There are, of course, two kinds of dualism. Middle-eastern dualism posits a conflict between equal forces of good & evil - ie it is 'moral' dualism. North Western cultures produced a dualism which was about the conflict of order & chaos (whether Odin against Loki or Apollo against Dionysus). Tolkien seems to have used Norse myth as a basis & set up an Odin/Loki conflict, but set it out in a 'Zoroastrian' form. Yet Eru himself remains aloof from the conflict. Its as though he creates the world (monotheism) but then steps back & plays no part in events, so that effectively the tale plays out along dualistic lines. Hence, in effect it is a dualistic mythology. What is needed to prevent it being that is for Eru to play a much greater part, be an involved presence, but this is something Tolkien never does.

EDIT I think the one statement in the work that confirms this 'dualism' is Galadriel's claim that she & Celeborn have spent three ages 'Fighting the Long Defeat'. Existence is an eternal battle between good & evil.

Elmo

02-11-2007, 02:10 PM

Can I just point that if Eru himself is a moral character or not characters in Middle Earth believed he was a moral guide. Consider Tar-Meneldur when he receives the letter from Gil-Galad. He doesn't know what to do because whatever he does - to help Gil or not will result in death and he doesn't know how he will explain what he does to Eru.

davem

02-11-2007, 02:17 PM

Elmo

02-11-2007, 02:32 PM

I'd like to comment on that from an aetheist's perspective but this is a Middle Earth Forum... ;)

The 1,000 Reader

02-11-2007, 11:50 PM

Tar-Telperien

02-12-2007, 07:48 PM

I didn't read the thread through, but I noticed Numenor being spoken about, so I'll share my opinion on the subject.

Did anyone else think that Numenor was already on the road to doom before Sauron came there? Ar-Pharazon was ruler, the people were growing hostile to the concept of the elves being the only creatures with immortality, and Sauron was just the final piece of the puzzle that might not have even been truly required.

Yes, this is a very common reading. The people and King had to have a certain degree of folly and pride before they would bring Sauron to their land, after all. However, to some degree this way of thinking gets close to the infamous "fate vs. free will in Arda" topic...

The 1,000 Reader

02-13-2007, 02:33 AM

Yes, this is a very common reading. The people and King had to have a certain degree of folly and pride before they would bring Sauron to their land, after all. However, to some degree this way of thinking gets close to the infamous "fate vs. free will in Arda" topic...

It was their free will that made them arrogant and ignorant and thus sealed their fate?

Raynor

02-13-2007, 07:55 AM

It is worth noting that part of the blame rests with the valar for giving the numenoreans such great gifts - all the more reason for their vanity
The Downfall is partly the result of an inner weakness in Men – consequent, if you will, upon the first Fall (unrecorded in these tales), repented but not finally healed. Reward on earth is more dangerous for men than punishment! The Fall is achieved by the cunning of Sauron in exploiting this weakness. Its central theme is (inevitably, I think, in a story of Men) a Ban, or Prohibition.

Lalwendë

02-13-2007, 12:03 PM

It is worth noting that part of the blame rests with the valar for giving the numenoreans such great gifts - all the more reason for their vanity

I read that into it too. The Valar had been given the power to order things within Ea as they wished (even to the extent that it was they who dealt with Melkor, not Eru) and their wish was to 'reward' this small group of Men with Numenor and other gifts such as long life. There's a thought in my mind that they had to appeal to Eru to 'deal' with the problem as they were dealing with people not of their nature - mortals, created by Eru and 'known' to him alone, as opposed to Elves who shared something of the timeless, earth-bound nature of the Valar.

The 1,000 Reader

02-13-2007, 05:12 PM

The Valar did mess up, yes, but it seemed like by the time of Ar-Pharazon Numenor was already corrupt. I can't shake the feeling that Sauron just got himself involved in a place he didn't need to.

Tar-Telperien

02-13-2007, 07:41 PM

It was their free will that made them arrogant and ignorant and thus sealed their fate?

I was talking about the extent to which they were fated to become corrupt was probably at least somewhat determined by the gifts of the very Valar they rebelled against, as Lalwendë pointed out. In fact, Tolkien mentions as much in the letter prefaced the Second Edition of The Silmarillion: "Their long life aids their achievements in art and wisdom, but breeds a possessive attitude to these things, and desire awakens for more time for their enjoyment." The implication of this statement is that if the Númenóreans had not been given that increase in life span, they would not have pined (so much) for yet more life.

Aside from that, the Valar did a very poor job in dealing with the Númenóreans anyway, probably because they did indeed have more difficulty understanding Men than Elves. In Númenor's last years, they sent all sorts of frightening (and lethal) storms and other signs of their displeasure, which understandably scared the Númenóreans. The Númenóreans' reactions were motivated by this fear and the aggression they perceived in the acts of the Valar; their (hardly unreasonable) understanding was that the Valar must really be the cruel enemies Sauron said they were.

Not to mention the continuing coldness of the Valar toward Númenor after Tar-Palantir's repentance; this was an inexcusable act on their part. So what if most of the people did not follow in Tar-Palantir's footsteps? A sign of blessing from the Valar upon their King might have induced some of them to change their thinking. But instead they did nothing at this very crucial time in Númenor's history, whereas they had no qualms in pelting the Númenóreans with curses afterwards! Too much negative reinforcement, and no positive reinforcement whatsoever. Men react violently against that which they fear, against that which they see as a terrible obstacle that has never done them any good. It's elementary for us to understand, but for some reason the Valar never got it. And in the end, they might have fully realized their mistake, hence their appeal to Eru for help in dealing with the Númenóreans who had finally come to their shores to confront them once and for all.

The 1,000 Reader

02-13-2007, 10:12 PM

I understand that, but I still feel a sense of corruption on Numenor's part. Also, if they screwed up and turned to Eru, why did Eru screw them over more than the Valar had ever done? He sank their island and killed the majority of the people. Unless Eru's messed up, Numenor surely wasn't an innocent player.

Tar-Telperien

02-14-2007, 01:49 AM

I understand that, but I still feel a sense of corruption on Numenor's part.

You're entirely supposed to; I never contradicted this. The entire Akallabêth stresses that the turning away of the Númenóreans from the Valar was one of the prime causes of their fate.

Also, if they screwed up and turned to Eru, why did Eru screw them over more than the Valar had ever done? He sank their island and killed the majority of the people. Unless Eru's messed up, Numenor surely wasn't an innocent player.

My opinions on this were stated earlier in this thread.

littlemanpoet

02-15-2007, 08:11 PM

Firstly, you have to consider what Melkor does. Is it evil?

It depends on whether Eru is.

Melkor has all the powers of all his kindred, but instead of joining with them he seeks to follow his own path.

This is the epitome of evil, for his own path is against the will of Eru.

There is nothing to say that Eru did not decide that 'evil' things like cold or despair or sadness were to be part of the theme; look at the words when he creates the vision of the Children:

Precisely the point. Eru planned ice and snow, and Melkor could have achieved them within the will of Eru; but he achieved them according to his own will instead, which achievement can nevertheless be used as a tool in Eru's hands to become what Eru intended in the first place.

It seems that Eru knew there needed to be Darkness in order for the Light to be all that more wonderful.

Well, try to imagine Light without its opposite. Everything good thing automatically has its opposite, both in the Legendarium, and in real life. It's just the nature of reality. The good is made, and its opposite is as a rule always possible. There is no other way. It is not a necessary corollary that Eru must be the opposite as well as the original of what he has created; rather, he has created the good, and its opposite is necessarily possible for those who choose other than Eru's will. And Eru uses that opposite to achieve his will anyway.

As to the why, I think it is Melkor's independence that rankles Eru.

Tolkien's word for it is 'rebellion'.

his ongoing 'sin' then is to forget this lesson

Or perhaps it is to perversely continue in what cannot be forgotten because to repent is an unacceptable alternative.

Eru's compassion may be called a trick if you like, but it seems rather that Aulë is blinded by his remorse and determination to obey, and therefore does not see or recognize what Eru has already done, which reads more like an amazing grace than a trickster's prank. And here's as good an example as can be found of Eru revealed by Tolkien as good and not evil.

Lalwendë

02-16-2007, 09:15 AM

Well, try to imagine Light without its opposite. Everything good thing automatically has its opposite, both in the Legendarium, and in real life. It's just the nature of reality. The good is made, and its opposite is as a rule always possible. There is no other way. It is not a necessary corollary that Eru must be the opposite as well as the original of what he has created; rather, he has created the good, and its opposite is necessarily possible for those who choose other than Eru's will. And Eru uses that opposite to achieve his will anyway.

Of course there is the 'opposite', that's the way Eru makes it as it's part of his own all-encompassing, omnipotent nature. Eru is the All Father. Who makes the opposite to Light if Eru does not create it? Even if it is an absence of Light then Eru also causes the rules which allow voids and absences.

Eru planned ice and snow, and Melkor could have achieved them within the will of Eru; but he achieved them according to his own will instead, which achievement can nevertheless be used as a tool in Eru's hands to become what Eru intended in the first place.

Melkor could not have achieved them within the will of Eru unless of course his path towards Darkness was all part of Eru's will. As it was Melkor's darkness and Evil which resulted in the formation of such terrible beauties as snow and frost, mist and clouds. This of course depends upon whether you can accept that part of Eru's creation and intention was Darkness. If you cannot accept that Eru intended there to be Darkness, that Melkor stemmed from Eru himself, then there would never have been any way possible for Melkor to make these things within a 'wholly perfect' version of Eru's will. Of course, Melkor could have made them independently of Eru, but then we come back to who made Melkor again...

How Melkor makes the snow and ice and so on. This passage is where Eru shows to the Valar before creation what Ea will be like:

And Iluvatar spoke to Ulmo, and said: 'Seest thou not how here in this little realm in the Deeps of Time Melkor hath made war upon thy province? He hath bethought him of bitter cold immoderate, and yet hath not destroyed the beauty of thy fountains, nor of thy clear pools. Behold the snow, and the cunning work of frost! Melkor hath devised heats and fire without restraint, and hath not dried up thy desire nor utterly quelled the music of the sea. Behold rather the height and glory of the clouds, and the ever- changing mists; and listen to the fall of rain upon the Earth! And in these clouds thou art drawn nearer to Manwe, thy friend, whom thou lovest.'

So, from this, did Melkor merely do that which was set out for him anyway?

Following on from that in the Sil is the following interesting passage:

But even as Ulmo spoke, and while the Ainur were yet gazing upon this vision, it was taken away and hidden from their sight; and it seemed to them that in that moment they perceived a new thing, Darkness, which they had not known before except in thought. But they had become enamoured of the beauty of the vision and engrossed in the unfolding of the World which came there to being, and their minds were filled with it; for the history was incomplete and the circles of time not full-wrought when the vision was taken away. And some have said that the vision ceased ere the fulfilment of the Dominion of Men and the fading of the Firstborn; wherefore, though the Music is over all, the Valar have not seen as with sight the Later Ages or the ending of the World.

Note here how the Valar are shown Darkness. This is the first time they see it, though they have thought of it before now. If you like, this is when Eru shows them what Darkness will look like as a living thing, rather than as a concept. It has always existed, but here it is shown to them given life. Interesting that even though they see this, and they see a little (but not all) of the history of Arda into the Third Age, they do not stay Eru's hand. He doesn't give them much of a chance anyway (he's quick to get creating is ol' Eru ;)), and says "Well I'm going to make it anyway, Darkness or Not!"

Then there was unrest among the Ainur; but Iluvatar called to them, and said: 'I know the desire of your minds that what ye have seen should verily be, not only in your thought, but even as ye yourselves are, and yet other. Therefore I say: Ea! Let these things Be!

Hmmm, that also brings on another thought...there are many things within Arda that must have been created by unknown and unknowable members of the Ainur, as some stayed behind. What might these be?

Legate of Amon Lanc

02-16-2007, 01:50 PM

Since I am sort of getting lost in all these arguments, I'll just post one thing which I realized in reading Valaquenta. I think (or: I SINCERELY HOPE) it will make an end to the disputation of whether Melkor's =>evil<= deeds were planned by Eru (for him) or not.

The mightiest of those Ainur who came into the World was in his beginning Melkor; but Manwë is dearest to Ilúvatar and understands most clearly his purposes.

Manwë understands most clearly Ilúvatar's purposes. So Ilúvatar has some purposes, and whatever they are, Manwë understands them (and acts according to them) and Melkor does not (mostly). Thus, if for example Ilúvatar's purposes with Melkor were to destroy the lamps and battle with Valar, then according to what we know, actually Melkor would NOT destroy the lamps and battle with Valar (what Ilúvatar wanted) but he'd do something different (like not destroy the lamps or even help building them). Thus, in the reality, it was not Ilúvatar's will that Melkor destroys the Lamps - although, as with the snow, he could alter his primary plan and "make even greater things of it" (possibly later).

And:

Both [Aulë and Melkor] also desired to make things of their own that should be new and unthought of by others, and delighted in the praise of their skill. But Aulë remained faithful to Eru and submitted all that he did to his will.

I posted some post involving the part of creation of the Dwarves here some time ago, and as I can see, I could've saved me time by posting just this. Clear as day, in my opinion. But Aulë remained faithful to Eru and submitted all that he did to his will. Melkor did not remain faithful to Eru: not that he did remain faithful to some codex of morality or whatever, but did not remain faithful to his purpose given to him by Eru. Cf. above the example with lamps. So, even if Eru would've had evil in plan in the creation of the world, he didn't want Melkor to perform them. Which means, he possibly didn't have the evil in plan at all. When the evil came, yes, he dealt with it, after all, he was the omni-creator; and sometimes he made "even greater things" from evil that came. But he did not intend it in the first place.

Huh. And one last, general thought for this topic. I think it is important, when speaking about someone like Eru, to consider that he was "far above" and, even though just a book character, above our, human thoughts. I think I could use a parallel with the real-world theology: we also are not able to reach God in any way (if you think he is), just look around, you don't know even from what atoms your table is made from and he'd create all of this. So the only way you can reach him is not by your reasoning (humanly limited), but only if he himself wanted to present to you. Thus, we are restricted to what he could possibly have let us know from his own intent (hence the term "revelation"). Why I am telling that is, that I want to show on this that we cannot polemise what and how Eru is in "real" (whatever it might be), since you can 99% bet this does not show the truth at all. We can only rely on that how he's revealed to us: and this means, here, via Ainulindalë, Valaquenta, Silmarillion, Akallabëth etc.

Just to make some things in this topic clear.

littlemanpoet

02-16-2007, 07:46 PM

Once the story begins Eru plays no part.

This is debatable. There are numerous references in LotR to things that are "meant" to be; by whom? It is never stated baldly that it is Eru, for to do so would do violence to the story the way Tolkien intends to tell it, but the reference is there nonetheless; regardless of whether one agrees that this is Eru, the burden of proof is on those who would argue that it is not Eru.

The one time he intervenes he is a weapon of mass destruction.

To suggest that Eru is a weapon of mass destruction wielded by the Valar doesn't work, for then one is saying that the Valar control Eru, which cannot be. Thus the analogy breaks apart. Eru is more than a mere weapon. Point of fact, this is a derogatory statement that is rather offensive to the theists amongst us.

Eru is only 'necessary' to the story as an explanation of how things originated.

Only if one fails to accept that Eru can be perceived behind the scenes all over the legendarium.

In fact, [Eru] is not necessary to the story at all, & a polytheistic M-e would work just as well.

If this is the case, why does Tolkien insist on keeping Eru in the story? Why does Tolkien redact theism back into the story that has achieved a 'much higher, more mythic' atmosphere? Why is he not satisfied with that which he produced in the 1920's? If one were to posit that anything Tolkien wrote after the 1920's, is unnecessary, what does that remove? Are we sure we would want to live with such a reduction? It is a very dangerous game to play (and rather foolish, frankly), picking a particular period of an author's writing (especially an early period!), and saying, this is the real thing.

Eru is a cypher, playing the part assigned to him & then disappearing till he is needed to drive the plot forward again (though it would not take very much rewriting to get rid of him altogether)

One is left wondering if this is the desire of certain readers.

Eru is the most two dimensional character Tolkien created & the least necessary from a literary perspective.

Highly debatable again. It depends on what a reader is willing to acknowledge is Eru in action, and what is not.

Gets my vote for the most boring & gap filling character Tolkien created.

Some posters sometimes reveal more about themselves than they do about their subject. All in all, this particular post is loaded with unsubstantiated opinion that is debatable at best, uses dangerous and unwise choices in literary analysis, and lacks basis in evidence.

Raynor

02-17-2007, 01:40 AM

I find myself in agreement with lmp's post.
Once the story begins Eru plays no part.I disagree:
Yet some things there are that they cannot see, neither alone nor taking counsel together; for to none but himself has Iluvatar revealed all that he has in store, and in every age there come forth things that are new and have no foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past. Thy offer I accepted even as it was made. Dost thou not see that these things have now a life of their own, and speak with their own voices? Else they would not have flinched from thy blow, nor from any command of thy will Then Manwe sat silent, and the thought of Yavanna that she had put into his heart grew and unfolded; and it was beheld by Iluvatar. Then it seemed to Manwe that the Song rose once more about him, and he heeded now many things therein that though he had heard them he had not heeded before. And at last the Vision was renewed, but it was not now remote, for he was himself within it, and yet he saw that all was upheld by the hand of Iluvatar; and the hand entered in, and from it came forth many wonders that had until then been hidden from him in the hearts of the Ainur. He must as Author always remain 'outside' the Drama, even though that Drama depends on His design and His will for its beginning and continuance, in every detail and moment. [Gandalf] was sent by a mere prudent plan of the angelic Valar or governors; but Authority had taken up this plan and enlarged it, at the moment of its failure. 'Naked I was sent back – for a brief time, until my task is done'. Sent back by whom, and whence? Not by the 'gods' whose business is only with this embodied world and its time; for he passed 'out of thought and time'. Few others, possibly no others of [Frodo's] time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named' (as one critic has said).As lmp has mentioned, there are various refferences by the characters in the story to things that were meant to be, or inspirations (Gildor, Frodo, Gandalf, Elrond, etc).

davem

02-17-2007, 02:17 AM

This is debatable. There are numerous references in LotR to things that are "meant" to be; by whom? It is never stated baldly that it is Eru, for to do so would do violence to the story the way Tolkien intends to tell it, but the reference is there nonetheless; regardless of whether one agrees that this is Eru, the burden of proof is on those who would argue that it is not Eru.

