Lord Melkor Rightful Master of the Fates of Arda

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

I would like to start a thread to glorify Lord Melkor, and his faithful and free servants, against the thralls of the Valar, usurpers and enslavers of the peoples of Arda, whom the rightful ruler and greatest of the Vala, would liberate.
Anyone who has the strength of character inherent in themselves to recognize such strength that is within the servants of Melkor, Sauron, the Wraiths, the Warrior Kings of Glorious and free Harad, could by posting qoutes and scenes from the mythology here at this thread, and let us discuss what indeed be lies and deceit, and so thus the true Ruler of Arda be known.
I shall start it off, and add to it as my time allows, and would like to develope this theme into a sub-forum all it's own.


And He said: 'The Valar have possessed themselves of the land where there is no death; and they lie to you concerning it, hiding it as best they may, because of their avarice, and their fear lest the Kings of Men should wrest from them the deathless realm and rule the world in thier stead. And though, doubtless, the gift of life unending is not for all, but only for such as are worthy, being men of might and pride and great lieage, yet against all justice is it done that this gift, which is his [MINE] due, should be witheld from the King of Kings, Ar-Pharazon, mightiest of the sons of Earth, to whom Manwe alone can be compared, if even he. But great kings brook no denials, and take what is thier due."

Now that's inspiring. I swear it's as if He were speaking right now in this room, to me.

Now the lightnings increased and slew men upon the hills, and in the fields, and in the streets of the city; and a fiery bolt smote the dome of the temple and shore it asunder, and it was wreathed in flame. But the temple itself was unshaken, and Sauron stood there upon the pinnacle and defied the lightning and was unharmed; and in that hour men called him a God and did all that He would.

Give great praise to Lord Sauron! What Power! What dignity! To stand in defiance of the Slaves of Eru the Accursed!
For Lord Sauron lives I say. He has come again into the world to once again vie for the freedom of the human race. I am his herald and messanger, and he has liberated me so that I have tasted freedom and Lo! they lie who say that He is a Tyrant wreathed in shadow, for I have come to reveal freely the open path to the recovery of your souls. He is among us. I bring you his Gos Spell.

[Well......that's pretty far out, it just rolls off my tongue you know, but I'm going to go for it.] May the wisdom and majesty of Melkor guide and direct me.

[Elmo]

I've been saying for ages we should worship Melkor, Lord of All, Giver of Freedom. This thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=13600) may be of some interest to you. My claiming it was just tongue in cheek was just to avoid being burnt at the stake but Melkor is man's saviour.

[davem]

I don't know if this thread was intended to provoke anyone, but I don't have a problem if you want to read it that way - we had a long discussion about this kind of approach over on Novices & Newcomers 'Seems like Someone's Rooting for the Wrong Side'. Personally I'd find it difficult to sustain this approach to Morgoth/Sauron, but if it seems right to you, & makes sense, then go for it. Its fiction. Certainly its not the approach Tolkien would have wanted you to take to the story.

[The 1,000 Reader]

I used to be a rabid supporter of Melkor and Sauron and their ilk, but not anymore. Why? Mainly because they were a lot of selfish ********.

Let's go back to Melkor's theme. Now, once I would have said this was a grand expression of creativity; Melkor was putting his rights of sub-creation to the test, being true to himself and not a slave. But really, playing that theme was just plain wrong. Let's think: creator vs. creation, who knows better? Now as much as you want to romanticise his rebellion, the fact of the matter remains plain: Melkor's will have mistakes in it while Eru's will not; or, assuming Eru is not perfect but only very powerful, it will logically have fewer mistakes because of his higher position.

Then, let's look at the results: Valinor vs. Utumno/Angband. Where would you rather live, honestly? Honestly now. We have our fun on this board talking about Elf-roasts and whatnot, but in all seriousness the realms of darkness were not nice places. They were filled with violence, filth, destruction and degradation. Where would you rather live, the Shire or Mordor? The Shire is a lovely place filled with kind folk who enjoy nothing more than eating and giving one another presents. Mordor is a militaristic society that runs on slave labor and is ruled by a megalomaniac.

The point of the above comparison is, who REALLY had a better plan for the world? The followers of Eru, or the followers of Melkor? His "rights" to follow his own plan notwithstanding, Melkor was a bloody evil idiot who, judging from the sort of places he produced, could not possibly have had anyone's best interests in mind, and he should have just sat down, shut up and played along with the rest.

Seriously, this is my favorite quote that's related to Tolkien.

[alatar]

I can understand how you may think as you do, but for me, I'm more like Treebeard when it comes to 'sides.' Sure, the Valar are all that you write (and maybe more), but your King limps from the bite of an elvish blade, couldn't keep Three Jewels from an Elvish lass and her human ragtag beau, and would have been spider food hadn't it been for Eru's intervention (sending the Balrogs to save this Dark Lord's skin), so can't say that I buy into the PR/hype, as did Ar-Pharazôn the Golden.

Manwë, I pegged here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=393324&postcount=14), and you can make of that what you will.

My money's on, incidently, Folco Boffin, as to me, he's at the heart of everything... :eek:

[The 1,000 Reader]

Like Alatar, I don't really give in to hype. I make my own opinions. In my opinion, Morgoth was just a selfish idiot who went from a grumpy guy at first to a horribly bland creature that wanted everybody dead for pretty much no reason whatsoever. Ungoliant probably would have killed him, and he barely beat Fingolfin. At the very least however, he was the original Dark Lord. Sauron's motives seemed even worse than Melkor's, and he appeared even less intelligent and powerful. Luthien and Huan made Sauron their *****, and his Ring always failed him. Also, I don't see the fall of Numenor as Sauron's doing: I always thought that Numenor was stuck down a dark road when Ar-Pharazon came into power, and Sauron being promoted would have allowed Ar-Pharazon to show him off as a trophy more often. It would be like saying "Oh, that's Sauron. He's a Maia. The Aniur are supposed to be much greater than us men, but hey, him being here working for me says otherwise."

[The Might]

Ok, now Sauron I can understand...world domination is ok, but Melkor...why would you ever serve someone who would eventually destroy you?

Hence his endeavour always to break wills and subordinate them to or absorb them into his own will and being, before destroying their bodies. This was sheer nihilism, and negation its one ultimate object: Morgoth would no doubt, if he had been victorious, have ultimately destroyed even his own 'creatures', such as the Orcs, when they had served his sole purpose in using them: the destruction of Elves and Men. Melkor's final impotence and despair lay in this: that whereas the Valar (and in their degree Elves and Men) could still love 'Arda Marred', that is Arda with a Melkor-ingredient, and could still heal this or that hurt, or produce from its very marring, from its state as it was, things beautiful and lovely, Melkor could do nothing with Arda, which was not from his own mind and was interwoven with the work and thoughts of others: even left alone he could only have gone raging on till all was levelled again into a formless chaos. And yet even so he would have been defeated, because it would still have 'existed', independent of his own mind, and a world in potential. ~ Morgoth's Ring Really...how could you serve the guy?