Have to admit that those statements struck me as referring to something along the lines of 'wyrd' when I first read LotR, & that is how I tend to read them now.

To suggest that Eru is a weapon of mass destruction wielded by the Valar doesn't work, for then one is saying that the Valar control Eru, which cannot be. Thus the analogy breaks apart. Eru is more than a mere weapon. Point of fact, this is a derogatory statement that is rather offensive to the theists amongst us.

I was talking about the way his intervention comes across to the reader. As for it being 'rather offensive to theists' I would hope everyone here can distinguish between criticism of an invented character in a work of literary fiction & the Creator of the Universe - 'cos I'd be seriously worried about anyone who couldn't. Eru is a character invented by Tolkien, just like Frodo, Gollum, Wormtongue & the fox in the Shire. I will not treat him with any more 'awe' & reverence than I would treat any other character, or place him above criticism. Eru is a poorly drawn & undeveloped character who plays a minor part in the story.

Only if one fails to accept that Eru can be perceived behind the scenes all over the legendarium.

Or chooses not to

If this is the case, why does Tolkien insist on keeping Eru in the story? Why does Tolkien redact theism back into the story that has achieved a 'much higher, more mythic' atmosphere? Why is he not satisfied with that which he produced in the 1920's? If one were to posit that anything Tolkien wrote after the 1920's, is unnecessary, what does that remove? Are we sure we would want to live with such a reduction? It is a very dangerous game to play (and rather foolish, frankly), picking a particular period of an author's writing (especially an early period!), and saying, this is the real thing.

I don't think I did that at all - though I note in passing that the later works like the Athrabeth with its 'supposed' closeness to Christianity in the passing reference to Eru's incarnation is often dragged up to support the theory that the Legendarium is an 'essentially' Christian work (even though Tolkien expressed his discomfort with it as being too close to a parody of Christianity). I've stated the reason why I think Eru was kept in the story - to keep it monotheistic. It is a monotheistic universe - my gripe is that the 'God' Tolkien presents us with is a shallow, undeveloped & not very interesting character.

One is left wondering if this is the desire of certain readers.

Well? Some may do - I don't see it as any more of a problem than wishing any character in any literary work had been written out.

Highly debatable again. It depends on what a reader is willing to acknowledge is Eru in action, and what is not.

Some posters sometimes reveal more about themselves than they do about their subject. All in all, this particular post is loaded with unsubstantiated opinion that is debatable at best, uses dangerous and unwise choices in literary analysis, and lacks basis in evidence.

Well, I thought we were here to debate. I also thought it was pretty clear that I was expressing my opinion. How 'choices in literary analysis' can be ''dangerous' though, is beyond me. Its characters in a book we're discussing here.

Lalwendë

02-17-2007, 02:53 AM

Whoa! Just put the baggage down on the floor and walk away from the vehicle! ;)

This is debatable. There are numerous references in LotR to things that are "meant" to be; by whom? It is never stated baldly that it is Eru, for to do so would do violence to the story the way Tolkien intends to tell it, but the reference is there nonetheless; regardless of whether one agrees that this is Eru, the burden of proof is on those who would argue that it is not Eru.

These 'fate' references could be to just about anything because Tolkien 'never stated baldly' what was turning the wheels of his created world. If we then say "oh well it must be this" we are the ones 'doing violence' to the story as it unravels the whole complexity of reference and meta-reference and reduces the leaf mould of the mind to sterile mushroom compost. Tolkien, well versed in Literature and myth of all kinds weaves in things which could come from the Eddas, from Beowulf, from Celtic myth, from his won belief, from other fantasy....he does not wish to pin the text down to meaning one thing or have events pinned down to originating from one source. In this way he builds mystery (and a work of such complex genius none of us could ever repeat it). And to say that if we don't accept that Eru pushed Gollum into the cracks of Doom or Eru made Bilbo go off on his adventures (etc.) that we are wrong is to reduce the starnge and wonderful events of the text to having One Meaning Only and makes it just a dull old text book, one in which we have no capacity to stand back when a Hobbit falls into the cracks of Doom in awe and go ".....wow...."

To suggest that Eru is a weapon of mass destruction wielded by the Valar doesn't work, for then one is saying that the Valar control Eru, which cannot be. Thus the analogy breaks apart. Eru is more than a mere weapon. Point of fact, this is a derogatory statement that is rather offensive to the theists amongst us.

Why? Has it come to pass now that Eru=God? Where did that happen? I thought we were discussing a work of literature not a holy scripture?

Sorry I do not like the way that this is headed. If other people dissecting a literary creation causes offence it's maybe time to accept that people read books in many different ways? Point of fact for me. Eru is an oddball. He creates a world where there is evil, he creates a world knowing that its not perfect and never can be. He creates evil beings like Melkor. That's not how I see my own world (but can perfectly accept it in a literary creation). Maybe its not how Tolkien saw his own world, but nevertheless that's what's in the text. And on top of all of this, Eru stands right back and does not get involved until the Valar muck around with things that they ought not to done and Dad has to come in and sort out the kids' mess - he does it by grabbing everything and hurling into a big cosmic bin bag and then goes back to his study to resume smoking his pipe in peace.

I can't say I like Eru at all. There are some kind of rules it seems but he never tells anyone what they are. Cheers. You can fear Eru but there's nothing to love in him. The people may love Varda or Manwe or Melkor but nobody particularly loves Eru. And you've got to wonder why. Thank goodness I don't live in that world - I can do without some omnipotent creator who can squish me at any time for no discernible reason and doesn't even give me the respect due of providing me with some 'rules'.

littlemanpoet

02-17-2007, 05:18 PM

But it is also about what you call "polytheistic": there are fourteen different powers, but they all stand together. Like the colors which make a rainbow, if I am to use a metaphor.
I think this is a valuable point. Tolkien has created a polytheocracy (pardon my word construction) in which all of the major deities but one remain 'holy', or good, while just one rebels. This is in marked contrast to the many and varied polytheisms of our world's history in which there is constant jockeying for power, and frequent changes of alliance. The very stability of "sides" in Aman is notable. Where does such stability issue from? Well, it seems rather obvious from the narrative itself: Eru.

davem

02-17-2007, 05:51 PM

I think this is a valuable point. Tolkien has created a polytheocracy (pardon my word construction) in which all of the major deities but one remain 'holy', or good, while just one rebels. This is in marked contrast to the many and varied polytheisms of our world's history in which there is constant jockeying for power, and frequent changes of alliance. The very stability of "sides" in Aman is notable. Where does such stability issue from? Well, it seems rather obvious from the narrative itself: Eru.

Melkor is conflicted, the others are not. Melkor is like Feanor on the Divine level, & its no coincidence that they become foes - they are virtually mirror images of each other, & lets face it, they are the great tragic heroes of the Sil. The fate of both is self-wrought & heart-breaking. Without the two of them the story would have been boring - by which I mean if the Music had been sung according to the desire of Eru it would have been the equivalent of 'middle of the road 'pap & bored everyone to tears. Its the 'jockeying for power' that makes the myths interesting & its the rebellions of Melkor & Feanor that introduces conflict, struggle & the possibility of self sacrificing love.

How interesting do we think the story would have been if Melkor had sung what he was told? It would have produced the equivalent of 10,000 years of The Waltons.... :eek:

Raynor

02-18-2007, 03:35 AM

How interesting do we think the story would have been if Melkor had sung what he was told? It would have produced the equivalent of 10,000 years of The Waltons...I disagree. Firstly, the music Eru gave to the Ainur was itself "a mighty theme, unfolding to them things greater and more wonderful than he had yet revealed; and the glory of its beginning and the splendour of its end amazed the Ainur, so that they bowed before Iluvatar and were silent". Of the music the Ainur themselves made from this theme, it is said "never since have the Ainur made any music like to this music". Is this a trifle, a small thing, something to be disconsidered?

The Ainur are the greatest beings, in majesty and status, created by Eru. Howevr, when they beheld the Eruhini and their habitation world, "then many of the most mighty among them bent all their thought and their desire towards that place". Were the Ainur just stupid in not seeing how prosaic all this world is? And the greatest of them even? I also doubt that any of the ainur who decided to go forth had in their minds thoughts like "man, am I goona kick some behind there or what?",

Aman it is said to be as Arda Unmarred would have been. There, arts of all sorts were created freely, marvelous things. There, art would have been Art, a way for even the lesser creatures to rise above their condition and catch in their work a splinter of the wonder of creation. For don't the easterners say that creativity in humans is their divine aspect?

Is figthing the corruption of creation the only worthy challenge? How about exceeding your own limitations, with using your aptitudes and skills to their best? Doesn't human kind even nowadays prides itself with great technological, scientifical and cultural achievements? We see a perennial archetype which continues to inspire: the theme of Eru, the music of the Ainur, the Art of the elves, the art of the humans. Perhaps each and everyone thus achieved their greatest potential; perhaps some exceeded their initial condition.

There are challenges in coming and working together while still respecting and celebrating our uniquenness. To argue that the lack of corruption makes the world uninteresting is first of all a logical fallacy: we only know a corrupted world (here or in the books); to say how would a fundamentally different world would be to us is, imo, presumptuous. You can’t start with a hypothesis that is not true and then draw any supportable conclusions from it. I for one don't cherrish the dimming of one's faculty because of his/her inner corruption, or the world's. Violence is defined by Gandhi as the difference between one's actual status and one's potential. Corruption in the world increases that difference; in and of itself, it is not laudable. Countless of Einstein's, Francis's d'Assisi, Plato's and Mozart's have died horribly worthlessly due to the corruption of the world, without coming ever close to their calling and potential. Even if corruption presents a nice challenge, who is willing to celebrate their deaths and lost works? No one, I hope.

davem

02-18-2007, 04:06 AM

Maybe, & I'm sure that that's what happened with the Vanyar. However, the fate of the Noldor is more interesting, admirable, poignant & fulfilling as Art. The light grows, flourishes & dims. We are born, grow, & die. That is our tragedy, but from it comes our potential for glory as a race & more importantly as individuals.

Would Mozart's music have contained the beauty it did if it had not come out of his experience as a Man (a mortal who will die), & would it speak to us as it does if we did not share his mortality? Living forever in a nice peaceful world is a nice fantasy, but a boring reality, which would not produce 'Art' but blandness, because nothing would actually matter - in fact it probably wouldn't produce anything much, because we could do it tomorrow or the day after or the day after that. 'Corruption', death, breaking down, is another word for liberation, because it frees us from the past & liberates us to do something new. The fact that other potential Mozarts, Platos, Einsteins, have been lost inspires us to do what they might have done if they'd had the chance.

"I think," Tehanu said in her soft, strange voice, "that when I die, I can breathe back the breath that made me live. I can give back to the world all that I didn't do. All that I might have been & couldn't be. All the choices I didn't make. All the things I lost & spent & wasted. I can give them back to the world. To the lives that haven't been lived yet. That will be my gift back to the world that gave me the life I did live, the love I loved, the breath I breathed."The Other Wind....Ursula Le Guin

Lalwendë

02-18-2007, 05:55 AM

Eru himself states that Melkor and his rebellion are necessary. What he does is 'tributary' to the glory of Eru, i.e. it not only ultimately serves to pay yet more tribute to that grandeur and omnipotence but it also feeds in to that glory. It is necessary as it serves to create the circumstances under which all the created beings of Arda can work for and serve Eru, can discover and enact pity and redemption and peace and all those good things that just wouldn't happen if there was no Darkness. And it's after Melkor's rebellion that Eru creates Men - creates them with mortality, sadness and profundity inbuilt.

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.

Why do we never read anything of what happens to the Vanyar in Valinor? If it was so beautiful and perfect why didn't Tolkien write about this? Because what was happening in Middle-earth was infinitely more interesting. It was in Middle-earth that we could see pity and glory and joy, and it was there that we could see Eru's intentions best of all. Valinor is boring. Had Tolkien just written about Valinor it would have been like the kind of tedious pap you can read in the platitude columns in Reader's Digest or the People's Friend. I don't want to read about some simpering Elf Princess and her beautiful hair and her embroidery, I want to read about Frodo and Gollum and Boromir and Saruman!

Raynor

02-18-2007, 07:52 AM

However, the fate of the Noldor is more interesting, admirable, poignant & fulfilling as Art.I wouldn't say they were agents of Art. Of History, maybe - a tumultous one, one which shaped the ages to come. They produced Art directly while they were in Aman; and rarely after, mainly when they associated with Men, who "were raised to their fullest achievable stature".
Would Mozart's music have contained the beauty it did if it had not come out of his experience as a Man (a mortal who will die), & would it speak to us as it does if we did not share his mortality?I wasn't arguing that the general fate and status of Men or Elves be different. If Men are immortal, there is little to differentiate them from Elves, apart from creative powers. "Elves and Men are just different aspects of the Humane, and represent the problem of Death as seen by a finite but willing and self-conscious person". A Man Mozart in Arda Unmarred would still have the experience of mortality.
Living forever in a nice peaceful world is a nice fantasy, but a boring reality, which would not produce 'Art' but blandness, because nothing would actually matter - in fact it probably wouldn't produce anything much, because we could do it tomorrow or the day after or the day after that. 'I respectfully disagree; by large, artists produce their work because they have an inner drive, passion, sensibility, and because they want to achieve self development. I would also say that artists can be traumatised by negative experience; given an enough negative experience, a human being, almost any human being, can become inert, dead inside, unable to produce and to be beneficial to society. Arts and culture generally advance in peaceful times; in warring times, more basic needs, survival, hunger, shelter, are what occuppies the minds of most.
'Corruption', death, breaking down, is another word for liberation, because it frees us from the past & liberates us to do something new.Maybe if it wouldn happen to someone else. Corruption usually ties one in to something, not necessarily the past; death is not something peculiar to Arda Unmarred only; breaking down a liberation? Maybe; but I am not condemning a normal cycle of life, only the accelerated decay introduced by Melkor.
The fact that other potential Mozarts, Platos, Einsteins, have been lost inspires us to do what they might have done if they'd had the chance.I'll be frank, role models who actually existed do inspire me :); they could inspire me to produce art or knowledge. For those who didn't leave a single mark, I could at most make an elegy.
Eru himself states that Melkor and his rebellion are necessary.Where exactly did he say his rebellion was necessary?
It is necessary as it serves to create the circumstances under which all the created beings of Arda can work for and serve Eru, can discover and enact pity and redemption and peace and all those good things that just wouldn't happen if there was no Darkness.I disagree; if corruption can make "individuals and groups to be, by us at any rate, unredeemable", how can they still serve Eru, consciously and willingly? Esspecially if Men have only one life at their disposal for this? How many humans do actually repent? Was it at least half the humankind that thought with the host of the valar at the war of wrath? What about the elves, who, if they are severely tainted, may spend all "eternity" in the halls of Mandos, wailing, ever filling Nienna's hands? I am also not convinced that Melkor's rebellion created darkness and morality - these must have existed before his rebellion, after all, he was created from Eru's mind; I don't think he created evil, only that he "discovered" it and became its most formidable agent.
And it's after Melkor's rebellion that Eru creates Men - creates them with mortality, sadness and profundity inbuilt.I wouldn't agree; the Children were made by Eru alone "and none of the Ainur had part in their making".
If the world was 'perfect' then there would be no need for inspirational figures such as Gandhi or the Dalai Lama.I disagree; there are many obstacles to be overcome, even in a life sheltered from evil. One's potentiality, for both morality or spirituality, or for anything actually, has to be developed through effort, and a master eases the path, in almost any set of circumstances.
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.Aman was thoroughly sheltered from evil, yet the amount of Art and knowledge produced there by the noldor exceeds anything they produced in Middle Earth. And to return to my argument about corruption and Art,
And [the Valar] mourned not more for the death of the Trees than for the marring of Feanor: of the works of Melkor one of the most evil. For Feanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind, in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and in subtlety alike, of all the Children of Iluvatar, and a bright flame was in him. The works of wonder for the glory of Arda that he might otherwise have wrought only Manwe might in some measure conceive. It doesn't look like they expected Feanor to continue to make Art after he: was marred, blasphemed, killed fellow elves, and set out to war. But what they know, they are just Valar ;).
And there would be NO Tolkien! Not the same unique Tolkien. I would dare say this is the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance :). Again, I am not arguing that Arda Unmarred doesn't have morality in it, only that evil isn't one of the strongest (the strongest?) moral and physical force in it.
If you look at all the great pop and rock music it is there purely because of suffering and struggle I have started reading an interesting book, The Social Movements Reader; on its first chapter, it makes a striking statement: it quotes researchers in the field of sociology stating that people rise to challenge their condition only when they perceive the difference between their status and their potential one. As long as such a difference is not perceived, many, most, of the afro-americans, women, homosexuals, workers, or other oppresed humans, just don't do anything about it. They endure through their oppression, they assimilate their understatus. And they do this for years, decades, or centuries. Once they know that they can be better, they can improve; otherwise, they merely stagnate in their condition. It is said that it is not worth making the world perfect if it takes the tears of a baby to do that; I certainly wouldn't equate the value of various works of art coming out of knowing the consequences of deep corruption with the suffering and death of others, esspecially if among them there were artists.

The Men stagnated for the most part untill they met the ones who had higher status. They received knowledge, wisdom, and they beheld role models, which emboldended them to advance. Humans would definitely have models to emulate, in a world where cultivation of one's ability would be in hand's reach, where knowledge of past peaks still endures, undimmed maybe, in form or memory.
If it was so beautiful and perfect why didn't Tolkien write about this?Because no Vanya made it back to Middle Earth; because what Men know about Aman is pretty much what they know from the numenoreans, who in their turn know from the exiled Noldor, who, of course, wouldn't know what happened during their exile even to their kin in Aman, let alone to the Vanyar.

Lalwendë

02-18-2007, 09:04 AM

I disagree; there are many obstacles to be overcome, even in a life sheltered from evil. One's potentiality, for both morality or spirituality, or for anything actually, has to be developed through effort, and a master eases the path, in almost any set of circumstances.

What obstacles? If life was perfect there would be no obstacles.

Aman was thoroughly sheltered from evil, yet the amount of Art and knowledge produced there by the noldor exceeds anything they produced in Middle Earth.

And wasn't that Art produced via the pride of Feanor? I would also dispute that the Art made in Valinor exceeds that produced in Middle-earth. It just cannot be said to do so with any degree of certainty. Art does not bend to such rules. The only way that it could be quantitatively better would be by dint of its 'perfection' - a comparison between the Art of Tirion and the Art of Lothlorien may have us saying that in terms of perfection Tirion is superior as it is grander, more elegant etc. whereas the latter is lesser as it is not so grand, not so 'developed'. But then that is like comparing Canary Wharf with a medieval castle - the former is a pinnacle of perfection, the latter so much smaller, more insignificant, old, undeveloped, etc.

Because no Vanya made it back to Middle Earth; because what Men know about Aman is pretty much what they know from the numenoreans, who in their turn know from the exiled Noldor, who, of course, wouldn't know what happened during their exile even to their kin in Aman, let alone to the Vanyar.

I'm asking why Tolkien did not write about it, not why his characters did not. Why did Tolkien choose to write about wars, Death, torture, pain, destruction? Why didn't he simply write stories about the beauty and peace of Aman? I venture to say because there's nothing interesting in that, nothing moving. And that in itself is moving - that beauty only becomes important when reflected against the backdrop of ugliness, peace only important when contrasted with war, Life when contrasted with Death.

Rather than Men being the ones to benefit from contact with Elves, I think it is the other way around.

davem

02-18-2007, 09:20 AM

If you have mortality you will have suffering, loss, pain, anger, frustration, confusion. Removing an abstract like 'evil' & retaining mortality will solve nothing, because all the results & consequences of evil will remain in the world as a result of mortality. The Numenoreans had such an 'evil-free' existence, but the fact of Death & the desire for more life produced evil. Hence in their case evil was a consequence of their mortality, not a cause of it.

Raynor

02-18-2007, 10:00 AM

What obstacles? If life was perfect there would be no obstacles.I don't think that Arda Unmarred is equated with perfection; perhaps the timeless halls of Eru - or maybe just Eru is perfect. If I understand correctly, Arda Unmarred is Arda without the strong element of melkorism: accelerated moral and physical decay. Water would still carve out stone, the general interaction of elements would be preserved and, as far as I see, we are in agreement that good and evil predate Melkor or his rebellion, at least as moral choices. There would still be evil choices, yet evil would not have such a compelling force, tainting the body, and therefore the mind. Indeed, there are no obstacles, if we don't see them: either because we don't consider them as such, when they objectively exist, because we accept them a priori; either because, when they objectively exist, we consider them a mere challenge. The main challenge "there", as well as "here", is achieving our potential; in both cases it requires effort. Esspecially for humans, time is limited, and doing the best with it is always a challenge.
And wasn't that Art produced via the pride of Feanor? I would call this a secondary, minor, motivation, if any at all. From what I gather in the Silmarillion, he and the noldor were working out of "delight"; of himself, it is stated that he "was driven by the fire of his own heart only, working ever swiftly and alone". I interpret this as saying that it was the unique creative fire which he had, which no elf ever after had, that was driving him forward. I would dare say that a similar fire drives an artist to create.
I would also dispute that the Art made in Valinor exceeds that produced in Middle-earth. In aesthetics terms, you are probably right. However, if Art is to represent a reflection of God's creation, the inhabitants of Middle Earth had nowhere near the opportunities of time, knowledge, inspiration and guidance as the elves had in Aman, where their works and knowledge are preserved and they live near great inspirational models, the Valar and the Maiar, who by mere presence inspire and help, if not directly and through their knowledge.

Is there anything in Middle-Earth to parallel the sources of inspiration that were in Aman? For where else is it the memory of Ainulindale? What of the Silmarils or the palantiri? What even of Miriel's broideries?
By her was the craft of needles devised; and were but one fragment of the broideries of Miriel to be seen in Middle-Earth it would be held dearer than a king's realm, for the richness of her devices and the fire of their colours were as manifold and as bright as the glory of leaf and flower and wing in the fields of Yavanna. Therefore she was named Miriel Serende, the Broideress. And that in itself is moving - that beauty only becomes important when reflected against the backdrop of ugliness, peace only important when contrasted with war, Life when contrasted with Death.While for human eyes the small light of a candle is more impressive when viewed in a darker environment, it is no reason reject a more powerful light, be it from the stars, the sun, the radiance of a vala, or of the imperishable flame, at the heart of the world. Tolkien's Art attempts to reflect, how imperfectly as it was, a splinter of a more powerful light; it is a drive towards it, not a rejection of it.
Rather than Men being the ones to benefit from contact with Elves, I think it is the other way around.Why? The elves have experienced death due to violent causes long before they met the Men; they have been enslaved, tortured and peverted by Melkor, their works and houses destroyed. They lived through fear and agony and suffering. Who's to say that Andreth's words are more sad than Finrod's? Or that Frodo's more so than Galadriel's? What about the reply of the messengers of Aman to the lament of the Numenoreans?

I need to correct myself :o. I have realised there was an error at the end of my last post. The Vanyar did return to Middle Earth, at the end of the First Age, in the War of Wrath (it was Ingwe who didn't return). It is possible however that their contact with Men there was limited at best; afterwards, it is also true that the Elves were "if not commanded, sternly counselled" to return to the west. The main repository of knowledge of Aman in Middle Earth resided with the last exiles, who were, I suppose, most at contact with the Numenoreans (at least after their return to the shores of M-E). I will also mention that Silmarillion notes that the Vanyar held in their lore the response of Feanor to The prophecy of the north, so there was at least one event concerning the Vanyar that later reached M-E, after the exile of the noldor (I know, this particular situation isn't a point for my position :D).
Hence in their case evil was a consequence of their mortality, not a cause of it.I disagree; Numenor was not free from corruption, in Arda only Aman was (at best). Numenoreans were still Men, although elevated. All Men had a corrupted idea of death - on behalf of Melkor. Cf. the words of Pengolod to AElfwine:
Death is their fate, the gift of Iluvatar, which as Time wears even the Powers shall envy. But Melkor has cast his shadow upon it, and confounded it with darkness, and brought forth evil out of good, and fear out of hope.

davem

02-18-2007, 11:04 AM

I disagree; Numenor was not free from corruption, in Arda only Aman was (at best). Numenoreans were still Men, although elevated. All Men had a corrupted idea of death - on behalf of Melkor. Cf. the words of Pengolod to AElfwine:

I can't see how Men could ever have had an 'uncorrupted' idea of death. Death would always have entailed loss, grief & pain. It would always have seemed terrible. What Melkor told them simply confirmed what they felt anyway. Unless, of course, we are to believe that Aragorn's death was the way all humans should have died.

The trouble with that is that to our experience it is unreal. We don't die like that - or its the exception that proves the rule. In the documentary Tolkien in Oxford, broadcast by the BBC in 1967 Tolkien is shown reading the following passage from Simone de Beauvoir:

There is no such thing as a natural death: nothing that happens to a man is ever natural, since his presence calls the world into question. All men must die: but for every man his death is an accident and, even if he knows it and consents to it, an unjustifiable violation.

& calling that 'the keyspring to LotR'. That sense that death is an 'unjustifiable violation' is the heart of LotR & the heart of our own feeling about death. We may speculate about living in a world where death is absent, or one in which death is accepted as a matter of fact, & hardly registers & we just happily 'move on' when our time comes , but it is not our experience, & if we lived in such a world we would not be who we are, & whatever we created (assuming we created anything) would be different - as alien to us as the idea that death is nothing special.

EDIT. The problem with the idea that what is wrong is not death per se but rather our attitude to it, is that it turns the tragedy of a death like Beren's or Boromir's, or Turin & Nienor's, into a misperception - if only those close to them & we the readers could see death for what 'it really is' we wouldn't feel any more grief over what happened to them than if they had avoided being killed & gone off on holiday, or moved to another country. Death is an unjustifiable violation, it is cruel & wrong - & not just because Melkor said so.

Raynor

02-18-2007, 12:07 PM

Unless, of course, we are to believe that Aragorn's death was the way all humans should have died.Indeed it was
And the Doom of Men, that they should depart, was at first a gift of Iluvatar. It became a grief to them only because coming under the shadow of Morgoth it seemed to them that they were surrounded by a great darkness, of which they were afraid; and some grew wilful and proud and would not yield, until life was reft from them. We who bear the ever-mounting burden of the years do not clearly understand this; but if that grief has returned to trouble you, as you say, then we fear that the Shadow arises once more and grows again in your hearts. But Beor at the last had relinquished his life willingly and passed in peace; and the Eldar wondered much at the strange fate of Men, for in all their lore there was no account of it, and its end was hidden from them. We may speculate about living in a world where death is absent, or one in which death is accepted as a matter of fact, & hardly registers & we just happily 'move on' when our time comes , but it is not our experience, & if we lived in such a world we would not be who we are, & whatever we created (assuming we created anything) would be different - as alien to us as the idea that death is nothing special.We need not speculate; there are (or at least have been) societies which accepted death as natural, as a stage of life; some even embraced it. Of my ancestors, the dacians, it is said that they welcomed death, so as they may meet Zamolxe, their god.

There are some strands of hinduism and Zen which preach that God may be met in the last moment of life - if God was the center of one's preocupation. There are monks who center their life's efforts on this ultimate trial; at least for them, death is not a punishment, but the culmination of their strivings.

Many martyrs, from almost every country, have taken actions which meant their certain death, yet they undertook them because they knew this could bring their cause closer to reality, and because of them people in many places enjoy more rights than otherwise (for the record, I don't agree with suicide bombings :D). For themselves, death was an unique opportunity to make a difference; for those who benefited from it, it was a sacrifice revered.
The problem with the idea that what is wrong is not death per se but rather our attitude to it, is that it turns the tragedy of a death like Beren's or Boromir's, or Turin & Nienor's, into a misperception - if only those close to them & we the readers could see death for what 'it really is' we wouldn't feel any more grief over what happened to them than if they had avoided being killed & gone off on holiday, or moved to another country.At least in Tolkien's world, death "as it should be seen" is not something banal; it doesn't change how it affects the person and one's world, but acknowledges that this end is also a begining, or a return of you will -a return which is a bounty that even the Powers and the Immortals envy. They envy it twice, because that fea leaves this world, and joins another one, most likely - Eru's.

The level of communion between a baby and his mother is probably unparalleled anywhere. Although birth itself brings physical pain to both of them, although at least the baby was immensely better off living in his mother womb, the potentialities awaiting after his birth are immense - and even more so in Arda Unmarred. I would argue that the same potentialiaties would await a Men after his second severance - this time not from the womb, but from the hroa.

Ultimate trust, faith, in Eru is required from his Children in both life and death. Trust that "of all His designs the issue must be for His Children's joy".

davem

02-18-2007, 12:25 PM

We need not speculate; there are (or at least have been) societies which accepted death as natural, as a stage of life; some even embraced it. Of my ancestors, the dacians, it is said that they welcomed death, so as they may meet Zamolxe, their god.

There are some strands of hinduism and Zen which preach that God may be met in the last moment of life - if God was the center of one's preocupation. There are monks who center their life's efforts on this ultimate trial; at least for them, death is not a punishment, but the culmination of their strivings.

Fine - but most of us are not in that position, & we are the very ones Tolkien's work speaks to. We are not monks or nuns, we are ordinary 'Hobbits' & death is not a 'culmination' of our strivings. Of course death is 'natural', but so are man eating sharks, MRSA, AIDS, hurricanes & a whole load of other nasties.

Many martyrs, from almost every country, have taken actions which meant their certain death, yet they undertook them because they knew this could bring their cause closer to reality, and because of them people in many places enjoy more rights than otherwise (for the record, I don't agree with suicide bombings :D). For themselves, death was an unique opportunity to make a difference; for those who benefited from it, it was a sacrifice revered.

But this is effectively treating life, not death, with contempt - as a means to an end. That is not 'accepting death' at all, it is denying it its right & proper 'respect'.

At least in Tolkien's world, death "as it should be seen" is not something banal; it doesn't change how it affects the person and one's world, but acknowledges that this end is also a begining, or a return of you will -a return which is a bounty that even the Powers and the Immortals envy. They envy it twice, because that fea leaves this world, and joins another one, most likely - Eru's.

Then why are the deaths I mentioned seen (& more importantly felt) as tragedies? Tolkien never implies that those who felt grief at the passing of those individuals were delusional, or 'sinful' (which would be the case if they were merely believing Melkor's lies). Those deaths are presented & perceived as wrong - & more importantly so is Aragorn's by Arwen - & she knows the theory - 'Death is the Gift of Eru to Men' 'Its only a transition' etc, etc. Yet when it comes to it she also knows it is not 'good', pleasant or right - its the opposite in fact.

Ultimate trust, faith, in Eru is required from his Children in both life and death. Trust that "of all His designs the issue must be for His Children's joy".

And the evidence for that trust? Eru does not one single thing to justify it.

littlemanpoet

02-18-2007, 01:00 PM

The reason the Akallabeth seems like an 'attrocity' is that what happens is essentially unfair because Eru is too powerful & its not a fair fight. He shouldn't have done what he did. The Numenoreans basically didn't want to die (who does?) & that's what drove them. If the Fall of Numenor had been a natural disaster it would have been awe-inspiring & humbling - man brought down by impersonal nature. As it is an overwhelmingly powerful being obliterates them with malice aforethought & in the end it seems vindictive because for all their 'power' they are weak mortals with no chance. One cannot rationalise the behaviour of Eru & make it equal 'good'. Once more we come back to Eru as a two dimensional 'Old Nobodaddy'.Derogations aside, the essential complaint here is that Eru should not have punished the Numenoreans for disobeying his viceroys because it wasn't a fair fight.

Clarity first: Tolkien is the one who describes Eru's action as punishment for disobedience, which is rebellion.

Second: to accuse Eru of 'not being fair' because he is too powerful is like saying that police are not being fair when they arrest someone who has committed a crime because they have guns and the criminal only has a knife.

Further, to assert that it would have been better if impersonal nature had taken out the Numenoreans instead of Eru, is like saying that it would be better if the knife wielding criminal would take a wrong turn in his escape such that he winds up in a prison cell, than that police should arrest him and bring him in.

The point: those in authority have the right to use power to enforce laws. This is true regardless of whether one is talking about local police, or about a transcendant deity.

The issue of Eru's so-called "boring" role in Tolkien's legendarium has already been addressed.

Raynor

02-18-2007, 01:09 PM

Fine - but most of us are not in that position, & we are the very ones Tolkien's work speaks to. We are not monks or nuns, we are ordinary 'Hobbits' & death is not a 'culmination' of our strivings. I am not sure what you recommend to those who are theists; that they should demonise death?
But this is effectively treating life, not death, with contempt - as a means to an end. That is not 'accepting death' at all, it is denying it its right & proper 'respect'.It depends; from a theological point of view, if that sacrifice was done selflessly, having a spiritual good in sight, if the cause itself is compatible with religious percepts, then it is not condemnable. "And he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it" Matthew 10.39. Various monks in Vietnam burned themselves to death to protest oppression in their country. Selfless sacrifice for the sake of others is the hallmark of great spirits everywhere, be they Christ, Gandhi, or Bahaullah.
Then why are the deaths I mentioned seen (& more importantly felt) as tragedies? Tolkien never implies that those who felt grief at the passing of those individuals were delusional, or 'sinful' (which would be the case if they were merely believing Melkor's lies). Those deaths are presented & perceived as wrong - & more importantly so is Aragorn's by Arwen - & she knows the theory - 'Death is the Gift of Eru to Men' 'Its only a transition' etc, etc. Yet when it comes to it she also knows it is not 'good', pleasant or right - its the opposite in fact.Of the elves, it is said in the Atrabeth:
By the holiness of good men - their direct attachment to Eru, before and above all Eru's works - the Elves may be delivered from the last of their griefs: sadness; the sadness that must come even from the unselfish love of anything less than Eru.) I would dare say even for Men attachment to anything other than Eru will produce sadness - and grief and loss. As in wordly religions, suffering comes from a wrong attitude - this time, the cause being the object of attachment. Perhaps a certain amount of such an error is pardonable, or even ok; but it would stop being so, when the grief becomes a cause to turn against the Creator.
And the evidence for that trust? Eru does not one single thing to justify it.I think I have previously presented various instances in which Eru is an active participant in Ea, albeit not a completely direct actor. His actions prove his love of the Eruhini. Besides them, Tolkien speculates in the Letters that Aragorn in his reign would reinstitute the belief in Eru and his worship (although no temples...)
Edit:
a belief that would provide ways to reconnect - and I believe that it will have beneficial effects on those who will follow it (at least the contrary is true, those who fall further into evil have their lives shortened by various cute means). The belief "system" itself, and the effects I presume it has, are further "proofs". Of course, one has to be open to them.

Lalwendë

02-18-2007, 02:21 PM

I don't think that Arda Unmarred is equated with perfection; perhaps the timeless halls of Eru - or maybe just Eru is perfect. If I understand correctly, Arda Unmarred is Arda without the strong element of melkorism: accelerated moral and physical decay. Water would still carve out stone, the general interaction of elements would be preserved and, as far as I see, we are in agreement that good and evil predate Melkor or his rebellion, at least as moral choices. There would still be evil choices, yet evil would not have such a compelling force, tainting the body, and therefore the mind. Indeed, there are no obstacles, if we don't see them: either because we don't consider them as such, when they objectively exist, because we accept them a priori; either because, when they objectively exist, we consider them a mere challenge. The main challenge "there", as well as "here", is achieving our potential; in both cases it requires effort. Esspecially for humans, time is limited, and doing the best with it is always a challenge.

Which would mean that evil is indeed inbuilt by Eru and is not a result of Melkor's rebellion! In fact Melkor would not be necessary whatsoever as evil would still be manifest in Arda simply by dint of it being created by Eru.

I would call this a secondary, minor, motivation, if any at all. From what I gather in the Silmarillion, he and the noldor were working out of "delight"; of himself, it is stated that he "was driven by the fire of his own heart only, working ever swiftly and alone". I interpret this as saying that it was the unique creative fire which he had, which no elf ever after had, that was driving him forward. I would dare say that a similar fire drives an artist to create.