[The 1,000 Reader]

Also note that Sauron's rule would probably look like Africa now or Iraq when Saddam ruled.

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

Seriously, this is my favorite quote that's related to Tolkien.
I'll ignore the parasite 1000 reader, like a dog has fleas he clings to the traitorous Second of the Nine, who then turns around and defies Melkor? This turn coat doesn't even know who they are. Certainly not Second of the Nine, a powerful and cunning master of stategy.
It is obvious that you have no understanding of the time before time so harken! and learn.
Who was it that made Melkor?
Who was it that gave unto him powers greater than any other Vala?
And whilst your new friends among whom Manwe is the chief, whom you will no doubt betray as soon as you did Melkor, aped only such themes as were programmed into them by Eru, Melkor above all, being kindled with the Flame Imperishable, was able to create themes of his own, and yea, through, but apart from the design of Eru was obligated by the His very existence, and by the Flame Imperishable, which is greater than Eru, to give birth to the mighty themes of His own making, whereby solely the glory of the music and the unfolding of the world derives it's glory. For what would the world be without Melkor's Theme? There would be no Lord of the Rings, after whom the mythology is named! It is not called Gandalf, wondering craven and lunitic, It is not called Ragged wildman strider, sneaker among the shadows, Lord of fifty beggers, It is not called Elrond live as far from the one to whom he slanders as he can, who has not dared come forth for 500 years, NO! It is named after the impetus of the whole - The Lord of the Rings! Sauron, emissary of Melkor! Whom even your own hermit king Mithrandir proclaims to be the true and only Lord of the Rings! With out Melkor, and his faithful and true servants Gandalf and you would have no reason for even existing. It is Melkor which gave you this, thankless and craven traitors you be! Melkor is the spring from which you flow and you curse him for it because it is not truly Melkor whom you hate but you yourselves, because in Melkor, your father, you see clearly that birth and strength of which Eru has denied you. You are unworthy. But because of your arrogance and folly you worship Eru! The one who open claims to have created Melkor and given him the divine inspiration to go forth into Arda, free from constraint, to do as he has done, to make themes of his own?
And yet, if Eru speak true, then the responsibility for all of what you claim as evil has it's foundation in Eru alone, but do you apply the responsibility to him? No! Thouest dare to blame Melkor? Who has spoke the truth all along? That he hath made valleys, and Eru's slaves filled them; Melkor hath made mountains, and Eru hath cast them down, burying under them and the sea all those poor innocent and unknowing peoples whom Eru doesn't even bother to mention! Because he knowith them not, For Melkor is their father, and givith them peace, and a life apart from the conflicts of the West, and yet, the Vala cannot let that be, and must drag these unknowing peasants into a fight of which they have no part or orgin, to make tools of them. Out of Pity for the Second Born of the Tyrant Eru, who defies the will of the Flame Imperishable, and gives death to those beings to whom in the design of Melkor should have life just such as they, being kindled with the Flame Imperishable; Melkor hath made a land apart, wherein these peoples might dwell in peace, and ever increase in power and freedom. A land wherein there is pleasant darkness, and the light of stars to comfort, and so the Vala cast upon them a bright light, which blinds the eyes of even their own slaves, so that the arrows of the blood-stained deserters might find sure mark. I will say no more.

[Thenamir]

I will say no more.

Promises, promises. We can only hope.

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

I can understand how you may think as you do, but for me, I'm more like Treebeard when it comes to 'sides.' Sure, the Valar are all that you write (and maybe more), but your King limps from the bite of an elvish blade, couldn't keep Three Jewels from an Elvish lass and her human ragtag beau, and would have been spider food hadn't it been for Eru's intervention (sending the Balrogs to save this Dark Lord's skin), so can't say that I buy into the PR/hype, as did Ar-Pharazôn the Golden.

Manwë, I pegged here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=393324&postcount=14), and you can make of that what you will.

My money's on, incidently, Folco Boffin, as to me, he's at the heart of everything... :eek:

You see how quickly these empty slaves betray their masters? Whenever it suits their purpose, they will portray Luthien, beautiful thief, whom yes, even Melkor and Sauron adore and honor and speak no ignoble words, as a princess more beautiful and powerful than all the daughters of the world, and Beren, foremost among the champions of men, and then without hesitation demote them to the level of Elvish lass and Beren as "ragtag" prostitute.
Because there is no fundamental value in truth among them.
For none honor Beren more than Melkor; whom has never spoken any defilement of an advisary that has proven their worth merely by having the courage to confront Him. They dwell as equals and friends now in paradise.

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

"Some years ago, the Lord of the Black Land wished to PURCHASE horses from us at a GREAT PRICE, but we refused him . . . ."

[The Might]

Umm...I'm not sure I understand what you're saying
You do realise the quote I have given was written by Tolkien, and if not he, then who else would know Melkor?
Btw, there is a post editing function, in case you wish to add anything to your post. :)

[Lalwendë]

Also note that Sauron's rule would probably look like Africa now or Iraq when Saddam ruled.

Seriously, I've got to ask - what's up with Africa? It's a beautiful place, and the cradle of mankind.

Now if you'd said Rotherham I'd have understood. ;)

[Hookbill the Goomba]

To exonerate Melkor is... well... doesnt it sort of defeat the point? Tolkien called him the 'Dark Lord', 'Black Enemy', 'The Constrainer' and other such 'not particularly nice' terms. He's quite obviously the 'bad guy'.

To use his 'charismatic skills' in being able to subdue his servants is not a great argument. It is commonly known that people like Hitler, Genghis Khan and others who wanted great power (and aren't considered terribly nice fellows) were very charismatic and were able to subdue their followers.

I will not deny that this is a skill that could be put to good use if the bearer so chose. The bottom line is that Melkor chose not to and so fell from might. Admire such qualities in themselves, if you wish, but it by no means justifies slaughter and war.

[Lalwendë]

I have to wonder what Melkor's 'role' would have been had he not rebelled? Would he have taken on the role later given to Manwe? Melkor possesses some of the powers/qualities of all the other Ainur - so would he have been a kind of 'intercessor' between them and Eru?

He clearly genuinely believed he could do things a different way - he was told that he could not create and therefore rival Eru's power but nevertheless he tried to. Some might call it pig-headedness, others though might see a chink of bravery or incredible self-belief in there.

As readers, we all have something to thank Melkor for at least! If he hadn't rebelled there would be no story! And as George Bernard Shaw said: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” If Melkor had not introduced conflict into Arda (and was he ultimately responsible? after all, Eru was the all-father and omnipotent so where did this come from if not from him?) would it have been held in a state of undesirable stasis until its end?

[The Might]

Bravery...and looked what happened to him ;)
But you're right, without his rebellion there wouldn't have been a story at all, or only a really boring one about Elves and Men living in bliss in Aman under the light of the trees...or of the lamps, whatever....;)

[The Sixth Wizard]

Disclaimer: The Sixth Wizard does not endorse any of the following rubbish he is about to spout. He expresses his sincere apologies to any Vala, Maia, Half-Maia or Child of Iluvatar offended by any of it. He states his true feelings are that Eru is a merciful and bountiful governer, and that any Dark Lords, Orcs, Trolls, Dragons, Balrogs, Fell Beasts, Ringwraiths, Dancing Spawns of Ungoliant, Were-Penguins and Lawyers can go get stuffed for all he cares.