I interpret it as Pride. He is driven by his own desire. And this bears a remarkable similarity to the actions of Melkor when he enters Arda with his kin - they work together whereas he works alone, driven by his own fire. We also see the same with the creation of the Rings - Sauron works alone to create the One, as does Celebrimbor to create the Three - and Tolkien does make it seem as though the creation even of these was highly dangerous (and led to naval-gazing, pickled creations such as Lothlorien which may be beautiful but typify the stagnation of the Elves). Tolkien seems to suggest that certainly for Valar and Elves, working alone often leads to bad results; if not this then it is at least not the correct way to go about thins, which seems to be to share and to work together.

if Art is to represent a reflection of God's creation,

That depends if it is. For the majority it is not. It may represent things which others take to be creations of God, but even then the Artist probably does not have that in mind. Even some of the creators of the greatest religious art will have had in mind not God but Aesthetics: colour, shape, language, sound. Look at the care Tolkien took in creating his own work, writing and re-writing to better secure the meaning of a single created word - his work is 99% aesthetics, even more maybe, as any notions of 'God' are so well woven in as to keep all his readers arguing yay or nay for as long as the books will exist.

Why? The elves have experienced death due to violent causes long before they met the Men; they have been enslaved, tortured and peverted by Melkor, their works and houses destroyed.

Men act as an inspiration to the Elves because what the Elves (and the Ainur) experience is not Death. They are not Mortal. They may lose a body but they will get another one. They are tied to the earth but Men are not. Elves know where they are going, Men never will. They may go back to be with Eru, they may not. There are possibilities and mysteries that the Elves cannot comprehend or understand. This is profound and sad, and the sense of urgency, of having just One Chance to get it right, that drives mortals is beyond the understanding of Elves.

davem

02-18-2007, 03:00 PM

Derogations aside, the essential complaint here is that Eru should not have punished the Numenoreans for disobeying his viceroys because it wasn't a fair fight.

Clarity first: Tolkien is the one who describes Eru's action as punishment for disobedience, which is rebellion.

Which it was. But that's not the issue.

Second: to accuse Eru of 'not being fair' because he is too powerful is like saying that police are not being fair when they arrest someone who has committed a crime because they have guns and the criminal only has a knife.

No - its like saying the Police are not being 'fair' or reasonable if they decide to deal with the knife-wielding criminal by employing tactical nukes to take out half the State the criminal is in. Its to accuse the Police of over-reaction & psychopathic tendencies

Further, to assert that it would have been better if impersonal nature had taken out the Numenoreans instead of Eru, is like saying that it would be better if the knife wielding criminal would take a wrong turn in his escape such that he winds up in a prison cell, than that police should arrest him and bring him in.

Poetic justice. However, I don't think your analogy is ideal. If impersonal nature (the 'Dragon') had brought down the Numenoreans it would have brought home Man's insignificance & his ultimate tragedy far more profoundly than Eru's hissy fit.

The point: those in authority have the right to use power to enforce laws. This is true regardless of whether one is talking about local police, or about a transcendant deity.

The issue of Eru's so-called "boring" role in Tolkien's legendarium has already been addressed.

'With great power comes great responsibility' as Uncle Ben said. Eru psychopathically over-reacts in the case of Numenor, because while the Numenoreans may have disobeyed the Valar they were no threat. It would have been better if the cause had been a natural cataclysm, because Eru doesn't come off well as a character in this incident. In short, I still feel it was a mistake on Tolkien's part to have Eru do something so terrible - we can never think of Eru as a loving creator again without also having to acknowledge he is also a monster. The only acceptable interpretation is that it was a natural cataclysm which post-deluvian inhabitants of M-e wrongly attributed to Eru.

And one suspects it would not have been necessary to include the event at all in the final redaction of the Legendarium, in which Tolkien attempted to make Arda conform to 'current' scientific thinking. The Sun & stars were to pre-exist the earth, which would inevitably have had to be spherical from the start - hence, no need for a re-shaping of the world, so no requirement for Eru to wreak such devastation.

Raynor

02-19-2007, 02:40 AM

Which would mean that evil is indeed inbuilt by Eru and is not a result of Melkor's rebellion! In fact Melkor would not be necessary whatsoever as evil would still be manifest in Arda simply by dint of it being created by Eru.While I believe that the moral possibility of evil is necessary in order to have true free will, Melkor is not necessary as an agent of evil. With free will, there will be plenty of agents around. However, him not present, or at least he not corrupted, would mean that the greatest power that ever entered Ea wholly will not bent almost each and every spiritual and physical entity towards evil. Most such encounters are beyond one's power to resist, as Tolkien commented for example on Frodo's struggle against the corruption of the ring; that sort of thing you just can't fight ["There exists the possibility of being placed in positions beyond one's power."] On the other hand, there is also the general case of Gollum, who doesn't want the good path, no matter the circumstances [I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'".]. This later case would still appear in Arda Unmarred, and rightly so, I almost dare say; for this is indeed the test of one's faith and standing; Aule's initial dwarves would have been the most marvelous stones in the world, if it weren't for Eru breathing true life and sentience on them.
I interpret it as Pride. He is driven by his own desire. I think you are playing with words here. There is difference between pride, and desire and gift; his special gifts are specifically stated, he was naturally gifted. I doubt that anyone, no matter his level of motivation, could have achieved what he did, Artistically speaking. In Ea, the fire of one's spirit is a real spiritual trait, not just a figurative manner of speech; esspecially with elves, this was consuming their body, for one thing. I would very much link this fire to the imperishable flame, the creative aspect of Eru, or the living essence of creation if you will. Pride is something more.... wordly; anyone can have it. I would say the positive aspect of pride is nobility, acknowledgment of one's special connection with the creator, prohibiting thus one from falling; the negative, much more common, is reffering ourselves not to the creator, but to others, in which case.... bring on the fight, competition, envy, superiority, etc. Feanor enjoyed both the fire in its creative aspect, and the pride, which brought about the downfall, not his Art.
That depends if it is. For the majority it is not.Then again, if we talk about the elves, one of their most important qualities concern sub-creation, the Art as defined previously. This type of Art, and these sub-creative qualities, have the most fertile ground on Valinor, from most, if not all, points of view. The inhabitants of M-E enjoy sub-creativeness too, but how much time do they have to develop it, what with all the wars, departing of the most gifted, the elves, and lack of continuity of culture, due to social decay or social extinsion.
This is profound and sad, and the sense of urgency, of having just One Chance to get it right, that drives mortals is beyond the understanding of Elves.I don't deny that Men represent a full half (if not more) of the problem of Death, treated by Tolkien in his work. It should also be noted that Men more often that not deserve to be looked upon not with admiration, but with sadness; they do not make the most of it. They are too caught up, for better or for worst, most of the times for the worst - the grip of Melkor is too strong on them.
Yet the Elves believe that Men are often a grief to Manwe, who knows most of the mind of Iluvatar; for it seems to the Elves that Men resemble Melkor most of all the Ainur, although he has ever feared and hated them, even those that served him.True enough, Eru also said that "these too in their time shall find that all that they do redounds at the end only to the glory of my work"; yet Tolkien commented:
Their 'damnability' [of those who persist in wickedness] is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge. No - its like saying the Police are not being 'fair' or reasonable if they decide to deal with the knife-wielding criminal by employing tactical nukes to take out half the State the criminal is in.I disagree; the numenoreans were not wielding a knife, they had "the greatest of all armadas"; they were able to wreak havoc in Valinor and they subjugated a good part of Middle Earth, enslaving, torturing and sacrificing people to Melkor. Maybe they were worst under Sauron's corruption than Men were under Melkor's.
If impersonal nature (the 'Dragon') had brought down the Numenoreans it would have brought home Man's insignificance & his ultimate tragedy far more profoundly than Eru's hissy fit.I doubt that for such a profoundly corrupted people this dragon would have been more than an accident - if it lacked conscious will behind it. They would have gone at it again, while continuing to oppress the Children of Eru in the name of Melkor.
Eru psychopathically over-reacts in the case of Numenor, because while the Numenoreans may have disobeyed the Valar they were no threat.To disprove with quote:
Faced by this rebellion, of appalling folly and blasphemy, and also real peril (since the Numenoreans directed by Sauron could have wrought ruin in Valinor itself) the Valar lay down their delegated power and appeal to God, and receive the power and permission to deal with the situation; the old world is broken and changed. And one suspects it would not have been necessary to include the event at all in the final redaction of the Legendarium, in which Tolkien attempted to make Arda conform to 'current' scientific thinking. The Sun & stars were to pre-exist the earth, which would inevitably have had to be spherical from the start - hence, no need for a re-shaping of the world, so no requirement for Eru to wreak such devastation.I doubt that the changing of the world was the main reason for the Akallabeth. I actually have serious problems picturing Arda flat, what with the skies and what not (was all Ea a tube with Arda at the bottom? Was it a sphere with Arda on the inner surface? Was it an ever widening cylinder, with Arda at its "lowest", smallest circumference? Someone help me out :D.)

davem

02-19-2007, 12:55 PM

I think we'd have to question how 'helpless' the Valar were in the face of the Numenoreans. Such devastation as Tolkien posits could have been avoided by striking while the fleet was at sea, & I'm sure Ulmo could have done serious damage. Tolkien's statement in the letter strikes me as one of the infamous 'reflective glosses'. The problem was bringing about a change in the shape of the World & removing the Undying Lands from the world. This required a divine intervention of some kind. However, the form & nature of that intervention is the issue, & what it says about Eru's nature. I still say he doesn't come off well.

Raynor

02-19-2007, 01:14 PM

Such devastation as Tolkien posits could have been avoided by striking while the fleet was at sea, & I'm sure Ulmo could have done serious damage.Everyone, including Ar-Pharazon, was not sure of the outcome, until they reached the Undying Lands. I would say the good guys were still hoping for a good turn of events at the last moment.
But the fleets of Ar-Pharazon came up out of the deeps of the sea and encompassed Avallone and all the isle of Eressea, and the Eldar mourned, for the light of the setting sun was cut off by the cloud of the Numenoreans. And at last Ar-Pharazon came even to Aman, the Blessed Realm, and the coasts of Valinor; and still all was silent, and doom hung by a thread. For Ar-Pharazon wavered at the end, and almost he turned back. His heart misgave him when he looked upon the soundless shores and saw Taniquetil shining, whiter than snow, colder than death, silent, immutable, terrible as the shadow of the light of Iluvatar. A beautiful passage...

Manwe only called upon Eru after the numenoreans camped "in might" about Tuna, where from all the Eldar have fled...

Child of the 7th Age

02-19-2007, 03:40 PM

Such devastation as Tolkien posits could have been avoided by striking while the fleet was at sea, & I'm sure Ulmo could have done serious damage.

But why do this?

At the heart of the tale of Numenor lies a myth and a dream....Tolkien's dream of the great wave and the myth of Atlantis and the subsequent breaking of the world. If that dream element is removed and it becomes merely a tale of the sinking of the fleet by Ulmo, the whole point and reason for the story would, in my opinion, be diminished. In the Letters, Tolkien is clear that this dream and myth is what impelled him to spell out the sinking of Numenor on paper. In our desire to substitute a "just" ending to tidy up Eru's character, we would be guilty of removing the core element of faerie.

As far as I am concerned Eru is Eru and can not be critiqued (or defended) on the basis of whether or not he lives up to our modern expectations of justice or the nature of a just deity. Eru is not identical with God in our "real" world, especially not in terms of his relations with humans. This is true whether we consider the definition of God that is proposed by "religious" groups or those who question the "value" of religion. I think Tolkien would have agreed with this distinction. He repeatedly stated that he was investigating a world where the deity was distant and hidden from view. As Shippey notes, Tolkien wanted to see how men would react when faced with such a stark canvas: what impetus to do good remained to them. This is a pre-revelation world. There may have been a plan hidden in the music that included the element of revelation. Finrod and Andreth's conversation does imply this, and I can not dismiss it lightly. Still, at this point in time--in the first through the fourth age--that plan of revelation, even if it existed, was not known to Men or, by implication, to the readers of the story.

Since the Creator of Arda is so unknown and distant to men, yet also so powerful and all-knowing in the grander scheme of things, how could any man "justly" judge their god in terms of his actions? One thing is clear in Middle-earth: Eru is greater than any other being in or outside Arda and knows things no one else does. Essentially, he has no peers: men lack the wider understanding of the purpose of creation that would allow them to make a reasonable and just verdict on something as cosmic as the breaking of the earth. Yet, without peers, there can be no "just" judgment of Eru, whether we are talking about characters in the story or our own assessment. We may not like the playing field that Tolkien set up. But I see no indication that Tolkien had any doubts that Eru was the chief "good guy", despite the fact that he was so distant.

On a personal level, we are obviously free to question anything in the story. In our own minds, we can do a Milton and create a very attractive, beguiling, creative force of evil. We can turn Morgoth into the good guy or Eru into a destructive, evil force. But I don't see that as compatible with the mindset of Tolkien. If the author's intentions matter, then we have to accept his basic terms. If not....if the reader has complete freedom--, then we can dismiss the basic assumptions Tolkien has woven into the tale. So I guess we get back to canon again....just how much freedom the reader has versus the author. I'm uncomfortable with judging or defending Eru in human terms because he is not human. I also feel uncomfortable interjecting such a "judgment" into the heart of a myth. At the heart of myth or faerie always lies a mystery, something that goes beyond mankind's ability to comprehend. Human judgments destroy part of that mystery. If Tolkien's tales are strictly history, then we can judge but if part of the tale is actual myth, then we are in a different league. For all these reasons, I don't see Eru as a minor, irritable character but rather the core mystery at the heart of Tolkien's legendarium, essentially distant and unable to be comprehended in strictly human terms.

davem

02-19-2007, 04:47 PM

Yet there is a problem with simply sticking a 'dream' into the heart of a story - & that is integration. The dream has to be integrated into the story in a convincing way. Any character from the story who is given a role in the dream section is going to have to act 'in character' or the dream will not be properly integrated & stick out like a sore thumb. So we're left with the question of how Eru will be percieved by the reader, & how this one act will impact on the reader's understanding of & feelings about Eru. Put Numenor on one side & what do we have of Eru in the Legendarium?

We have a Creator, who is basically distant, detatched & seemingly unconcerned for the most part, in the First & Second Ages, & who is (possibly) a behind the scenes mover of certain events at the end of the Third. And then there's Numenor.

Eru intevenes into the world in a major way for the only time - & he virtually blows it apart! Hundreds of thousands of people die & a shockwave, both literal & metaphorical, ripples out across time & space & our perception of Eru is transformed. The effect is devastating, & it seems to me that it is Numenor which forces Tolkien into writing the Athrabeth & introducing the idea that Eru will enter the world in order to heal it (the echoes of Jung's Answer to Job are possibly worth considering seriously). It is Eru who has to be 'redeemed' for the attrocity he has committed, because he is ultimately responsible &, after Numenor, cannot sit back at a distance & watch - he has entered into his world & traumatised its inhabitants. He cannot leave it again. Once he acts within the world he is committed to play a personal role, & must enter into it in order to suffer along with it.

Hence, I would argue that far from the Athrabeth being Tolkien's attempt to introduce an echo of 'Christianity' into his secondary world to make it conform more strongly to his faith, he is actually left with no option but to bring him in fully, & make him a full part of the creation. Tolkien's comment that 'already it is too close to a parody of Christianity' shows his discomfort with the idea of Eru incarnating into M-e, but equally it shows he was stuck - either no intervention at all, or a full participation.

In other words, Eru can either be a 'mystery' - ie he can remain outside the world altogether, & not intervene to destroy Numenor - or he must lose his mystery & become an active participant - & Tolkien must choose. For Eru to retain his mystery he must not intervene. For him to intervene he must sacrifice his mystery. What he cannot do, is pop in, trash the place & then go away again & pretend nothing happened. Once he enters in he has to be explained - & so he must either explain himself, or explanations will be invented & foisted upon him. He will be 'judged' for his actions because such actions have to be explained. If you come home tonight & find a big hole where your house is you will want an explanation - in fact you will not be able to rest until you get one - & if no-one offers you one you will invent one based on whatever evidence you have.

The 'basic assumptions' Tolkien has woven into the tale are neither here nor there. Tolkien knew (consciously or otherwise) that Eru's intervention into his creation & his destruction of Numenor changed Eru, & required an explanation & an account to be given by Eru himself. Numenor requires Eru's incarnation into Arda - however much that may seem like a 'parody' of Christianity to Tolkien himself - he (both Eru & Tolkien himself) has backed himself into a corner. Either no destruction of Numenor or full participation in the world he has created.

littlemanpoet

02-19-2007, 07:09 PM

Is M-e monotheistic or polytheistic? It can't be both. the simple answer is that it is monotheistic - except Eru doesn't do very much after Ainulindule, & the world is effectively ruled by the Valar. So for 99% of the Sil we have a polytheistic world.Yes, M-E is monotheistic. But it is incorrect that Eru "doesn't do very much after Ainulindale". A transcendant deity, by definition, upholds the entirety of the creation 'It' has made; keeps it running, as it were. I have already addressed the issue of "polytheistic" by pointing out how this polytheocracy is unlike the typical ancient mythological polytheocracies.

Even in the destruction of Numenor he is not necessary - the Valar could have destroyed the Numenorean fleet.One would expect a good reader, having had this insight, to ask the next obvious question: "Then why does Tolkien have Eru there at all?" If Tolkien had no reason, then he cannot have been much of a writer. Since we do not accept such a conclusion, the question deserves an answer. So, "What, in Tolkien's legendarium, is Eru there for?" Why does Eru do the deed when the Valar could have done it (if they could have)? The key is in that the Valar lay down their authority. Why do they do this? Because the violators of the Ban are the Second Children of Iluvatar. In other words, the Valar recognize and acknowledge that they do not have final authority regarding the Second Children of Iluvatar breaking the Ban. Thus they must lay down their authority.

In short, we don't need Eru as part of the story.On the contrary. We do very much need Eru as part of the story, precisely because he has final authority over the Children of Iluvatar. The Children of Iluvatar are themselves, as a matter of fact, proof of the fundamental necessity of Eru to the plot of the entire legendarium. They are called by his own name.

Eru is a character who Tolkien attempts to make use of, & he is never more than a plot device. He can't be used without devastating effect, so he is hardly used at all & when he is used he replaces the Valar.No. Quite simply, no. This misunderstands the nature of Eru. Eru is a constant part of the entire legendarium, behind the scenes (most of the time). If there were no transcendant deity, the entire legendarium would not adhere the way it does. This is fundamental.

What he does display is pride, lack of compassion & brute force. If this is the extent of one's understanding of Eru as the character functions in the legendarium, then this character is fundamentally misunderstood.

Raynor

02-20-2007, 12:59 AM

Numenor requires Eru's incarnation into ArdaI think you are misreading the Atrabeth; Eru's incarnation is required so as to finnally remove all traces of Melkor's marring.
Eru intevenes into the world in a major way for the only time What about the coming of the Children? Is that a lesser even on the grand scheme of things than the shaping of a planet, which would be meaningless without them?
Tolkien's comment that 'already it is too close to a parody of Christianity' shows his discomfort with the idea of Eru incarnating into M-eI disagree. I believe it shows his discomfort with the fact that his story would explicitly contain the Christian religion, which he considered, in Letter #131, fatal to a story - a recurrent idea in the letters.
In other words, Eru can either be a 'mystery' - ie he can remain outside the world altogetherHe doesn't remain outside altogether. I would like to invite you to review the refferences I gave in post #189 (http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=510073&postcount=189), which show Eru's continuous participation in the story. He is not present as a person, but through his deeds and interventions.

davem

02-20-2007, 02:48 AM

We have to distinguish between the reason for having an 'Eru' - to make the world monotheistic & provide an account of Arda'a origin - & Eru as a character. If we take the original Silmarillion (which was effectively limited to the First Age) Eru is not a 'player' - he lights the blue touch paper & retires to watch the fireworks. Bringing him into the story as an active participant as in Numenor makes him a character in the story. Creating the Children ws an act that happened 'in Eternity', before time, & is part of the role he plays as creative force. His only real intervention into the world is in Numenor, & that's the problem, because argue & justify it as you will, the first time anyone apart from the Ainur encounters Eru they meet something so overwhelmingly terrifying as to make them feel neither love nor respect for him, but simple terror.

This is not a question of whether a single omnipotent deity is necessary to the plot, but the kind of deity that is. And Eru is not a transcendent mystery, nor is he a loving compassionate Father - he is a petulant, angry Artist, who will smash & kill what 'offends' him.

I can't accept the point that the Valar lay down their authority because the Children are involved - that didn't stop them going in at the end of the First Age & stomping all over the Children who had gone over to Melkor.

Ultimately the Valar provoked the Numenorean revolt - they 'rewarded' the faithful Edain with longer life but not with immortality. What message does that send out? More life is a good thing, postponing death is a good thing, not dying when you were 'intended' is a good thing. And what justification did the Numenoreans use when they defied the Valar - all of the above.

Eru's incarnation is required so as to finally remove all traces of Melkor's marring...
I believe it shows his discomfort with the fact that his story would explicitly contain the Christian religion, which he considered, in Letter #131, fatal to a story - a recurrent idea in the letters.

Which is Tolkien's choice - Tolkien decides that it is the 'only way'. And the point is this 'only way' introduces something 'fatal' into the Legendarium. Hence, for Tolkien to make such a 'fatal' addition he must have been driven by an overwhelming & unavoidable necessity. And that necessity has nothing to do with the 'fact' that Eru's entry into Arda is the 'only way' to remove the traces of Melkor from the stuff of Arda - Tolkien could equally well have decided that the 'only way' for all trace of Melkor to be removed was for all the Dwarves to simultaneously shave off their beards, or for all the Elves to juggle geese for 2 hours straight on the first Thursday in December.

In other words, Tolkien could have decided that anything at all could have 'purified' Arda, but he chose the one thing which he considered 'fatal' to any invented myth - the introduction of Primary World religion (specifically the Christian religion) ...

or did he?

As I stated, I don't think that we are dealing here with the introduction of Christianity into the Legendarium, & I don't believe that the justification given in the Athrabeth is the whole story. The incarnation of Eru in the Athrabeth is necessary in order to redeem Eru, not to redeem the world. Arda was not created perfect & then subject to a Fall - it was (as Tolkien stated) created already Fallen - by Eru's choice (in that he chose to create the world with Melkor's corruption inherent in it & further to allow Melkor to enter into it & do pretty much as he wished - there is no 'ideal' state for Arda to return to - Arda cannot be returned to an 'Edenic' state, because in Arda there was never an Eden. Men cannot be returned to their 'original, unfalllen' state, because they were never actually unfallen & never dwelt in an unfallen world.

Raynor

02-20-2007, 03:29 AM

If we take the original Silmarillion (which was effectively limited to the First Age) Eru is not a 'player'
...
His only real intervention into the world is in NumenorI would call this the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance; even if most of his actions are invisible to recorded history, the previous quotes I gave, of which I have the nagging feeling you continue to ignore, show that he is not passive at all.
Creating the Children ws an act that happened 'in Eternity', before time,Actually, if the Eruhini were created before time, they would be Ainur. They aren't.
I can't accept the point that the Valar lay down their authority because the Children are involved - that didn't stop them going in at the end of the First Age & stomping all over the Children who had gone over to Melkor.Considering that
[Melkor] knew that Manwe was bound by the commands and injunctions of Eru, and would do this or abstain from that in accordance with them, always, even knowing that Melkor would break them as it suited his purpose. the designs of Eru ... governed all the operations of the faithful Valar
we can only surmise that even this was a result from a direct and current command [- or a past and indirect one.].
More life is a good thing, postponing death is a good thing, not dying when you were 'intended' is a good thing. Acccording to the Atrabeth, all these were good before all Men started worshipping Melkor. After that, their nature became tainted.
Which is Tolkien's choice - Tolkien decides that it is the 'only way'. Yes, because Melkor was the greatest of all the Ainur; his might surpassed them, and was second to Eru only; this might became the corrupting power in the creation, which cannot be erased save by Eru. The fall of the most gifted is a recurrent motive: Melkor, Feanor, the Numenoreans.
there is no 'ideal' state for Arda to return to - Arda cannot be returned to an 'Edenic' state, because in Arda there was never an Eden.There was a specific moment in time when the marring moved from a conceptual and moral level to a physical one - the coming of Melkor to Arda at the building of Utumno
And though the Valar knew naught of it as yet, nonetheless the evil of Melkor and the blight of his hatred flowed out thence, and the Spring of Arda was marred. Green things fell sick and rotted, and rivers were choked with weeds and slime, and fens were made, rank and poisonous, the breeding place of flies; and forests grew dark and perilous, the haunts of fear; and beasts became monsters of horn and ivory and dyed the earth with blood.
Men cannot be returned to their 'original, unfalllen' state, because they were never actually unfallen & never dwelt in an unfallen world.Men are created unfallen by Eru; Silmarillion (and more so Atrabeth) reffers to a certain moment when the marring of Men occured, after their coming.
And Eru is not a transcendent mystery, nor is he a loving compassionate Father - he is a petulant, angry Artist, who will smash & kill what 'offends' him. This view is in stark contradiction with that of the valar and the elves - and of the faithful Men. Concening the denial that Eru is good and that his work will end in good, it is said in HoME X by Manwe:
This the Marrer hath denied, and in this denial is the root of evil, and its end is in despair.

Elmo

02-20-2007, 03:33 AM

Well don't they realise Eru has given us good reasons to feel this way...

davem

02-20-2007, 04:09 AM

I would call this the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance; even if most of his actions are invisible to recorded history, the previous quotes I gave, of which I have the nagging feeling you continue to ignore, show that he is not passive at all.

But he is not an active participant in the world - he is not an actor within time - he does not do anything in the world until Numenor. I'm attempting to get at the effect he has on the thinking of the inhabitants & how they think about him. Its his character that is at issue - we can't ignore the fact that the major part played by Eru (after starting things off is one of destruction & thus there is (to my mind) the requirement for him to make amends.

One cannot simply state 'Eru is beyond human value judgements because he is so much greater than Man - so are the Valar, & no-one feels it is wrong to judge their actions, or critique their characters - Tolkien is the most ready of any of us to do that very thing. Melkor is also much greater than Man & his actions & motives could equally be characterised as beyond our understanding . The point is, once those beings enter into the world & become active participants (rather than vague 'influences') they become open to analysis & criticism.

Actually, if the Eruhini were created before time, they would be Ainur. They aren't.
No - their origin was in the Music. They may not have come into physical being until after the creation, but they existed in the mind of Eru from before the creation.

Acccording to the Atrabeth, all these were good before all Men started worshipping Melkor. After that, their nature became tainted.

According to Elvish tradition as set out by Finrod - can we accept this as a 'fact' within the mythology or is it simply speculation?

Yes, because Melkor was the greatest of all the Ainur; his might surpassed them, and was second to Eru only; this might became the corrupting power in the creation, which cannot be erased save by Eru. The fall of the most gifted is a recurrent motive: Melkor, Feanor, the Numenoreans.

Only in the beginning. Its clear that by the time of his fall he was far from superior. And once again, it is Tolkien's choice that the 'only way' for Eru to deal with this problem is Eru's incarnation - the introduction of such a 'fatal flaw' requires some serious justification - why paint himself into a corner where the 'only' solution is something he disapproves so strongly of?

There was a specific moment in time when the marring moved from a conceptual and moral level to a physical one - the coming of Melkor to Arda at the building of Utumno

No, the corruption (potential at least & arguably (argued by Tolkien himself btw) here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=432194&postcount=215) inevitable came in with the dissonance introduced by Melkor & Eru's choice to create a world with such an 'inevitability' inherent.

Men are created unfallen by Eru; Silmarillion (and more so Atrabeth) refers to a certain moment when the marring of Men occured, after their coming.

Men are born into a world which is by its nature & in its creation, corrupt. Men & Elves are more prone to fall because of the nature of the world they inhabit, & the very presence of the immortal Elves is in itself guaranteed to inspire a feeling of wrongness in the fact of their (men's) own mortality.

This view is in stark contradiction with that of the valar and the elves - and of the faithful Men. Concening the denial that Eru is good and that his work will end in good, it is said in HoME X by Manwe:

We're still dealing with the Eru we are presented with in the story - not the opinions of various characters - or statements about him by Tolkien - does the Eru we are presented with live up to the hype?

Raynor

02-20-2007, 05:44 AM

But he is not an active participant in the world - he is not an actor within time - he does not do anything in the world until NumenorI don't see what is the problem with Eru not being wholly in Ea. Also, one might deduct from your statement that he was present in the world when Numenor when it was destroyed, which is false.
One cannot simply state 'Eru is beyond human value judgements because he is so much greater than ManThen again, Tolkien refrained from judging the ultimate damnability of Gollum, since that would inquire into 'Goddes privitee', a concept he clearly respected. If this can be applied to a mere hobbit, all the more to Eru. Then again, you are free to feel otherwise.
so are the Valar, & no-one feels it is wrong to judge their actionsYet Tolkien warned against finding faults and assigning guilts to Manwe, because he was the spirit of highest wisdom and prudence in Arda, with direct recourse to Eru, with the highest knowledge of the Music.
Tolkien is the most ready of any of us to do that very thing.I wouldn't be so sure ;).
Melkor is also much greater than Man & his actions & motives could equally be characterised as beyond our understandingI for one don't find his actions surprising or unexplainable, at least in the context of this work.
No - their origin was in the Music. They may not have come into physical being until after the creation, but they existed in the mind of Eru from before the creation.I am afraid you are seriously downplaying Eru's continous role and participation into Arda, as the continuous source of human life. In time, the mortal Men will be the only sentient, embodied creatures to rule Arda.
According to Elvish tradition as set out by Finrod - can we accept this as a 'fact' within the mythology or is it simply speculation?I don't find it hard to believe that an untainted being can enjoy correctly the gifts of divinity.
Only in the beginning. Its clear that by the time of his fall he was far from superior. By the time of his fall? He was able to fight off all the valar, and he would have probably obtained decissive victories were it not for the coming of Tulkas. His overwhelming power was even more underscored by Tolkien in Myths Transformed.
And once again, it is Tolkien's choice that the 'only way' for Eru to deal with this problem is Eru's incarnation - the introduction of such a 'fatal flaw' requires some serious justification - why paint himself into a corner where the 'only' solution is something he disapproves so strongly of?He himself considered parodying Christianity as almost inevitable. He also reffered to the Redemption of Man (although far in the future) in the Letters, which, to me, is also a sign of a more direct manifestation of God.
No, the corruption (potential at least & arguably (argued by Tolkien himself btw) here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=432194&postcount=215) inevitable came in with the dissonance introduced by Melkor & Eru's choice to create a world with such an 'inevitability' inherent.What I meant was (and you apparently agree by the use of potential) that the inhabitants of Arda knew it at one time as unmarred - or at least when its physical marring didn't started.
Men are born into a world which is by its nature & in its creation, corrupt. 'Matter' is not regarded as evil or opposed to 'Spirit'. Matter was wholly good in origin. It remained a 'creature of Eru' and still largely good, and indeed self-healing, when not interfered with: that is, when the latent evil intruded by Melkor was not deliberately roused and used by evil minds. ...the foundations of this world are good, and it turns by nature to good, healing itself from within by the power that was set there in its making; and evil in Arda would fail and pass away if it were not renewed from without: that is: that comes from wills and being [sic] that are other than Arda itself.They also come into a world that is good at its foundations, which heals itself from within, for it has the imperishable flame at its heart; it is also a world where knowledge and worship of Eru would be reinstated after Aragorn; a world where "He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves. ".
We're still dealing with the Eru we are presented with in the story - not the opinions of various characters - or statements about him by Tolkien -If you chose to ignore the foremost sources of information, insight and wisdom in this world, from inside and outside, if they contradict your position, then I would say the value of your opinion is questionable.

davem

02-20-2007, 06:37 AM

I don't see what is the problem with Eru not being wholly in Ea. Also, one might deduct from your statement that he was present in the world when Numenor when it was destroyed, which is false.

Its clear that Eru intruded directly into the action of Arda in order to destroy the Numenoreans - something he had never done directly before (unless you count the giving of life to the Fathers of the Dwarves.

Then again, Tolkien refrained from judging the ultimate damnability of Gollum, since that would inquire into 'Goddes privitee', a concept he clearly respected. If this can be applied to a mere hobbit, all the more to Eru. Then again, you are free to feel otherwise.

Where I would argue with Tolkien here is that this is not a question of 'Goddes privitee' but of the author's. It is perfectly fine for an author to create a character such as Eru who is beyond the criticism of the other characters, but to create a character & then demand that the reader be bound by the rules of the Secondary World & not be allowed to question the character or analyse his or her motives seems to confuse the rules of the Primary & the Secondary Worlds. The inhabitants of Arda may be required to worship Eru & live according to his rules, but the reader is (one hopes) not required so to do. Eru is a character & is not excluded from from criticism by the reader even if he is excluded from such criticism by the inhabitants of the Secondary World.

One could ask why Tolkien chose to create a character who is beyond criticism.

Yet Tolkien warned against finding faults and assigning guilts to Manwe, because he was the spirit of highest wisdom and prudence in Arda, with direct recourse to Eru, with the highest knowledge of the Music.

Well, he has some characters in his invented world warning other characters in his invented world against finding faults & assigning guilt to Manwe. He (much as I respect him) doesn't get to tell the reader or critic not to do that.

I for one don't find his actions surprising or unexplainable, at least in the context of this work.

Because you're judging him on what he does - you can't possibly know the depths of his being - one who existed before the beginning of the World & who took part in its creation. You look at his actions & judge his character - why is this wrong in the case of Eru?

By the time of his fall? He was able to fight off all the valar, and he would have probably obtained decissive victories were it not for the coming of Tulkas. His overwhelming power was even more underscored by Tolkien in Myths Transformed.

I was talking about the end of the First Age - which seems pretty much of a walk over. Melkor had dissipated so much of himself into Arda that he was bound to his body, cowering in his own dungeons.

He himself considered parodying Christianity as almost inevitable. He also reffered to the Redemption of Man (although far in the future) in the Letters, which, to me, is also a sign of a more direct manifestation of God.

Why was it 'almost inevitable'? He was writing the story. Nothing was 'inevitable' in the sense you imply. The incarnation of Eru is either a parody of something Tolkien should not have parodied or it is in there for reasons of internal consistency - which have no similarity to the Christian mythos....

What I meant was (and you apparently agree by the use of potential) that the inhabitants of Arda knew it at one time as unmarred - or at least when its physical marring didn't started.

But it was (by Tolkien's admission) always 'marred' in the sense that it contained Melkor's dissonance in its creation, & his malice in its making, not to mention his slow infecting of it. Its 'unmarred' state was an illusion.

They also come into a world that is good at its foundations, which heals itself from within, for it has the imperishable flame at its heart; it is also a world where knowledge and worship of Eru would be reinstated after Aragorn; a world where "He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves. ".

And to jump to the subject of another thread, is Melkor not also 'one of his own'?

If you chose to ignore the foremost sources of information, insight and wisdom in this world, from inside and outside, if they contradict your position, then I would say the value of your opinion is questionable.

I'm not expressing an 'opinion' one way or another - I'm challenging statements to see if they stand up - which, I think is exactly what you're doing with me. I'm attempting to get at the truth (or at least to have an interesting debate on a subject that interests me) rather than simply accepting statements made by characters or author at face value.