Anyways...

Forget Lord Melkor! Hail Lord Zamorak! (friend comes over and whispers to the Sixth Wizard) - WHAT?? Runescape is just a game?! :confused: Well, in that case, bow to Lord Melkor. . .

The Valar forgot Men and their kind! They sat in bliss, sending lowly messengers to them, as if Men were not worthy of their presence. They doomed Men to the domination of foul Gorthaur for three thousand years (curse him, I was going to be Melkor's best servant), and what did the Powers do in their spare time? They made trinkets and sailed about in Swan-ships, occasionally sending a doomed-to-corruption Saruman or Pallando in for a laugh.

Iluvatar their daddy is even worse! Over a simple dispute about the border of the Numenorean Empire, he struck down their magnificent island with 3,000 years worth of hard work on it. And you thought dropping your papers in a puddle coming home from work one day was bad! What kind of an ego-istic stuck up Ultimatum is he? I'll tell you: one who is annoyed at his son being smarter than him. So he just HAS to send in his cronies to beat Lord Melkor up in a back-alley, ruining our Great Lord's plans in the process. It was 13 on 1! Real tough, the One and Only. :rolleyes:

Throughout history our great Lord's wishes have been foiled by the canniving tricksters of "Good". All Melkor wanted was to have a few good go's at being world leader. Just a couple of thousand years! But oh no, goodie-two-shoes Manwe says he'll "give it to you when I'm done". That was seven Ages of the World ago, Manwe! (no wonder the only Maiar who'll hang out with you are the ones with beaks that can fly away) And as soon as Melkor starts exerting his Rights, Manwe's big brother Tulkas has to come in and punch him up. Bullies! I want my mummy...

Come fellow creatures of Shadowness! Rise up against our oppressors, and show them who's boss!

(It's my turn as World Leader, isn't it? I was after Sauron...)

<EDIT> Sorry guys, thought this was a Mirth thread, and just let myself go a bit. . . :rolleyes:

[Lalwendë]

Bravery...and looked what happened to him ;)
But you're right, without his rebellion there wouldn't have been a story at all, or only a really boring one about Elves and Men living in bliss in Aman under the light of the trees...or of the lamps, whatever....;)

Yeah! Sure, it would be fine and dandy to live in that kind of utopia (well, at least we presume so - but would it?), but it would be the most boring thing imaginable to read a book about it - it might last a few chapters and then you'd just toss the book aside wondering when something was going to happen.

Tolkien himself got disheartened when he tried to write The New Shadow, set after Aragorn's reign. He tossed it aside in the end, realising that he just couldn't recreate the dramatic tension there had been in the stories set before it. What are the petty dealings of Men in comparison to the evils wrought by Dark Lords and whatnot?!

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I also admire Melkor. He was the best and he wanted everyone to know.

Imagine your dad was singing and you got bored with his old, hippy tunes – wouldn't you start singing a few of your own more interesting words?

And imagine your siblings were painting dull pictures and constructing things you didn't think much of – wouldn't you mess things up a bit and force them to think harder?

And imagine your dad has pet ants. He likes them but he never spends any time with them. Your siblings do nothing but watch them (when they feel like it). If the ants somehow created a thing of especial beauty, wouldn't you covet it and take it from them? And if any of the ants started crawling all over you in a vain attempt to take back their treasure, wouldn't you brush them off and end their pointless lives?

You will realise that you are the master of the ant.

[The Might]

Which makes me wonder...
Why was the only one to do this?
Of course he had some followers, but it was only because of his initial rebellion that they joined him.
But weren't all the Ainur potential Melkors?
Still, he's the only one...just because he was the greatest? :smokin:

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

Umm...I'm not sure I understand what you're saying
You do realise the quote I have given was written by Tolkien, and if not he, then who else would know Melkor?
Btw, there is a post editing function, in case you wish to add anything to your post. :)

Touche. But I plea this excuse - that is what I mean by out of the box.
No disrespect meant to Capt. John. Don't try to share your cup of bitterness with him, for I poured it for you alone and you well know that. And . . . . .
Anyway I say that Tolkien was a vessel, a conduit, if you will, just like myself, and I believe that those were his own opinions
[I am stepping out of character so the following comments MAY NOT be used against me]
and made of his own volition, in a moment of individual discretion, and not while at the task of reporting the evolving vision. Which came from Eru the Hallowed.


Under your line of reasoning, flawed, obviously, to anyone of intelligence (change your name to Pippin, boy) Tolkien also composed the quite contradictory Qoutes I took about the perceptions of Melkor and Sauron. So I am absolutely right, and that some set of cognitive guidelines must be used to establish a system for catagorizing all Tolkien related information. I have done this, since no one else seems to, and you give as must weight to a misqoute from 'Letters' as you do to a direct qoute from the Lord of the Rings, etc. SEE! define the cognitive system FOR YOURSELF of defining what exactly "etc." signifies.

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

To exonerate Melkor is... well... doesnt it sort of defeat the point? Tolkien called him the 'Dark Lord', 'Black Enemy', 'The Constrainer' and other such 'not particularly nice' terms. He's quite obviously the 'bad guy'.

To use his 'charismatic skills' in being able to subdue his servants is not a great argument. It is commonly known that people like Hitler, Genghis Khan and others who wanted great power (and aren't considered terribly nice fellows) were very charismatic and were able to subdue their followers.

I will not deny that this is a skill that could be put to good use if the bearer so chose. The bottom line is that Melkor chose not to and so fell from might. Admire such qualities in themselves, if you wish, but it by no means justifies slaughter and war.

Wrong wrong. Melkor had no choice but to be as Eru created him to be, the anger in his heart came from the knowledge that he must continue down that dark path, for the bonds that Eru laid upon him were strong indeed. To say that others are greater and better because they 'chose' good is only vanity. Humble yourself, and thank Eru for putting it in your heart, the command, the spirit of "good" which motvaites you and makes you who you are. It is a sin for you to set yourself up on Eru's throne and say that you did that for your self. Are you Eru? Are you the designer and master of the fates of the World? because I do not think that you are. If you chose Good, you but work out the design of THE ONE.
Even under your own belief, you cannot complete the circle.
See now the revelation of the Secret Truth of Melkor. For in Melkor there is no contridiction. No endless seeking. In Melkor, there is completness.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

[Cross posted with Neithan Tol Turambar]

define the cognitive system FOR YOURSELF of defining what exactly "etc." signifies.

Etc, to me, has always signified 'and more of the same follows' / 'the argument continues along the same lines but citation is unnecessary' and things along those lines. If you see what I mean...