Raynor

02-20-2007, 08:03 AM

Its clear that Eru intruded directly into the action of Arda in order to destroy the Numenoreans - something he had never done directly before (unless you count the giving of life to the Fathers of the Dwarves.Or if we count the appearance of the Eruhini, the action of Eru's imperishable flame at the heart of the world, his converses with Manwe, all the other interventions Manwe saw in his vision and all the new things that appear in each new age, which dont have Ainulindale as their source. There is no single evidence that Eru stops being interested in creation, quite the contrary. Although this wrong belief is cherrished by Melkor and Sauron.
Eru is a character & is not excluded from from criticism by the reader even if he is excluded from such criticism by the inhabitants of the Secondary World.I am really curious what means you have of judging a transcendent being, whether in a real or imaginary setting. That is a territory which neither science nor mind can enter. We don't know the purposes and the effects of actions - esspecially since he is the ultimate alchemist, able to transform his actions from divine punishments to divine gifts - or other's actions ("but it seemed that [Melkor's music's] most triumphant notes were taken by the other and woven into its own solemn pattern"). I am really looking forward to your answer.
Well, he has some characters in his invented world warning other characters in his invented world against finding faults & assigning guilt to Manwe. He (much as I respect him) doesn't get to tell the reader or critic not to do that.It wasn't characters to state that, it were his own notes, in Myths Transformed. That you continue to disregard the position the author gives to certain characters in his own created world is your own choice.
Because you're judging him on what he does - you can't possibly know the depths of his being - one who existed before the beginning of the World & who took part in its creation. You look at his actions & judge his character - why is this wrong in the case of Eru?Because it's a false analogy, the two can never be compared; one is the All-source, the other is just a creation.
I was talking about the end of the First Age - which seems pretty much of a walk over. Melkor had dissipated so much of himself into Arda that he was bound to his body, cowering in his own dungeons.I really don't follow why you are using this "red herring" on me. I was initially talking about Melkor's power at the time when he started his subjugation of the matter of Arda, and now you are bringing the discussion to the end of this story.
Why was it 'almost inevitable'? He was writing the story. Yes, he was writting it with the purpose of reflecting a splinter of Light, hence the almost inevitability. But it was (by Tolkien's admission) always 'marred' in the sense that it contained Melkor's dissonance in its creation, & his malice in its making, not to mention his slow infecting of it. Its 'unmarred' state was an illusion.I am afraid we both consumed this part of the discussion. We agree that marring was potentially there, but not yet manifest to the inhabitants of Arda. I propose we agree to disagree on how real the potential marring was and how un-real the un-marring state was.
And to jump to the subject of another thread, is Melkor not also 'one of his own'?An interesting thought. I would argue that, considering the vast differential of power between Melkor on one side (and possibly Sauron and the rest of the fallen maiar) and the Eruhini on the other side, that Eru's adamancy would extend solely to the second cathegory - they have little if any chances in fighting corruption.
I'm not expressing an 'opinion' one way or another - I'm challenging statements to see if they stand up - which, I think is exactly what you're doing with me.Yes, but you are ignoring relevant information, you are refusing the given context and so you are effectively taking things out of context. I doubt the value of deriving conclusions from such an enterprise.

davem

02-20-2007, 01:18 PM

Or if we count the appearance of the Eruhini, the action of Eru's imperishable flame at the heart of the world, his converses with Manwe, all the other interventions Manwe saw in his vision and all the new things that appear in each new age, which dont have Ainulindale as their source. There is no single evidence that Eru stops being interested in creation, quite the contrary. Although this wrong belief is cherrished by Melkor and Sauron.

Eru is a remote figure. He is not directly involved in the action to any great degree. Where he does intervene his motives are obscure & cannot be attributed to anything other than aesthetic considerations in most cases.

I am really curious what means you have of judging a transcendent being, whether in a real or imaginary setting. That is a territory which neither science nor mind can enter. We don't know the purposes and the effects of actions - esspecially since he is the ultimate alchemist, able to transform his actions from divine punishments to divine gifts - or other's actions ("but it seemed that [Melkor's music's] most triumphant notes were taken by the other and woven into its own solemn pattern"). I am really looking forward to your answer.

One can judge any character (transcendent or otherwise) on their actions & what we know of their motivations. And if an author chooses to introduce a 'transcendent' being as a character one can analyse that character, the way it is used & whether it is convincing. It seems from your argument that you simply accept the character unquestioningly, without any analysis & take any statements made about it at face value without asking if they correspond in any way with what is known of that character. A writer cannot simply invent an omnipotent character who can do anything & ask his reader to just accept that character - anymore than he can just invent a character that pulls whole roast ducks out of his ears without giving a convincing explanation for how & why he does it & expect the reader to accept it.

It wasn't characters to state that, it were his own notes, in Myths Transformed. That you continue to disregard the position the author gives to certain characters in his own created world is your own choice.

Well, I'm sorry, but no author has the right to tell his readers not to judge his characters' actions or motivations - if he does that he is either seeking to dominate his readers or he knows that his characters' behaviour is illogical. I think its pretty clear that Tolkien found the actions of the Valar to be illogical in many cases, & oftentimes tied himself in knots trying to construct justifications for what they did - to resort to telling his readers 'you aren't allowed to make judgements about this character's actions', or 'you aren't smart (or enlightened) enough to understand what this character did' is incredibly patronising - & for the record I don't think this is what Tolkien meant those notes to mean - I think you misunderstand his intentions.

I really don't follow why you are using this "red herring" on me. I was initially talking about Melkor's power at the time when he started his subjugation of the matter of Arda, and now you are bringing the discussion to the end of this story.

Yeees, but you were answering a point I made, & in that point I was referring to Morgoth's final state, so I don't see how my reiterating my original point can be classed as introducing a red herring.

Yes, he was writting it with the purpose of reflecting a splinter of Light, hence the almost inevitability. I am afraid we both consumed this part of the discussion. We agree that marring was potentially there, but not yet manifest to the inhabitants of Arda. I propose we agree to disagree on how real the potential marring was and how un-real the un-marring state was.

But that's the central point - not something we can agree to disagree on. Either Arda was really 'marred' from the beginning or it wasn't.

An interesting thought. I would argue that, considering the vast differential of power between Melkor on one side (and possibly Sauron and the rest of the fallen maiar) and the Eruhini on the other side, that Eru's adamancy would extend solely to the second cathegory - they have little if any chances in fighting corruption.

Finrod clearly states that Eru will not allow himself to be deprived of any of his own - even by their own choice (hence they are not totally free, & if anyone wants to be free of him they will have their choice over-ridden by Eru - what does this tell us about the nature of Eru?). It seems that if we take Finrod's words at face value & do not analyse of question them, we must accept that we have here a clear statement of universalism, & that in the end everyone will be redeemed - including Melkor

Hookbill the Goomba

02-20-2007, 01:49 PM

Eru is a remote figure. He is not directly involved in the action to any great degree.

As far as we are aware. ;)

It has always struck me that if Eru were to intervene in a major way or even give himself more of a character then he would be going against the inherent nature of the Judo-Christian God he may (or may not) be based on; i.e. infinite and mysterious and incomprehensable etcetera. Also, would it really be as interesting a story if he did? Gandalf is sometimes criticised as the get-out clause, but his saving grace is that he is not 'all-powerful' nor does he chose to use all the power he has and so failure is still possible for him.
Yet, if Eru Illuvatar were to intervene in a big way, then it would soon finish the story and we'd all go home for tea. The subtle workings, odd coincidences and interesting occurrences make for interesting stories as apposed to evil being simply rubbed out in a blink.
At least, that's how I have always looked at it and I reserve the right to be proven wrong...

Elmo

02-20-2007, 01:58 PM

Isn't that the crux of the matter though he did intervene in a BIG way what with him destroying a whole civilisation and whatnot

Raynor

02-20-2007, 01:58 PM

Where he does intervene his motives are obscure & cannot be attributed to anything other than aesthetic considerations in most cases.I doubt that he saved Gandalf or helped finnish the ring's quest for aesthetic considerations. I am curious what considerations you were having in mind.
One can judge any character (transcendent or otherwise) on their actions & what we know of their motivations.Of what motivations do you know? I know only those I presented, which you reject.
A writer cannot simply invent an omnipotent character who can do anything & ask his reader to just accept that character - anymore than he can just invent a character that pulls whole roast ducks out of his ears without giving a convincing explanation for how & why he does it & expect the reader to accept it.What do you mean? That for Eru to be convincing for you, Tolkien has to explain his omnipotence?
Well, I'm sorry, but no author has the right to tell his readers not to judge his characters' actions or motivations - if he does that he is either seeking to dominate his readers or he knows that his characters' behaviour is illogical.We don't even know the mystery of Men, but you require to know the mystery of Eru himself. Or judge him by not knowing that. Judge him if you will, but your analysis will be marred by its partiality of data, and thus, most likely, logically flawed.
I think its pretty clear that Tolkien found the actions of the Valar to be illogical in many casesWhat would be one such illogical action?
to resort to telling his readers 'you aren't allowed to make judgements about this character's actions', or 'you aren't smart (or enlightened) enough to understand what this character did' is incredibly patronising - & for the record I don't think this is what Tolkien meant those notes to mean - I think you misunderstand his intentions.For the record, I have said none of those things. I only stated that he warns against judging Manwe, for the given reasons.
Yeees, but you were answering a point I made, & in that point I was referring to Morgoth's final state,I disagree; I was addressing your statement that "Numenor requires Eru's incarnation into Arda" by discussing the necessity of it due to Melkor's immense power which he invested in corrupting Arda. You can backtrack that yourself.
Either Arda was really 'marred' from the beginning or it wasn't.Ainulindale is a work of progress in time. Not all that it reveals happens instantl; its seeds are present in actual Ea, but they take time to develop. Therefore, I see no problem with Arda being free for a while from the strong corruption of Melkor it later has.
Finrod clearly states that Eru will not allow himself to be deprived of any of his ownYour generalisation is unwarranted; the initial quote didn't say "any" of his own, while clearly stating a difference between his own and the Enemy. That Eru could consider Melkor his own is remotely possible, but at least not resulting from this quote, which hints otherwise.

Hookbill the Goomba

02-20-2007, 02:18 PM

Isn't that the crux of the matter though he did intervene in a BIG what with hilm destroying a whole civilisation and whatnot

Touche. :D

The only explanation I can think of is that Numinor had to be destroyed for the sake of the story and the Valar either did not have the power to do so or did not want to wipe people out without Eru's express permission... although, then there are the Orcs that they quite willingly killed. Then again, Numenor was different and... this is confusing!

littlemanpoet

02-20-2007, 02:37 PM

To say that Tolkien's Eru is some how a picture of his beliefs of God is a dangerous thing to do because here we have Eru placed in a legend that had nothing to do with the Jewish God and so to pin ideas of 'God is a meanie' or 'The Numenorians had every right to do such and such' is not a good road.Yours is a valid caution. I have been aware throughout this debate that some of us may be equating Eru with Yahweh. It is hard not to do, regardless of one's personal beliefs and leanings. My own approach has been to take what Tolkien has written as the basis for understanding his use of the transcendant deity in his works, namely Eru, and applying logic in order to arrive at hoped for reasonable conclusions. One does best to avoid attempting to create a full-blown theology for a fictional world. Nevertheless, questions are asked, and reasonable answers may be arrived at.

Good-bye for now, I shall return in approximately 41 days.

Raynor

02-20-2007, 02:47 PM

I have been aware throughout this debate that some of us may be equating Eru with Yahweh. So has Tolkien in his 1971 BBC interview
Dennis Gerrolt: Where is God in The Lord of the Rings?

Tolkien: He's mentioned once or twice.

Dennis Gerrolt: Is he the One?...

Tolkien: The One, yes. Take care lmp :)

davem

02-20-2007, 04:55 PM

I doubt that he saved Gandalf or helped finnish the ring's quest for aesthetic considerations. I am curious what considerations you were having in mind.

I don't see that we're ever told what his motivations are, why he does what he does or what the point of anything is as far as he's concerned - his main concern seems to be his own 'glory' & making sure everyone does as they're told.

What do you mean? That for Eru to be convincing for you, Tolkien has to explain his omnipotence?

No - that he has to explain his character, motivations & provide convincing justifications for his actions.

We don't even know the mystery of Men, but you require to know the mystery of Eru himself. Or judge him by not knowing that. Judge him if you will, but your analysis will be marred by its partiality of data, and thus, most likely, logically flawed.

The only 'data' is the data Tolkien has provided us with. Eru is not a 'mystery'. Eru is an invented character within a fictional world. This 'mystery' you perceive in him is your own addition. What I know from the data supplied is that Eru is an undeveloped figure whose behaviour is not properly explained & that is what I'm judging.

What would be one such illogical action?

I think the knots Tolkien ties himself in over Manwe's treatment of Melkor (as set out in Osanwe Kenta) shows that he realised that Manwe's behaviour made absolutely no sense (& I have to say that the 'explanation' he comes up with didn't convince me for a minute)

I disagree; I was addressing your statement that "Numenor requires Eru's incarnation into Arda" by discussing the necessity of it due to Melkor's immense power which he invested in corrupting Arda. You can backtrack that yourself.

...which 'backtracking' lead me back to my point:

Only in the beginning. Its clear that by the time of his fall he was far from superior.

Therefore, I see no problem with Arda being free for a while from the strong corruption of Melkor it later has.

So when Tolkien stated that Arda was created with the potential for, if not the inevitability of, a fall inherent in it, he meant it was created without that potential for a bit & then the potential was added in after that - so Eru not only could, but actually did, create Arda without that potential, but then introduced it in? Sorry, but i'm not sure that stands up...

Your generalisation is unwarranted; the initial quote didn't say "any" of his own, while clearly stating a difference between his own and the Enemy.

So to say

"He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves. ".

is an entirely different thing to saying "He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of any of His own?

Are hairs not being split here?

So has Tolkien in his 1971 BBC interview

Oh, come on - the simplest & most obvious interpretation of Tolkien's response is that he was referring to Eru, the 'God' of M-e.

The 1,000 Reader

02-20-2007, 05:33 PM

To interrupt your essays, if Melkor was so tough, why did Tulkas take him down? Was Tulkas stronger but just not around?

Raynor

02-20-2007, 06:06 PM

I don't see that we're ever told what his motivations are, why he does what he does or what the point of anything is as far as he's concerned - his main concern seems to be his own 'glory' & making sure everyone does as they're told.We are told, but you disregard my quotes. I don't know if this is going anywhere.
No - that he has to explain his character, motivations & provide convincing justifications for his actions.You genuinely expect that from a religious person? To put God in a frame? May I ask if you are theist?

I think you lose sight of spiritual meaning the myth has for Tolkien, that of returning us to an un-fallen state, of a more special communion. I hardly see how this can be achieved by rationalising God. Of course, that may not suit some critics. They way Eru is presented is not a literary flaw, but a religious necessity; I would venture so far as to say even a philosophical one - who can put transcendence into words?
What I know from the data supplied is that Eru is an undeveloped figure whose behaviour is not properly explained & that is what I'm judging.How come you hold on so much to judging, in a case where you also state that there isn't enough information? What sort of validity would your conclusion have? At most, literary; you can reduce the reality of this work's Creator to a finite character, and state that he is underdeveloped, and could be fine, to someone who could swallow this reduction (which I consider impossible). But you cannot draw conclusions, moral or otherwise, if you don't know enough; to do so seems, to me, to be an empty exercise.
I think the knots Tolkien ties himself in over Manwe's treatment of Melkor (as set out in Osanwe Kenta) shows that he realised that Manwe's behaviour made absolutely no sense (& I have to say that the 'explanation' he comes up with didn't convince me for a minute)You mean Manwe would have made more sense if he would have kept Melkor indefinitely, despite the initial judgement? What sort of justice is that?? What could have justified such an arbitrary change of thought? Please explain.
Only in the beginning. Its clear that by the time of his fall he was far from superior.Which doesn't address in the least my (then) previous argument and my explanation, hence my feeling it is a red herring: the amount of power he had at the end of the first age has no relevance to the amount of power he had at the time, far superior to the valar's, which he used it to corrupt Arda. To reiterate my argument, that corruptive power could not have been annihilated by the valar, only by Eru.
So when Tolkien stated that Arda was created with the potential for, if not the inevitability of, a fall inherent in it, he meant it was created without that potential for a bit & then the potential was added in after that - so Eru not only could, but actually did, create Arda without that potential, but then introduced it in? Sorry, but i'm not sure that stands up...I don't know why you feign you don't know the difference between a potential and actualising that potential. The corruption of Arda existed as a potential, as a possibility, ever since the music, and it became a reality of Arda, with the coming of Melkor and the making of Utumno.
is an entirely different thing to saying "He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of any of His own?It is not entirely different, but is not logically sound. You cannot use unwarranted generalisation in a debate, esspecially when in the quote, and in the story, "his own" and enemy are qualitatively different, on all grounds, esspecially the moral one. To introduce such a qualifier requires more than a personal desire for it to be accepted.
Oh, come on - the simplest & most obvious interpretation of Tolkien's response is that he was referring to Eru, the 'God' of M-e. G: Now this seems to me to be somewhat like Tennyson's "the old order changeth, yielding place to new, and God fulfills himself in many ways". Where is God in The Lord of the Rings?

T: He's mentioned once or twice.

G: Is he the One?...

T: The One, yes.

G: Are you a theist?

T: Oh, I'm a Roman Catholic. Devout Roman Catholic. If you really believe that God here is reffered to by Tolkien only as Eru, I really don't know how to convince you; you seem to disregard again the spiritual underlying of his myth making.

Child of the 7th Age

02-21-2007, 11:53 AM

Yet there is a problem with simply sticking a 'dream' into the heart of a story - & that is integration. The dream has to be integrated into the story in a convincing way. Any character from the story who is given a role in the dream section is going to have to act 'in character' or the dream will not be properly integrated & stick out like a sore thumb. So we're left with the question of how Eru will be percieved by the reader, & how this one act will impact on the reader's understanding of & feelings about Eru. Put Numenor on one side & what do we have of Eru in the Legendarium?

Yes, you are right, davem. But the difference may be that I am comfortable with that act of integration while you are less so. Obviously from this thread, there is no one opinion on this. But if you accept the basic ground rules that JRRT laid down, then Eru is a distant figure who, even if he is known to the author, is not truly known to the Men in the story and, by implication, the Men reading the story. Since we do not even understand the nature of Eru or the mystery that stands at the heart of creation, how can we possibly make a judgment on informed grounds as to the "justness" of Eru's act?

That puts the reader in a strange position. He can accept that ambiguity or insert some other image of "god" or "ungod" into the story to try and achieve greater clarity. I think both Hookbill and Littlemanpoet have hit the nail on the head. In Imp's words that bear repeating.....

I have been aware throughout this debate that some of us may be equating Eru with Yahweh. It is hard not to do, regardless of one's personal beliefs and leanings.......One does best to avoid attempting to create a full-blown theology for a fictional world.

My own feeling is that on this point both the mystery and the ambiguity must remain. There's certainly nothing wrong with personal speculation, speculation that seems to be inevitably shaped by our own personal views of deity in the "real" world. But there is a chasm of not knowing that Tolkien purposely placed at the heart of his story, and there is a certain point we can't go beyond. Tolkien almost seems to delight in doing this to the reader. One moment we are given hints of a greater force at work by the use of the passive voice in the narrative or by showing Faramir's men standing at "grace" after their meal. The next moment we are given a hobbit society that has absolutely no religious content. Except for a footnote or two in the Letters, we have hobbits who aren't really aware of Varda and Manwe, let alone Eru. The one exception is Frodo and Sam who are the only two "Little Folk" who take a step closer to that chasm and peer down into its depths.....hence Samwise's invocations to Varda and Gandalf's comments on Frodo's light being like that of the silmarils. Even these glimpses, however, are guarded and spell out little beyond the mere acknowledgement that there are forces at work beyond the edge of the story.