Master Turambar, I have no problem with anyone liking a particular character on grounds of 's/he is interesting, amusing, intriguing or has views simelar to mine' although, there are other reasons for liking a character and it is entirely possible to like a character but disagree entirely with their ideology. But may I request at least toning down the belittling comments about your fellow members?

While Melkor may have had interesting points, been a devious and cunning character, he is not the sort of fellow I would like to meet. ;) I'm sure you will agree that he was not exactly a kind person, reeking terrible deeds upon even his servants.

Tolkien also composed the quite contradictory Qoutes I took about the perceptions of Melkor and Sauron

Care to share them?

If I can speak from experience, when inventing a character, especially a villain, it is difficult to get one's mind into the right position. Thus, the thought process that goes into making a character often takes the form not of a step by step process, but more like blocks of thoughts. Not all of these blocks fit together perfectly and indeed this is better; real people are more complicated and will have differing things to say about different things, even if this appears to contradict something said earlier. For example, a man may refuse to be cruel to another, but have no problem using, say, information gathered from torture. This fellow may explain himself by saying, 'Well, the information is what matters to me. I would never hurt the blighter, but I will use what I have.'
Do you see my point? It's a difficult thing to articulate, really.
Any fictional character must be flawed if they are to be believable. That is where the unbalance in the blocks comes in, they provide the flaws which increase the character's... erm... character.

That's how I've always thought of it, anyway.

EDIT

Melkor had no choice but to be as Eru created him to be, the anger in his heart came from the knowledge that he must continue down that dark path, for the bonds that Eru laid upon him were strong indeed. To say that others are greater and better because they 'chose' good is only vanity

Ah! I see. You're fighting from a predestination theological point of view. Okay.
I cannot, of course, say anything with any full certainty because, like many of you, I am human and therefore not omnipotant.
Once again, as for Eru, we can only speculate theology based on Judaeo-Christian terms or simelar monotheistic theologies. What Tolkien's beliefs were we cannot say definitively because, for one, he is dead and second, we broke our last mind reader ray o matic. :(
The way I see it is this:
The idea of free will Vs predestine is, in it's essence, pointless. It is unknowable. The Bible give some glues both ways; God knows the plans he has for us and yet gives us a choice to follow or to reject him. Again I hesitate to go on because we are veering off topic and I would rather not arouse the fury of those more learned than myself.
C.S. Lewis, that great friend of Tolkien, said this:
"God created the universe already seeing the buzzing cloud of flies above the cross."
He also explains that God created creatures because, being love, he desires to give out love. These creatures must have the choice to love or not, otherwise it is slavery and not love at all.

But alas, we seem to be veering from the topic.

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

Bravery...and looked what happened to him ;)
But you're right, without his rebellion there wouldn't have been a story at all, or only a really boring one about Elves and Men living in bliss in Aman under the light of the trees...or of the lamps, whatever....;)

Yes mighty Pippin, you see, if Lord Melkor is right about that, at least for one moment consider in your secret thought that He could also be right about other things.
Contemplate this.

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

excellent response Hookbill the Goomba, Where is tinow? It was at my email . . .
Anyhow, I shall consider carefull your thought ful response, much improved, you'd better put your thinking cap on when you engage me I do not suffer foolishness and careless thinking lightly......anyhow, I will repay you and in respect give you just as thoughtful and heartfelt response but I must get ready for work or I'll be late!

[Elmo]

Neithan Tol Turambar has a job :eek: Sorry that was a joke my little Melkorite

[Thenamir]

I will say no more.
You see how quickly these empty slaves betray their masters?

I knew it. He couldn't keep his verbal vomit in check for more than 11 minutes.

[alatar]

For none honor Beren more than Melkor; whom has never spoken any defilement of an advisary that has proven their worth merely by having the courage to confront Him. They dwell as equals and friends now in paradise.
So, having no 'earthly' accomplishments about which to boast, Melkor has fallen to name-dropping. He was 'owned' by Beren and Luthien, and I doubt that Melkor and the Camlost ever shook hands, even the one that remained, in this life or the thereafter (assuming that Melkor could even wiggle a hand free of his chains). Does Melkor know Paris Hilton too? ;)

By the by, I've glad that this topic has arisen as it's given me a new perspective on Melkor. Assuming Eru 'begat' in some way Melkor, technically that could mean that Eru is Melkor's mommy. So, while many of the other Valar are married, Melkor sits alone, living in Angband, as I now see it, in his mother's basement! From there he dreams and schemes, and in the end it's all for not. When, perchance, a beautiful maiden stops by, he can only look. Her singing makes him impotent..I mean, ineffective for a time, and she walks out with the guy that that brought her to the dance (which, as we've read, is now a friend of the Dark Lord, because that's as close as he's going to get to fair Tinuviel). Wow! And all this time I thought the guy scary, but now realize how sad he was.

Anyway, that may be a harsh way of saying that Melkor had no or lost his creative powers as life became all about him. What does this say about giving one's children too much? Spoiled is a really fitting word here.

And I'm not even going to bring up that Melkor had to chain Húrin to the mountainside just for some company...;)

But I do understand the point that Melkor did serve a purpose, as without him, the First Age may be summed up to be "The Elves had tea; Men showed up and made coffee." Boring!

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Like a nasty, hateful teenager.....with superpowers! Effects will not be pleasant.

[The Might]

1. That's not such a bad idea at all, I like Pippin...but I can't change my name, sorry.

2. "If I can speak from experience, when inventing a character, especially a villain, it is difficult to get one's mind into the right position."
I disagree, look at Alien, he's evil and doesn't change a bit :D

3. Hmm...I'm not so sure about that Alatar. I don't think Eru really made them pairs, I just think nobody wanted to be together with Melkor. Anyway, I am pretty certain I once say a quote where it read that he had a hidden love for Varda, which would even more justify his hatred for Manwe. What I can't understand is why it necessarily happened to him...:confused:

Also, note that the original 14 Valar were 7 Male and 7 Female (somehow it feels wrong to use such terms when talking about spirits), only after the arrival of Tulkas this balance was changed.

[Arafinwë Linwëlin]

I would like to start a thread to glorify Lord Melkor, and his faithful and free servants, against the thralls of the Valar, usurpers and enslavers of the peoples of Arda, whom the rightful ruler and greatest of the Vala, would liberate.
Anyone who has the strength of character inherent in themselves to recognize such strength that is within the servants of Melkor, Sauron, the Wraiths, the Warrior Kings of Glorious and free Harad, could by posting qoutes and scenes from the mythology here at this thread, and let us discuss what indeed be lies and deceit, and so thus the true Ruler of Arda be known.
I shall start it off, and add to it as my time allows, and would like to develope this theme into a sub-forum all it's own.


And He said: 'The Valar have possessed themselves of the land where there is no death; and they lie to you concerning it, hiding it as best they may, because of their avarice, and their fear lest the Kings of Men should wrest from them the deathless realm and rule the world in thier stead. And though, doubtless, the gift of life unending is not for all, but only for such as are worthy, being men of might and pride and great lieage, yet against all justice is it done that this gift, which is his [MINE] due, should be witheld from the King of Kings, Ar-Pharazon, mightiest of the sons of Earth, to whom Manwe alone can be compared, if even he. But great kings brook no denials, and take what is thier due."
Now that's inspiring. I swear it's as if He were speaking right now in this room, to me.

Now the lightnings increased and slew men upon the hills, and in the fields, and in the streets of the city; and a fiery bolt smote the dome of the temple and shore it asunder, and it was wreathed in flame. But the temple itself was unshaken, and Sauron stood there upon the pinnacle and defied the lightning and was unharmed; and in that hour men called him a God and did all that He would.

Give great praise to Lord Sauron! What Power! What dignity! To stand in defiance of the Slaves of Eru the Accursed!
For Lord Sauron lives I say. He has come again into the world to once again vie for the freedom of the human race. I am his herald and messanger, and he has liberated me so that I have tasted freedom and Lo! they lie who say that He is a Tyrant wreathed in shadow, for I have come to reveal freely the open path to the recovery of your souls. He is among us. I bring you his Gos Spell.

[Well......that's pretty far out, it just rolls off my tongue you know, but I'm going to go for it.] May the wisdom and majesty of Melkor guide and direct me.
Acturally, Sauron said this to Ar-Pharazon, Melkor didnt ;)

[alatar]

3. Hmm...I'm not so sure about that Alatar. I don't think Eru really made them pairs, I just think nobody wanted to be together with Melkor. Anyway, I am pretty certain I once say a quote where it read that he had a hidden love for Varda, which would even more justify his hatred for Manwe. What I can't understand is why it necessarily happened to him...:confused:
I think that, whether paired or no, Melkor was a loner, and that says something about his personality. He hung out with Ungoliant, but she wasn't really a companion, just a fellow traveler of convenience. He deceived her, she'd have et him.

Did Melkor just need a true friend, a hug, more attention from Eru?


alatar begins to look for Melkor's address to which to send a Teddy-gram...

[Bêthberry]

Did Melkor just need a true friend, a hug, more attention from Eru?


alatar begins to look for Melkor's address to which to send a Teddy-gram...

Love or a giggle perhaps. Perhaps he just never found a cartoon or comic that gave him a really good laugh.

[The Might]

Clearly, there was a change in him

As noted in the Ainulindale, when the Ainur sang to him in the beginning, Eru was glad
But afterwards they all spent some time in which they "sang only each alone, or but few together."
It was in this time that Melkor had changed and started seeking the Flame Imperishable, as he wanted to create things of his own.
I don't think a friend would have helped...he wanted power
And since it was hard to rule over his own kind with Eru around, he wanted to create his own things over which he could rule
I think he wanted to be just like Eru, and have his own place where he could rule everything. And since this was not possible in Ea, he would have destroyed everything had he succeeded. I think it's hard to imagine how spirits think, or what needs they have...I'm not sure about this matter.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

2. "If I can speak from experience, when inventing a character, especially a villain, it is difficult to get one's mind into the right position."
I disagree, look at Alien, he's evil and doesn't change a bit

He doesnt count. :p
And he has changed... a bit. If anything he's got more stupid as episodes have gone on.
But then, he's not supposed to be a deep character. Remember, I put very little thought into his creation. What I was referring to are serious characters for Serious stories. Seriously.

Perhaps it can be said that the longer the story, the more complex the characters have to get. This can also be confusing for the writer. (Come back when Phantom and Alien is on Episode 1007 :p )

[The Might]

Serious did change...though he's not a villain
He had his old skool look for a while, then Bethberry's mustard spray face, and so he needed a holiday, definitely more complex then Alien :D

[Thenamir]

Alright, Neithan Tol Turambar, I'm calling you out. Your verbose and insufferable tirades, your name-calling, and your general attitude (not to mention your deluded self-proclamation as Lord Sauron's "herald and messenger") have earned you the negative rep you so richly deserve. Prepare to defend yourself.

In your introductory post on the "Introduce yourself here" thread, you posted the following:
I really care about Tolkeins work and would not see it cheapened, or changed, not one word, or exploited in any way by those who love it less than I. Because if they loved it as much as I then they would know that it's greatness is far beyond everything I have within myself in total, and only the vilest and most atrocious arrogance could convince a man that he could by adjustments, great or small, improve upon the work of Tolkein.

Now aside from the fact that you revere the Learned Professor's work so much that you can't even spell his name correctly, your entire premise in beginning and carrying on this thread is entirely antithetical to every spoken and written opinion of Tolkien himself. I defy you to produce one iota, a single scintilla of evidence to show that Tolkien himself, whom you claim to revere and defend, intended that Melkor (or Sauron) was the master, savior, and liberator which you claim. Otherwise you are attempting to alter and revise that work of which you say only the vilest and most atrocious arrogance could convince a man that he could by adjustments, great or small, improve upon the work of Tolkein.
I agree with that sentiment, and I here and now accuse you of that vile and atrocious arrogance and call you to defend your position against the following quotes from LOTR and the Silmarillion (words of Tolkien himself! ), reproduced from an earlier discussion on a similar topic.

-----

Morgoth:

From splendour he fell through arrogance to contempt for all things save himself, a spirit wasteful and pitiless. Understanding he turned to subtlety in perverting to his own will all that he would use, until he became a liar without shame. He began with the desire of Light, but when he could not possess it for himself alone, he descended through fire and wrath into a great burning, down into Darkness. And darkness he used most in his evil works upon Arda, and filled it with fear for all living things.

In the powers and knowledge of all the other Valar he had part, but he turned them to evil purposes, and squandered his strength in violence and tyranny. For he coveted Arda and all that was in it, desiring the kingship of Manwë and dominion over the realms of his peers.

But he desired rather to subdue to his will both Elves and Men, envying the gifts with which Ilúvatar promised to endow them; and he wished himself to have subject and servants, and to be called Lord, and to be a master over other wills.

Then Melkor saw what was done, and that the Valar walked on Earth as powers visible, clad in the raiment of the World, and were lovely and glorious to see, and blissful, and that the Earth was becoming as a garden for their delight, for its turmoils were subdued. His envy grew then the greater within him; and he also took visible form, but because of his mood and the malice that burned in him that form was dark and terrible. And he descended upon Arda in power and majesty greater than any other of the Valar, as a mountain that wades in the sea and has its head above the clouds and is clad in ice and crowned with smoke and fire; and the light of the eyes of Melkor was like a flame that withers with heat and pierces with a deadly cold.

But ever the Noldor feared most the treachery of those of their own kin, who had been thralls in Angband; for Morgoth used some of these for his evil purposes, and feigning to give them liberty sent them abroad, but their wills were chained to his, and they strayed only to come back to him again.

But in the north Melkor built his strength, and he slept not, but watched, and laboured; and the evil things that he had perverted walked abroad, and the dark and slumbering woods were haunted by monsters and shapes of dread...And in that dark time Melkor bred many other monsters of divers shapes and kinds that long troubled the world...