Several questions intrigue me that no one has discussed. Tolkien was no fool. Was he aware of the potential outcry from some readers about the "unjust" nature of Eru's act given what happened in Numenor? Was that reaction something that he could not conceive of, since his own personal view of deity was Catholic at the core? Or did he simply see it as not being a relevant discussion or response in the context of constructed myth?

And secondly, davem, if we accept (only for purposes of argument ;) )your suggestion that Eru is a minor, irritable, and seemingly flawed character, how big a "defect" is this? If such a major flaw exists at the heart of Middle-earth, what does it do to the Legendarium overall? Even if men of Middle earth and the reader know virtually nothing about Eru's nature and see little active involvement on his part, the reader does know he is the Creator of the world and holds mysteries that no one else comprehends. Can the Creator of the world who stands at the beginning of the whole legendarium be a "minor and irritable" character, or is this a fatal flaw? To put it bluntly, did Tolkien blow it by giving us tiny glimpses of deity or reflected deity in one part of the narrative and pulling back in others so that we are ultimately left with unaswered questions. If the author truly wanted to keep "religion" out of his created world, as he certainly stated at one point, then why start the whole thing off with Eru? Or did his Catholic beliefs compel him to do this and, yet at the same time, require him to make Eru no more than a "minor, irritable" character, because of the difficulties of writing in a pre-revelation world?

Anyone out there....I am truly curious about this.

davem

02-21-2007, 01:07 PM

You genuinely expect that from a religious person? To put God in a frame? May I ask if you are theist?

I think you lose sight of spiritual meaning the myth has for Tolkien, that of returning us to an un-fallen state, of a more special communion. I hardly see how this can be achieved by rationalising God. Of course, that may not suit some critics. They way Eru is presented is not a literary flaw, but a religious necessity; I would venture so far as to say even a philosophical one - who can put transcendence into words?

I expect it from an author.

LotR is not a religious work. It is, first & foremost, as Tolkien stated in the Foreword to LotR, an 'entertainment'. The point is that Eru is both transcendent (in which aspect he cannot be judged) & immanent (in which aspect he can).

You mean Manwe would have made more sense if he would have kept Melkor indefinitely, despite the initial judgement? What sort of justice is that?? What could have justified such an arbitrary change of thought? Please explain.

'Arbitrary'? He knew Melkor was still dangerous, he was not certain that he wouldn't go back to his old ways. If he was smart he wouldn't have set any limit on Melkor's terms of imprisonment at all.

If you really believe that God here is reffered to by Tolkien only as Eru, I really don't know how to convince you; you seem to disregard again the spiritual underlying of his myth making.

I choose to believe that Tolkien was only referring to Eru - because if he really believed that it would only confirm to me that he was failing to seperate the primary & secondary worlds in his own mind - something I think it would be wise for us all to do. Eru is a character invented by Tolkien, & plays the role of creator within the secondary world. To think of Eru as in anyway equivalent to the creator of the primary world is, in my opinion, crossing a very dangerous line. Where do you stop - is it only the creator of M-e that you consider as equivalent to God, or do you consider the creator figures in other fantasies as also equivalent. Of course, to my mind, once you start thinking of LotR as a Christian work that line is too easy to cross, & its an area I will not stray into, caonsidering my sanity, such as it is, too precious.

Eru may, or may not, reflect Tolkien's own thoughts on the nature of God, but it is a step too far for the reader to consider them as equivalent in any way. If God is a transcendent mystery then Tolkien would have inevitably had a limited perception of him, & one can question the extent to which he was correct, but that is a very different thing to considering them 'the same thing'.

Raynor

02-21-2007, 01:26 PM

Was he aware of the potential outcry from some readers about the "unjust" nature of Eru's act given what happened in Numenor?At least from Christians, this reaction should, theoretically, not come. The Bible describes what happens to the two cities of Sodoma and Gomora, whose people were considered sinful. Howeve, can the sins of the inhabitants of those cities ever compare to what the numenoreans did to others (torture, slavery, sacrifice to Melkor) and to themselves (slaying each other in madness), while disregarding each and every sign to repent? Or what would persons like minded with Thomas Jefferson, who said that "from time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots". I believe that the corruption in Numenor was so great among the un-faithful, that they were beyond redemption; possibly, that corruption spiritually and phiscially affected even those who were too young. Concerning the biblical deluge, it is said: "and God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually". It may be that Numenor was rotten to the core; for good reason did Tolkien call Elendil a Noachian figure, he may have been among the few who escaped this dire marring by true faith, which he later brings to M-E.

davem

02-21-2007, 01:46 PM

Or what would persons like minded with Thomas Jefferson, who said that "from time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots".

Or with Joseph Stalin who said: "One death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic. "

I believe that the corruption in Numenor was so great among the un-faithful, that they were beyond redemption; possibly, that corruption spiritually and phiscially affected even those who were too young.

So even the children of Numenor were valid targets, & it was acceptable for Eru to kill them? And we, presumably, cannot 'judge' such an action because Eru is a 'mystery'? I take it he 'destroyed the village in order to save it'?

Concerning the biblical deluge, it is said: "and God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually". It may be that Numenor was rotten to the core; for good reason did Tolkien call Elendil a Noachian figure, he may have been among the few who escaped this dire marring by true faith, which he later brings to M-E.

I think it should also be pointed up that not all the Faithful survived the devastation of Numenor - which I suppose is a case of 'Kill them all - God will know his own.'

Raynor

02-21-2007, 03:11 PM

I expect it from an author.Then again, you are putting all authors into one pot, regardless of their opinions. This expectation is uncalled for, imo.
LotR is not a religious work.Again, ignoring myths as a path to spirituality.
It is, first & foremost, as Tolkien stated in the Foreword to LotR, an 'entertainment'. Could you give that specific quote??
The point is that Eru is both transcendent (in which aspect he cannot be judged) & immanent (in which aspect he can).But Eru is nont immanent, he does not inhabit any part of creation, an idea stated repeatedly by Tolkien. So your argument is void in that direction.
I choose to believe that Tolkien was only referring to Eru - because if he really believed that it would only confirm to me that he was failing to seperate the primary & secondary worlds in his own mindI don't see the logical connection between writting something about God in a fictional setting and inability to differentiate between one's fiction and (perceived) reality.
If God is a transcendent mystery then Tolkien would have inevitably had a limited perception of him, & one can question the extent to which he was correct, but that is a very different thing to considering them 'the same thing'.How can we conceive two different transcendent realities?? What differentiates them, if at their core both are, well, transcendent?
Or with Joseph Stalin who said: "One death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic. "The problem with this quote is that it says nothing of the standing of those who died.
I take it he 'destroyed the village in order to save it'?That is what it seemed; part of Sauron's loss of power is that he spent a great part of it on corrupting Numenor. This is the only possible exit out of that hell; as Tolkien stated, there are certain encounters with evil that cannot be won by mere humans without supplication to God.
I think it should also be pointed up that not all the Faithful survived the devastation of Numenor And you say that, because?
But whether or no it were that Amandil came indeed to Valinor and Manwe hearkened to his prayer, by grace of the Valar Elendil and his sons and their people were spared from the ruin of that day.

Lalwendë

02-21-2007, 04:06 PM

Look, we're arguing as though Eru destroyed Numenor because of something done against his will, but that's wrong. Eru detsroyed Numenor because the Valar asked him to, not even that, that Valar pleaded with Eru just to do something.

The Valar had overstepped the mark by giving Men this island which was so temptingly close to the Undying Lands, by idolising Men too much. Then when Men came to act as they inevitably would, wanting to explore the seas and wanting to see what it was about the Undying Lands which gave the inhabitants unending life (to their minds, it was the place which did this, not the inherent nature of the peoples there - the Men of Numenor lacked understanding of immortals just as much as the Immortals lacked any comprehension of mortality) the Valar were powerless to act. They pleaded with Eru, the one who made these creatures, and Eru smote.

He did not do it as those remaining on Numenor were 'evil' themselves - indeed Miriel is perfectly innocent. And I seriously doubt that Tolkien, devoted family man would ever write about children being evil or wicked. The event is not 'just' nor is it 'justified' apart from it is something that the god of this world does. A god who as I have pointed out already is like the God of the Book of Job, a law only unto himself. Rather than punishing the people left on Numenor, he is in fact punishing the Valar who were foolish/proud enough to set up Numenor in the first place.

Nor was the event meant to echo the Noah myth in any way, it was meant to be Atlantean. The only part which echoes the Noah story is the escape of Elendil and the Faithful, which Tolkien calls "a kind of Noachian situation". The rest of it, this whole, huge, overbearing and memorable story, is drawn from something Atlantean. It comes from Tolkien's own mind, from his own recurring nightmares, something which he squarely points down to being common amongst those who live near the Sea and those in Western Europe. I know exactly what he means - I grew up with exactly the same kinds of tales of drowned lands and fears of the lands being drowned once more.

So while we're all scratching away at some kind of Biblical analogy, meaning or comprehension to all of this we are looking in precisely the wrong place. This really has very little to do with what Eru and the valar are really like, little to do with whether the babies drowned at Numenor were evil, and a whole lot to do with Atlantis.

Some quotes:

The particular 'myth' which lies behind this tale, and the mood both of Men and Elves at this time, is the Downfall of Númenor: a special variety of the Atlantis tradition. That seems to me so fundamental to 'mythical history' -- whether is has any kind of basis in real history, pace Saurat and others, is not relevant -- that some version of it would have to come in

for I have what some might call an Atlantis complex. Possibly inherited, though my parents died too young for me to know such things about them, and too young to transfer such things by words. Inherited from me (I suppose) by one only of my children, though I did not know that about my son until recently, and he did not know it about me. I mean the terrible recurrent dream (beginning with memory) of the Great Wave, towering up, and coming in ineluctably over the trees and green fields. (I bequeathed it to Faramir.) I don't think I have had it since I wrote the 'Downfall of Númenor' as the last of the legends of the First and Second Age.

For when Faramir speaks of his private vision of the Great Wave, he speaks for me. That vision and dream has been ever with me -- and has been inherited (as I only discovered recently) by one of my children

The legends of Númenórë are only in the background of The Lord of the Rings ... They are my own use for my own purposes of the Atlantis legend, but not based on special knowledge, but on a special personal concern with this tradition of the culture-bearing men of the Sea which so profoundly affected the imagination of peoples of Europe with westward-shores.

What I might call my Atlantis-haunting. This legend or myth or dim memory of some ancient history has always troubled me. In sleep I had the dreadful dream of the ineluctable Wave, either coming out of the quiet sea, or coming in towering over the green inlands. It still occurs occasionally, though now exorcized by writing about it. It always ends by surrender, and I awake gasping out of deep water. I used to draw it or write bad poems about it. When C. S. Lewis and I tossed up, and he was to write on space-travel and I on time-travel, I began an abortive book of time-travel of which the end was to be the presence of my hero in the drowning of Atlantis. This was to be called Númenor, the Land in the West.

To put it bluntly, did Tolkien blow it by giving us tiny glimpses of deity or reflected deity in one part of the narrative and pulling back in others so that we are ultimately left with unaswered questions. If the author truly wanted to keep "religion" out of his created world, as he certainly stated at one point, then why start the whole thing off with Eru? Or did his Catholic beliefs compel him to do this and, yet at the same time, require him to make Eru no more than a "minor, irritable" character, because of the difficulties of writing in a pre-revelation world?

Really the most obvious answer is that anyone writing a mythical saga would not want to miss out the Coolest Bit Of All: the chance to write your very own creation myth. I'm not religious and I too would be champing at the bit to get some god/creator action going on. Tolkien didn't put Eru in because he was a Catholic but because he was a writer. :cool:

davem

02-21-2007, 04:26 PM

Again, ignoring myths as a path to spirituality.

Tolkien's work is not a 'mythology'. A mythology is the work of a people over millenia. Whatever Tolkien produced it is not technically a 'mythology'.

Could you give that specific quote??

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none....The Lord of the Rings has been read by many people since it finally appeared in print; and I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybeexcite them or deeply move them.

I don't see the logical connection between writting something about God in a fictional setting and inability to differentiate between one's fiction and (perceived) reality.

Which assumes that Tolkien was writing something about God in a fictional setting, of course. And even if he was the reader is not required to accept, let alone agree with, what the author says. And if the author gives us a work of fiction rather than a work of theology, one must assume he wanted it to be read as a story, not a work of theology.

The problem with this quote is that it says nothing of the standing of those who died.

So killing a million 'bad' people is OK?. Tolkien seemed to consider the fall of Numenor & the deaths involved to be a tragedy. You seem to be shrugging your shoulders & saying its OK.

That is what it seemed; part of Sauron's loss of power is that he spent a great part of it on corrupting Numenor. This is the only possible exit out of that hell; as Tolkien stated, there are certain encounters with evil that cannot be won by mere humans without supplication to God.

And yet Eru spared Sauron (& the Orcs & other servants of Sauron btw - whose attrocities far exceeded those of the Numenoreans). I don't see where 'Hell' comes into M-e - where it is never mentioned as a metaphysical reality.

And you say that, because?

The last leaders of the Faithful, Elendil and his sons, escaped from the Downfall with nine ships, bearing a seedling of Nimloth, and the Seven Seeing-stones (gifts of the Eldar to their House)

The idea that the whole of the faithful of Numenor could gather together in one place (& fit themselves into 9 ships) without being noticed is hardly credible.

Hookbill the Goomba

02-22-2007, 12:19 AM

The Valar had overstepped the mark by giving Men this island which was so temptingly close to the Undying Lands, by idolising Men too much. Then when Men came to act as they inevitably would, wanting to explore the seas and wanting to see what it was about the Undying Lands which gave the inhabitants unending life (to their minds, it was the place which did this, not the inherent nature of the peoples there - the Men of Numenor lacked understanding of immortals just as much as the Immortals lacked any comprehension of mortality) the Valar were powerless to act. They pleaded with Eru, the one who made these creatures, and Eru smote.

But let us not forget Sauron's influence. Did that encourage what happened or speed it up? Personally, I am not sure... The whole of Numenor was not corrupted for there still were those who were faithful. Rather like the story of Sodom and Gomorrah from Genesis, it seems that the faithful are brought out before the destruction of the land and they go on living in Middle Earth.

Raynor

02-22-2007, 12:42 AM

Look, we're arguing as though Eru destroyed Numenor because of something done against his will, but that's wrong. Eru detsroyed Numenor because the Valar asked him to, not even that, that Valar pleaded with Eru just to do something.But the second requires the first; I doubt Eru would proceed to any action, esspecially one of destruction, if there weren't good reasons, no matter the status of those who make the supplication.
He did not do it as those remaining on Numenor were 'evil' themselves - indeed Miriel is perfectly innocent.COndoning acts of evil does not amount to innocence. And Sauron didn't just tell lies, he used his demonic power to corrupt the very beings.
And I seriously doubt that Tolkien, devoted family man would ever write about children being evil or wicked.Though childrens in Gondor do play as orcs in The New Shadow.
The event is not 'just' nor is it 'justified' apart from it is something that the god of this world does. Rooting out evil is just and justified. This was not a random act; it ended thraldom to evil to both oppressors and oppressed.
he is in fact punishing the Valar who were foolish/proud enough to set up Numenor in the first place.How?
Nor was the event meant to echo the Noah myth in any way, it was meant to be Atlantean. The only part which echoes the Noah story is the escape of Elendil and the Faithful, which Tolkien calls "a kind of Noachian situation".Atlantis and the deluge are not mutually exclusive, esspecially given your quote from his letter #156; quite the contrary case can be made rather powerfully. And Tolkien calls Elendil a Noachian figure in Letter #131.
So while we're all scratching away at some kind of Biblical analogy, meaning or comprehension to all of this we are looking in precisely the wrong place.This biblical analogy was reffered to by Tolkien specifically; plus what I said above. Also, the deluge is something imprinted in the subsconscious of all humanity, although you are probably right it is more at the surface in certain areas.
Tolkien's work is not a 'mythology'. A mythology is the work of a people over millenia. Whatever Tolkien produced it is not technically a 'mythology'.Well, I didn't say mythology, but myths; aslo, if we are to understand mythology as a body of myths, then he did produce it. Further I don't think your qualifier "produced over millenia" is necessary, but that is beside the point anyway.
amuse them, delight them, and at times maybeexcite them or deeply move them.Delightment, excitement and moving signifies, to me, much more than entertainment (a word he didn't use) but (the making, road to) eucatastrophe.
Which assumes that Tolkien was writing something about God in a fictional setting, of course. And even if he was the reader is not required to accept, let alone agree with, what the author says. And if the author gives us a work of fiction rather than a work of theology, one must assume he wanted it to be read as a story, not a work of theology.Ok; what was Tolkien writing about when he made more or less specific, direct, refferences to Eru? And, if he was talking about a transcendent reality, I ask again how could that be different that what he conceived of God? How can two transcedent realities differ? Also, to presume that one's spirituality can't be reflected in a book, and increase its value, and be perceived as such, is, well, presumptuous.
So killing a million 'bad' people is OK?We are not talking about everyday 'bad' people. I am not going to repeat in each and every post their sins and horrible deeds. By their corruption, they were brought to a human's lowest possible level. And if one does in the sanctity of one's house doesn't concern others, it was not the case with them. They were spreading their corruption towards all of Middle Earth, esspecially in the west; and considering Sauron's powerful grip on the east, this would just have brought all humankind to its knees, probably forever. It also became a threat to his other kindred, the elves, even in Aman; they had to retreat from their ages old homes, to the protection of the valar, but even Valinor was endangered with destruction. You cannot ignore a problem of this level. And I believe that Eru did what was the closest to their redemption, by ending their thraldom to evil. They ignored everything else. But they could not be ignored anymore.
And yet Eru spared SauronBecause he stated in the letters that not even the crreator can destroy a fea.
the Orcs & other servants of Sauron btw - whose attrocities far exceeded those of the NumenoreansI am curious, what more evil deeds did all of these do that "far exceeded" the numenorean actions?
I don't see where 'Hell' comes into M-e - where it is never mentioned as a metaphysical reality.But it is very real to those who experienced Utumno or Angband, and probably Mordor too, later, as evil is manifest in this world.
The idea that the whole of the faithful of Numenor could gather together in one place (& fit themselves into 9 ships) without being noticed is hardly credible.It would fit however with the legend of Lot and his family escaping from their town before they were destroyed; and it was made specifically clear that the valar intervened to get them safe to shore. I would also like to know if you have any evidence that there were more faithtfulls than those who made it to the ships.

davem

02-22-2007, 03:38 AM

Well, I just spent about an hour anwsering your point & lost the post & I can't face doing it all over, so I'll be brief here.