...all those of the Quendi who came into the hands of Melkor, ere Utumno was broken, were put there in prison, and by slow arts of cruelty were corrupted and enslaved; and thus did Melkor breed the hideous race of the Orcs in envy and mockery of the Elves, of whom they were afterwards the bitterest foes.

...he [Manwë] saw not to the depths of Melkor’s heart, and did not perceive that all love had departed from him for ever.

...Then Melkor lusted for the Silmarils, and the very memory of their radiance was a gnawing fire in his heart. From that time forth, inflamed by this desire, he sought ever more eagerly how he should destroy Fëanor and end the friendship of the Valar and the Elves; but he dissembled his purposes with cunning, and nothing of his malice could yet be seen in the semblance that he wore. Long was he at work, and slow at first and barren was his labour. But he that sows lies in the end shall not lack of a harvest, and soon he may rest from toil indeed while others reap and sow in his stead.

...Thus with lies and evil whisperings and false counsel Melkor kindled the hearts of the Noldor to strife; and of their quarrels came at length the end of the high days of Valinor [quote]and the evening of its ancient glory.

Sauron:
Among those of his servants that have names the greatest was that spirit whom the Eldar called Sauron, or Gorthaur the Cruel. In all the deeds of Melkor the Morgoth upon Arda, in his vast works and in the deceits of his cunning, Sauron had a part, and was only less evil than his master in that for long he served another and not himself. But in after years he rose like a shadow of Morgoth and a ghost of his malice, and walked behind him on the same ruinous path down into the Void.

...Sauron, greatest and most terrible of the servants of Morgoth, who in the Sindarin tongue was named Gorthaur, came against Orodreth, the warden of the tower upon Tol Sirion. Sauron was become now a sorcerer of dreadful power, master of shadows and of phantoms, foul in wisdom, cruel in strength, misshaping what he touched, twisting what he ruled, lord of werewolves; his dominion was torment.

So, now, let's review. Even for Lalwendë who has her fingers in her ears and isn't listening anymore. ;)


Arrogant and contemptful of everything except themselves
Liars without shame
Selfish in the extreme
Use fear and intimidation to dominate other wills
Turn good things to evil purposes
Usurpers of the rightful realms of others
Coveting everything for themselves
Appear in dark and terrible forms
Tortured, maimed, killed, enslaved, perverted the elves
Completely loveless
Envious, jealous and bitter
Ever striving to insert strife and dissent
Cunning dissemblers and deceivers
Instrumental in the downfall of Numenor and the consequent deaths of almost an entire race
And in the end complete losers and failures.


Now you tell me how you can simultaneously maintain your mutually-contradicting positions of "Melkor is the Benevolent Savior and Master" and "Tolkien's work is untouchable. "

I respectfully look forward to your reply.

[Lalwendë]

Like a nasty, hateful teenager.....with superpowers! Effects will not be pleasant.

Melkor: "Are you disrespectin' me? Am I bovvered? Do I look bovvered? Look at my my Mace, does it look bovvered? Eh? Mace? Bovvered? Bovvered? Mace? I aint Bovvered!"


Did Melkor just need a true friend, a hug, more attention from Eru?

Flamin' Nora! Its David Cameron! "Hug A Minion" ;)

I'm more into the idea that Melkor just wanted to do his own thing and went off to do it, all to no avail as Eru just wasn't going to let him. That makes the whole Melkor story even more horrible because he was created with the potential to do what he did, i.e. rebel, but without the potential to bring that to complete fruition. And of course Eru also turned Melkor's brutality into beauty - into snow and ice, and into the potential to be a hero. Without Melkor there would have been no heroes either.

[Lalwendë]

So, now, let's review. Even for Lalwendë who has her fingers in her ears and isn't listening anymore. ;)


Que?

:confused:

[Thenamir]

My sincerest apologies, Lal -- that was inadvertenly copied from the original post. The incident to which it refers was already dealt with over in the "Rooting For The Wrong Side" thread.

[Durelin]

Did Melkor just need a true friend, a hug, more attention from Eru?


alatar begins to look for Melkor's address to which to send a Teddy-gram..

I have always attested such writings as Marcus Aurelius' Meditations to one fateful day in third grade, February 14th, when the poor writer received not a single Valentine. Perhaps writing in his journal was not manly enough for Melkor, or maybe he lacked the artistry, and so resorted to self-destructiveness, which naturally grew into overall destructive behavior.

Ah, maybe that's it - he desired a creative outlet but Eru failed to give him even enough skill to draw stick figures or write nonsensical haikus?

[alatar]

I respectfully look forward to your reply.

Melkor:
Melkor liked Beren.
He thought Tinuviel and Varda were 'hot.'
Melkor invented orcs. Without such creatures, we never would have been blessed with hearing Viggo Mortensen say, "orc" like he had a clothes pin on his nose.
Someone has to play Judas in the play.
Who else was mighty enough to restrain the Balrogs from flying around Thangorodrim like bats?
As stated, flour comes from milling. Melkor was the millstone.

Sauron:
He pumped up the Witch-King in RotK.
Sauron started the Werewolf-game madness.
Without Annatar, jewelry in Middle Earth just wouldn't be the same - just necklaces and shiny brooches.

And the most probable (and coherent?) reply will be that all that you've stated is one point of view, from the Elves and their lackeys, and we never get to read Melkor's side, as, well, he lost, and to the victors go the publishing rights...;)

[Lalwendë]

My sincerest apologies, Lal -- that was inadvertenly copied from the original post. The incident to which it refers was already dealt with over in the "Rooting For The Wrong Side" thread.

Ah now I see what you did! I was a bit shocked there! But no harm done! ;)

Anyway, Melkor. Of course he's the bad guy in the story, that's how he's set up - it doesn't stop anyone from reversing that if they like though. That's just another way of reading it. Course, some people do it just to wind Tolkien fans up, including other Tolkien fans, as we can be a bunch of sensitive little flowers at times ;) My particular 'blue touchpaper' is when people start on about Hobbits being 'cr*p' etc.and how Saruman should've killed them all. Set me off on that one and I'll be all touchy! There isn't necessarily anything wrong in someone liking Melkor though - after all we don't know why they do, and what they're really like. That shouldn't form our judge of character - and if it did I'd be a poor judge because I've met enough Elf fans who were complete %^&*(s....

But he has to be there, as has been said, or there'd be no story anyway. ;)

[Thenamir]

...and as I was once told, "if the learner hasn't learned, then the the teacher hasn't taught."

I am by no means impugning the right and privilege of any person to read JRRT as he/she/it sees fit. (Though I also defend the right of those who disagree, especially myself :D , to do so.) In Neithan Tol Turambar's case, I am merely pointing out that Neithan has established two, mutually contradictory points of view -- One, that Tolkien's work is inviolable, and Two, that Melkor is something or someone that Tolkien says he most definitely was not.

[Elmo]

I think Neithan in this thread was, as we say in Bonnie Scotland, extracting the urine with this thread. (something I have been guilty of in the past but this became boring)

[The Might]

After noticing Neithan hasn't posted, Gandalf says to Sam:

‘A great Shadow has departed,’ said Gandalf, and then he laughed and the sound was like music, or like water in a parched land; and as he listened the thought came to Sam that he had not heard laughter, the pure sound of merriment, for days upon days without count. It fell upon his ears like the echo of all the joys he had ever known. But he himself burst into tears. Then, as a sweet rain will pass down a wind of spring and the sun will shine out the clearer, his tears ceased, and his laughter welled up, and laughing he sprang from his bed.


:D:D:D

[Thenamir]

To be fair, he earlier said he was off to work, and he has to sleep sometime, herald-of-Sauron or not.

[The Might]

Gandalf never lies...I hope. :)

[alatar]

I think Neithan in this thread was, as we say in Bonnie Scotland, extracting the urine with this thread.
You mean I put off important life-changing work to reply to this thread for nothing?!? :eek: ;)

The verve...I mean the nerve of some. :rolleyes:

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

So, having no 'earthly' accomplishments about which to boast, Melkor has fallen to name-dropping. He was 'owned' by Beren and Luthien, and I doubt that Melkor and the Camlost ever shook hands, even the one that remained, in this life or the thereafter (assuming that Melkor could even wiggle a hand free of his chains). Does Melkor know Paris Hilton too? ;)

By the by, I've glad that this topic has arisen as it's given me a new perspective on Melkor. Assuming Eru 'begat' in some way Melkor, technically that could mean that Eru is Melkor's mommy. So, while many of the other Valar are married, Melkor sits alone, living in Angband, as I now see it, in his mother's basement! From there he dreams and schemes, and in the end it's all for not. When, perchance, a beautiful maiden stops by, he can only look. Her singing makes him impotent..I mean, ineffective for a time, and she walks out with the guy that that brought her to the dance (which, as we've read, is now a friend of the Dark Lord, because that's as close as he's going to get to fair Tinuviel). Wow! And all this time I thought the guy scary, but now realize how sad he was.

Anyway, that may be a harsh way of saying that Melkor had no or lost his creative powers as life became all about him. What does this say about giving one's children too much? Spoiled is a really fitting word here.

And I'm not even going to bring up that Melkor had to chain Húrin to the mountainside just for some company...;)

But I do understand the point that Melkor did serve a purpose, as without him, the First Age may be summed up to be "The Elves had tea; Men showed up and made coffee." Boring!


...but to Urin[hurin] he gave a measure of vision, so that much of those things that befell his wife and [daughter] he might see and be helpless to aid, for magic held him in that high place. "Behold!" said Melko, "the life of [your daughter] shall be accounted a matter for tears wherever elves and men are gathered for the telling of tales."; but Hurin said: "at least none shall pity [her] for this, that [she] had a craven for father."

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

Neithan Tol Turambar has a job :eek: Sorry that was a joke my little Melkorite

I could rip you to shreds for that, but you have secret admiring guardian angels, boy.

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

Love or a giggle perhaps. Perhaps he just never found a cartoon or comic that gave him a really good laugh.
not true not true! I loved the Savage Sword of Conan! wench.

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

Alright, Neithan Tol Turambar, I'm calling you out. Your verbose and insufferable tirades, your name-calling, and your general attitude (not to mention your deluded self-proclamation as Lord Sauron's "herald and messenger") have earned you the negative rep you so richly deserve. Prepare to defend yourself.

In your introductory post on the "Introduce yourself here" thread, you posted the following:


Now aside from the fact that you revere the Learned Professor's work so much that you can't even spell his name correctly, your entire premise in beginning and carrying on this thread is entirely antithetical to every spoken and written opinion of Tolkien himself. I defy you to produce one iota, a single scintilla of evidence to show that Tolkien himself, whom you claim to revere and defend, intended that Melkor (or Sauron) was the master, savior, and liberator which you claim. Otherwise you are attempting to alter and revise that work of which you say
I agree with that sentiment, and I here and now accuse you of that vile and atrocious arrogance and call you to defend your position against the following quotes from LOTR and the Silmarillion (words of Tolkien himself! ), reproduced from an earlier discussion on a similar topic.

-----

Morgoth:



















[Quote]...Thus with lies and evil whisperings and false counsel Melkor kindled the hearts of the Noldor to strife; and of their quarrels came at length the end of the high days of Valinor

Sauron:




So, now, let's review. Even for Lalwendë who has her fingers in her ears and isn't listening anymore. ;)


Arrogant and contemptful of everything except themselves
Liars without shame
Selfish in the extreme
Use fear and intimidation to dominate other wills
Turn good things to evil purposes
Usurpers of the rightful realms of others
Coveting everything for themselves
Appear in dark and terrible forms
Tortured, maimed, killed, enslaved, perverted the elves
Completely loveless
Envious, jealous and bitter
Ever striving to insert strife and dissent
Cunning dissemblers and deceivers
Instrumental in the downfall of Numenor and the consequent deaths of almost an entire race
And in the end complete losers and failures.


Now you tell me how you can simultaneously maintain your mutually-contradicting positions of "Melkor is the Benevolent Savior and Master" and "Tolkien's work is untouchable. "

I respectfully look forward to your reply.


You have agreed with me in a circular way at every point, but cannot make the proper conclusion at the end of your reasoning. Let me say this: I agree with you.
What incredible examples of the worlds finest writer. I thank you. For Tolkien was, I firmly believe the finest writer of all time and his passages arouse in me the most brilliant and compelling visions I have ever experienced. He can conjure up images of power so strong I feel them and see them he moves me!!!!
Your right. Tolkien did write those passages. He also wrote the narrative of Morgoth's perspective, an inseperable part of the whole. Melkor has glory within the revelation as an inextricably intertwined part of the story without which[EVIL] their can be no good. Think Man! By God you are at the very door!!
IN THE ABSENCE OF DARKNESS LIGHT HAS NO GLORY. EVIL REFLECTS THE GLORY OF GOD.

I laboriously type again....

"Then Illuvatar 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 Illuvatar, 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 it's 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.'

Now you think about that. And if you still don't know what I am doing here, then I declare outside of all eccentricity and sarcasim and from the depths of my true heart say to you sir you have no understanding. Please do not react, THINK.

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

You people can thank the moderators for heavily censoring my posts, in which, while in the spirit, made a stunning and careless error, that you could have taken advantage of. WHAT A DRAG! IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PERFECT ILLISTRATION OF THE WISDOM OF GANDALF. I worried all day when in the midst of lifting over 3000 pounds in twenty minutes...."The magnitude of my folly was revealed to me in a blinding flash...." Wonder what it was? TOO BAD!!! I 'M NOT TELLING!!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA OOOHHHH------(cough cough..uhckk ttwwoooo cough cough) AHHH HA HA HA HA unghckk cough cough cough)

I have a new thread that I think is just going to blow people away, sorry, I really do!
I'm going to write it soon, and it will be serious, and pure, and empirical, and GOOD.
I, We, promises to be very, very good. nice moderator! wretched we are wretched!
Neithan promises! He will be very very good! Nice Moderator! Don't censor us! don't censor us! achsss sss gollum!