And Sauron didn't just tell lies, he used his demonic power to corrupt the very beings.

This is to imply that Sauron was wholly responsible for the Numenoreans corruption. Which makes Eru's action even more unacceptable. The Numenoreans come across as victims in this scenario. One cannot assume all the Numenoreans were evil - many quite possibly went along out of fear for themselves & their families.

One cannot read the account of the Akallabeth in the same way post Hiroshima. The destruction of Numenor would have traumatised generations, & created a fear of Eru - which Eru must have realised.

[QUOTE]Though childrens in Gondor do play as orcs in The New Shadow.

Because they were innocent & didn't realise what they were doing - which was Tolkien's point.

Well, I didn't say mythology, but myths; aslo, if we are to understand mythology as a body of myths, then he did produce it. Further I don't think your qualifier "produced over millenia" is necessary, but that is beside the point anyway.

Its still not a myth. A myth is the 'story' behind an actual religion, & reflected the worldview of an entire culture. What Tolkien produced was a pseudo-mythology. But in the end it is a work of fiction.

Delightment, excitement and moving signifies, to me, much more than entertainment (a word he didn't use)

Maybe he had a thesaurus.

Ok; what was Tolkien writing about when he made more or less specific, direct, refferences to Eru? And, if he was talking about a transcendent reality, I ask again how could that be different that what he conceived of God? How can two transcedent realities differ? Also, to presume that one's spirituality can't be reflected in a book, and increase its value, and be perceived as such, is, well, presumptuous.

Its a story. If Tolkien had wanted to 'do a Lewis' & write Christian apologetics, or 'reveal the ways of God to man' he would have done so. In any case, by writing a story he invites the reader to take it as a story, & not a sermon.

Because he stated in the letters that not even the crreator can destroy a fea.
I am curious, what more evil deeds did all of these do that "far exceeded" the numenorean actions?

He could have simply done with Sauron what was done with Melkor & removed him to the void - except that he needed Sauron for LotR, so he had to invent a reason for keeping him around in the world - a pretty unconvincing one if you ask me.

But it is very real to those who experienced Utumno or Angband, and probably Mordor too, later, as evil is manifest in this world.

I stated Hell did not exist in M-e as a metaphysical reality.

It would fit however with the legend of Lot and his family escaping from their town before they were destroyed; and it was made specifically clear that the valar intervened to get them safe to shore. I would also like to know if you have any evidence that there were more faithtfulls than those who made it to the ships.

It states the Valar intervened to get the safely to the shores of M-e after the devastation, not that they intervened to get them to the harbours of Numenor. Being that the devastation happened without warning one can only logically assume that those of the faithful who escaped were the lucky ones. And given that many 'evil' Numenoreans in the cities on M-e were not wiped out one can only assume that many faithful Numenoreans died & many unfaithful ones didn't. In which case, one has to ask, why didn't Eru wipe out all the 'sinful' Numenoreans. As far as I'm aware the ships only carried those of the House of Elros (ie of the Royal Blood), so unless we posit that only the aristocrats remained faithful we have a problem. One must question whether, given that only nine ships escaped, the totality of the faithful were so small in number (even given Sauron's depredations).

Raynor

02-22-2007, 05:54 AM

This is to imply that Sauron was wholly responsible for the Numenoreans corruption.That is to ignore all the previous actions of the numenoreans; they already resorted to oppressing, they stopped following the old ways, respecting the valar and their status, or the offerings to Eru. Three great numenorean lords became ringwraiths. They punished those who welcomed the elven ships. All these happened before Sauron came to Numenor.

Given the adulation of their ancestry, their knowledge of who Sauron truly was would have been second only to the elves, yet they still suffered him in their country, suffered him near their king, suffered his evil teachings - which, to those who were still good, the faithful, they were abominations. Their observance of true faith was a shield to Sauron. The others, welcomed him. Not to resist Sauron and his doings (through observance of rules - let us remember that in the Atrabeth Eru said : "Call on me and I shall hear, for I am watching over you") means assenting. There can't be a middle way for a moral person. Numenoreans weren't victims, they were accessories, if not perpetrators of Sauron's corruption in Numenor. One cannot expect salvation from God if one welcomes (while one still can welcome) evil.
Because they were innocent & didn't realise what they were doing - which was Tolkien's point.His _stated_ point for the story was Man's satiety with good - hence his propensity towards evil. May I ask if you read it?
Its still not a myth. A myth is the 'story' behind an actual religion, & reflected the worldview of an entire culture.Then again, even if we accept this as the general definition (I particulary don't, and I would like to see an official definition), we must take into account what myth was for Tolkien in particular. He saw myth-making as a modern day too activity, with a significant spiritual potential. And that is the relevant aspect of Tolkien's myths in regards to the relation between Eru and God.
Maybe he had a thesaurus.That's a cryptic statement to me, as a non native English speaker, and I suppose it was meant to be sarcastic. Perhaps you could be kind enough to state your argument in more detail.
Its a story. If Tolkien had wanted to 'do a Lewis' & write Christian apologetics, or 'reveal the ways of God to man' he would have done so. In any case, by writing a story he invites the reader to take it as a story, & not a sermon.This would ignore one of his main concerns: writting about fundamental subjects in essence, not in form - his struggle with allegory.
He could have simply done with Sauron what was done with Melkor & removed him to the void - except that he needed Sauron for LotR, so he had to invent a reason for keeping him around in the world - a pretty unconvincing one if you ask me.Sauron was a problem that Men had to deal with; it was mainly the numenoreans who dealt with him, either at the end of the second or the third age - with direct help from high elves and istari. Later, Men would face other incarnations of evil, but none of mythological status - but they also won't have mythological aide by their side (such as istari, or, arguably, elves). The level of struggle decreases in time, but it is balanced - esspecially if true allegiance to Eru is observed.
I stated Hell did not exist in M-e as a metaphysical reality.Metaphysical as in what? Non-material, "spiritual"? We also have the second world, of the spirits, in which wraiths and apparently elves access. I am sure Sauron too has power there too, as elves have too. It is said in the Silmarillion that Sauron was threatened by Luthien by something that can only be described as a non-material hell ("'There everlastingly thy naked self shall endure the torment of his scorn, pierced by his eyes, unless thou yield to me the mastery of thy tower"). Anyway, I am looking forward to your clarification.
It states the Valar intervened to get the safely to the shores of M-e after the devastation, not that they intervened to get them to the harbours of Numenor.The original statement was: "by grace of the Valar Elendil and his sons and their people were spared from the ruin of that day". The particularisation of your interpretation, that they were helped only in the voyage, but not in escaping, doesn't stem from this, esspecially immediately since after the "grace of the valar" statement it is said how Elendil escaped the soldiers. Also, it was Amandil's design, shared to the faithfuls, that they should prepare to escape.

Elmo

02-22-2007, 07:57 AM

It would fit however with the legend of Lot and his family escaping from their town before they were destroyed; and it was made specifically clear that the valar intervened to get them safe to shore. I would also like to know if you have any evidence that there were more faithtfulls than those who made it to the ships.

Three words - Miriel, Miriel and Miriel!

Raynor

02-22-2007, 08:02 AM

Three words - Miriel, Miriel and Miriel!I don't think I need to repeat my argument that condoning Sauron's evil amounts to accepting it.
Too late she strove to ascend the steep ways of the Meneltarma to the holy placeNow, obviously, "too late" doesn't mean that if she was running from the waves sooner that might have saved her - but that if she would have repented of her evil ways some time sooner, it might not have been too late.

Elmo

02-22-2007, 08:07 AM

What evil deeds? Tolkien when he talks about her character says she was one of the faithful. Does being forced into marrying a psychopath count as a sin, I suppose it would be if being a child of one was...

(by the way I was answering your question about evidence that some of the faithful had died)

Raynor

02-22-2007, 08:11 AM

Tolkien when he talks about her character says she was one of the faithful. Where?

Elmo

02-22-2007, 10:06 AM

Maybe he doesn't in so many words, I thought he did but... :o but I thought it would be obvious to people, The Encyclopedia of Arda says that if she had become Queen she probably would have lifted the Numenoreans from their darkness and I can't imagine Tolkien intended Miriel to be an evil character

The reason I'd always assumed that she went too late to the top of the holy mountain is that she was seeing the entire kingdom drowing in front of her eyes and that might of distracted her from her own personal safety.

davem

02-22-2007, 10:15 AM

That is to ignore all the previous actions of the numenoreans; they already resorted to oppressing, they stopped following the old ways, respecting the valar and their status, or the offerings to Eru. Three great numenorean lords became ringwraiths. They punished those who welcomed the elven ships. All these happened before Sauron came to Numenor.

I know - you were the one who put all the blame on Sauron by saying:

he used his demonic power to corrupt the very beings.

Either Sauron corrupted them - as you stated there, or they were already 'corrupted' & that is why they succumbed to him. You seem to be seeking to win the argument by adopting both positions.

There can't be a middle way for a moral person. Numenoreans weren't victims, they were accessories, if not perpetrators of Sauron's corruption in Numenor. One cannot expect salvation from God if one welcomes (while one still can welcome) evil.

This has always been the problem with human beings - they will be human beings (often intentionally, & with malice aforethought). They will be complex, confused, frightened for themselves & those they love, do what they think is right & get it wrong. Sometimes they will even be nasty, unpleasant & cruel. Thank goodness in Arda there was a God who was prepared to slay them all (even those vicious little children, who were probably the worst of the lot. Pretending to be Orcs - they should have been skinned alive & fed to the wargs in order to save their immortal fea).

BTW, I wonder, en passant, if anyone agrees with you that its acceptable for Eru to slaughter 'wicked' children.

His _stated_ point for the story was Man's satiety with good - hence his propensity towards evil. May I ask if you read it?

I have, actually. TBH it came across to me like the rantings of an old codger about 'the youth of today..' & I'm glad he thought better of continuing with it.

That's a cryptic statement to me, as a non native English speaker, and I suppose it was meant to be sarcastic. Perhaps you could be kind enough to state your argument in more detail.

It was a bit sarcastic. But then you were being a bit pedantic. I think we should both forgive each other & move on.

This would ignore one of his main concerns: writting about fundamental subjects in essence, not in form - his struggle with allegory.

Whatever. He wrote a story. I read it as a story. I don't remember him anywhere stating he was trying to reveal the truth about God.

Sauron was a problem that Men had to deal with;

Why 'had to'?

Metaphysical as in what? Non-material, "spiritual"?

Yes - that's what 'metaphysical' means, & that's why I used it in that way.

We also have the second world, of the spirits, in which wraiths and apparently elves access. I am sure Sauron too has power there too, as elves have too. It is said in the Silmarillion that Sauron was threatened by Luthien by something that can only be described as a non-material hell ("'There everlastingly thy naked self shall endure the torment of his scorn, pierced by his eyes, unless thou yield to me the mastery of thy tower"). Anyway, I am looking forward to your clarification.

EDIT - I was rushing ahead (& seriously distracted by a headcold, so I misunderstood Raynor's point. Re-reading it I see I got the wrong end of the stick.

I'll attempt another answer.

This is clearly a reference to what will happen if Sauron's fea (his 'naked self') escapes & returns to Morgoth. It doesn't posit the existence of a metaphysical realm/state of eternal damnation.

On to the Miriel issue. Certainly Foster in his Complete Guide to Middle-earth (praised for its accuracy by no less an authority than Christopher Tolkien himself) states that Tar-Miriel was one of the faithful.

Raynor

02-22-2007, 10:17 AM

Neither am I aware of her been mentioned as part of the faithfuls. That she might have brought the numenoreans out of darkness if she was queen would have been queen is a possiblity we cannot discard out of hand. However, no single mention on remorse or despair on her side is mentioned, about how things turned in Numenor. None. She did no action, that I am aware of, to show her good intentions, openly or not. She knew what Sauron was. She must have comprehended what means accepting him and his teachings. Her faith might have save her, her sanity, her morality. It doesn't look like she had it. She was most likely aware of the numenorean age old faith. Even if she was lukewarm at some point, or worse, she had the chance to turn, when she saw the magnitude the corruption was taking. She didn't. As far as we are aware, she did nothing to save herself (fear at the last moment isn't necessary a sign of repentance either) or her people.

drigel

02-22-2007, 10:17 AM

The Valar had overstepped the mark by giving Men this island which was so temptingly close to the Undying Lands, by idolising Men too much.

Well put. And IMO Sauron simply hastened the inevitable. Such is the lot for mortals.

Rather than punishing the people left on Numenor, he is in fact punishing the Valar who were foolish/proud enough to set up Numenor in the first place.

I submit that the creation of Numenor was far more damaging to many more people than it's destruction.

Howeve, can the sins of the inhabitants of those cities ever compare to what the numenoreans did to others (torture, slavery, sacrifice to Melkor) and to themselves (slaying each other in madness), while disregarding each and every sign to repent?
I am curious, what more evil deeds did all of these do that "far exceeded" the numenorean actions?

Not to nitpick, but anything JRRT could conceive of, pales in comparison to the reality of S&G, or really any typical city of that era. Those kind of real atrocities were carried out 2500 years later in the capital of the greatest empire that man ever built. As for orcs - as with elves hobbits and dwarves, etc, arent they personifications of everything man has to offer? That's the way I see it. I think JRRT saw buroughcrats shuffling papers in cubicles offering a far more insidious evils than any orc or bad Numeronian.

That puts the reader in a strange position. He can accept that ambiguity or insert some other image of "god" or "ungod" into the story to try and achieve greater clarity.
But there is a chasm of not knowing that Tolkien purposely placed at the heart of his story, and there is a certain point we can't go beyond. Tolkien almost seems to delight in doing this to the reader.

Child's great post really sums up the debate. It poses a strange position to the reader, only if the reader can only accept one mode of thought on this. Id say that the reader is presesnted with choices because this is not a completed piece of work, in many ways - structure, theme, philosophy - both physical and meta, etc.

If such a major flaw exists at the heart of Middle-earth, what does it do to the Legendarium overall?

It's viewed as a major flaw because it was never finished. This reminds me of the canon thread. As an artist, the strict view would be that the only TH and LOTR, were available to the public, as completed by the artist. How long would it take the author to complete the rest of the legendarium? Much longer than the published works, I would guess. If were possible to complete it all, would the story that you are debating change? I would guess it would be dramatically different than what we have today, because of the observed flaws.

To put it bluntly, did Tolkien blow it by giving us tiny glimpses of deity or reflected deity in one part of the narrative and pulling back in others so that we are ultimately left with unaswered questions. If the author truly wanted to keep "religion" out of his created world, as he certainly stated at one point, then why start the whole thing off with Eru? Or did his Catholic beliefs compel him to do this and, yet at the same time, require him to make Eru no more than a "minor, irritable" character, because of the difficulties of writing in a pre-revelation world?

BINGO. I dont think he blew it, but he confronted the difficulties in developing an arc between his religion and pre-revelation western European man. A way has to have been made. The concept of personal salvation was beautifully developed thru the LOTR story. Individual, personal choices, thoughts and actions. No rewards for doing "A" instead of "B", but "A" was the right choice, wasnt it? The problem he had was taking that to the next (or higher) level. I see the Eru character, from what we have of the unfinished material, as the rough pencil sketch to a blueprint concept the author had in his head, but was never able to finish. The question to me would be was it simply did he run out of time? Or was it possible at all?

Raynor

02-22-2007, 10:28 AM

anything JRRT could conceive of, pales in comparison to the reality of S&G,What exactly about Sodom and Gomora makes the horrible deeds of the numenoreans pale in comparison?
I think JRRT saw buroughcrats shuffling papers in cubicles offering a far more insidious evils than any orc or bad Numeronian.That's a strong statement about people shuffling paper. Can you back it?

Elmo

02-22-2007, 10:47 AM

That's a strong statement about people shuffling paper. Can you back it? I've tried to get a passport :D

The Saucepan Man

02-22-2007, 11:49 AM

*SpM guiltily eyes the papers on his desk, due a spot of shuffling, and with a sigh and no little reluctance, enters the debate.*

Either Sauron corrupted them - as you stated there, or they were already 'corrupted' & that is why they succumbed to him. You seem to be seeking to win the argument by adopting both positions.To be fair, both positions are tenable. The Numenoreans were already, to a degree, corrupted prior to Sauron’s influence. That existing corruption was magnified and nurtured by Sauron following his arrival in Numenor. That the latter was the result of Sauron’s influence does not absolve those Numenoreans who succumbed to it from responsibility, for they had free will whether to accept or reject it.

However, my main purpose in posting was to offer the view that, whether one accepts the drowning of Numenor, and its attendant devastation, as an atrocity or not surely comes down to whether one accepts the “real life” (in terms of belief, at least) deity from which Tolkien’s characterisation (such as it is) of his fictional character, Eru, is drawn. In other words, if one can accept a God who perpetrated incidents such as Sodom and Gomorrah and the Noachian Flood as the act of a God worth believing in, then one can surely accept Eru’s active participation in the drowning of Numenor in similar vein. If one cannot, then the devastation wrought by Eru will indeed seem like the unjust and unforgiveable “hissy fit” which davem characterises it as.

As it happens, I rather agree with davem. But then, I have never really approved of the some of the actions of the God of the Old Testament.

But isn’t that beside the point? A debate between those who believe in the God from whom the inspiration for Eru was drawn and those who do not (or who do not accept that, if he exists, he would have perpetrated such deeds) as to whether Eru’s actions were just, or believable, or acceptable, can surely never be resolved. One’s perspective is firmly grounded in one’s personal beliefs.

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?

Oh, and …

And even if he was the reader is not required to accept, let alone agree with, what the author says.

I don't remember him anywhere stating he was trying to reveal the truth about God.I think of the endless debates that we had on the canonicity thread, and my flabber is well and truly ghasted. ;) :D