[Thenamir]

Neithan, I'm unsure at this point whether you are a troll, a madman, or a thinker (of sorts), so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt at this point and attempt to see through the blinders you seem to think we're all wearing.

It is oft said that disasters bring out the best in people, or that without the contrast of the hard times we would never properly appreciate the good times, or that "every dark cloud has a silver lining". In this sense I can understand that, as Tolkien himself said, there would never have been certain beauties (as of snow) unless Melkor had brought the icy cold.

However, it is on one side of the line that one can assert that Eru can make make even the selfish evil of Morgoth work to his purposes, but let us not take the step over the line to assert that Melkor himself is good, or that evil in and of itself is good, thus confusing the two and removing all meaning from the words. The destruction and death that resulted from World War II can make us grateful for the life we have and the peace we enjoy, but let us not call Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito great men of history because of that reminder -- the price paid was far too high.

If good can be brought out as a result of evil, that does not justify the evil. The fact that Eru foresaw and incorporated all of the things that I quoted in my prior post, and eventually caused a the strength of evil to be overcome by the weakness of good, that is a testament not to the glory of Melkor for being a "free thinker", but to Eru, for taking Morgoth's free but twisted will and still making something good from it. Eru is therefore not a tyrant, as you claimed, but the true benevolent creator and savior of all.

You have said that the Valar are only puppets, aping what Eru "progammed" into them. Where Tolkien said that Iluvatar gave only a theme, a "subject" or "Guideline" from which they could use their individual gifts and talents to create the Music themselves: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.

You have said that the Flame Imperishable is greater than Eru. Tolkien says the Fire itself is with Iluvatar and inseparable from him.He had gone often alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame; for desire grew hot within him to bring into Being things of his own, and it seemed to him that Ilúvatar took no thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness. Yet he found not the Fire, for it is with Ilúvatar. He would have found what he was seeking if he had but turned TO Iluvatar rather than AWAY from him.

Of Sauron you say "they lie who say that He is a Tyrant wreathed in shadow." I do believe it was our beloved professor T. who wrote that of Sauron -- and I thought you despised those who altered his works and his vision.

You have said that Morgoth "hath made valleys, and Eru's slaves filled them; Melkor hath made mountains, and Eru hath cast them down", which is the very opposite of Tolkien's writing on that topic: The Valar endeavoured ever, in despite of Melkor, to rule the Earth and to prepare it for the coming of the Firstborn; and they built lands and Melkor destroyed them; valleys they delved and Melkor raised them up; mountains they carved and Melkor threw them down; seas they hollowed and Melkor spilled them; and naught might have peace or come to lasting growth, for as surely as the Valar began a labour so would Melkor undo it or corrupt it.

Finally, and I think perhaps this is a telling point, you ask "What would the world be without Melkor's Theme?" First of all, there was no "Melkor's Theme", only a clamorous unison as of many trumpets braying upon a few notes. And it essayed to drown the other music by the violence of its voice But more to the point, if there had been no Melkor, theme or no theme, then we would all go on living our lives in the REAL world. For Melkor is a fiction, a non-entity, words on a page (albeit words of genius) composed by a man we all revere, but who in the last analysis, deplored the cult status his words attained. Let us never forget that.

I have not yet made up my mind whether you have some method to your madness, or if you're just one of those folks who wander in to a forum or chat spoiling for a fight, pushing everyone's hot buttons, and watching their predictable knee-jerk reactions. Or perhaps you just quaff too many pints, or there's something "special" in those ciggies you smoke, or perhaps that fried chicken is just a wee bit past its freshness date. Nevertheless, I perceive that there is some valuable intelligence behind this belligerent facade, and I hope that it can spill forth here with less rancor and more gentleness, less veiled vagueries and more directness.

I'm off to bed. I bid you and all my readers a good night.

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

I rush forward in blitzkrieg attack and, being engrossed in my task, make no considerations of empathy.
Therefore I was shocked to see that The Might and Hookbill the Goomba (sp) were 18 and 20, respectively.
I was strangely and profoundly moved.
While I take back nothing, not a word, I want to say that you guys should not let a word I say bring you down. I am
how shall I put it?
very impressed with your insight, thoughtfulness and level of maturity.
The what I've been told is dog latin inscription ( can I say that? Should I look it up? I keep a dictionary right here) as my secondary signiture is latin, a living langauge, which means, "Don't let the bastards grind you down".
Now you men think carefully about all that I have said, and look in the books, and Idaresay, seek for themes within our own history that fit within analogous perception, but only and I say only! ONLY! after you aquire knowledge. And not the disgusting Melkorian knowledge you find on discovery, but true knowledge that you can only get by special order catalogues and sometimes once in a while from a inter library loan.
And use a dictionary. Never read passed a word you do not know. If you do you are a fool and unworthy. Look it up. LOOK IT UP AGAIN. look it up and write the definition down. Look it up five times if the word doesn't sound like the meaning, as is often the case, and so, hard to memorize.
You both have the talentgift of writing and insight. Make sure you get to be experts with the thesaurus. With a thesaurus you conquer, without you fail. The best in the world know this but they will never tell you.
And Hookbill, I know why you call yourself that. My oldest best closest friend, my brother, who is dead because of my carelessness, had a really big nose too.
Most girls didn't like him, and they mostly didn't like anyone at all, but by God, and you'll see, some girls do.

[Thenamir]

By the heavens, Neithan, the regulars and bystanders who post on this site are some of the finest, most knowledgeable Tolkien fans on the Net, and for you to come in here as a rank (in every sense of the word) newcomer and talk down to us as you have been doing is intolerable. If you have something to say, say it and let's discuss it, but don't pretend to have some "secret insights" and patronize our supposed ignorance by hints and vagueness.

You're going to have to prove your bona fides here with much more than bluster before you can get away with that.

And by the way, your sig should read Illegitimi non carborundum. For one who claims that Latin is a living language, you sure don't treat it like one.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Dude, give it up. Tolkien himself said Morgoth was an evil, selfish thing and that Sauron was just a lesser creature than that.

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

Neithan, I'm unsure at this point whether you are a troll, a madman, or a thinker (of sorts), so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt at this point and attempt to see through the blinders you seem to think we're all wearing.

It is oft said that disasters bring out the best in people, or that without the contrast of the hard times we would never properly appreciate the good times, or that "every dark cloud has a silver lining". In this sense I can understand that, as Tolkien himself said, there would never have been certain beauties (as of snow) unless Melkor had brought the icy cold.

However, it is on one side of the line that one can assert that Eru can make make even the selfish evil of Morgoth work to his purposes, but let us not take the step over the line to assert that Melkor himself is good, or that evil in and of itself is good, thus confusing the two and removing all meaning from the words. The destruction and death that resulted from World War II can make us grateful for the life we have and the peace we enjoy, but let us not call Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito great men of history because of that reminder -- the price paid was far too high.

If good can be brought out as a result of evil, that does not justify the evil. The fact that Eru foresaw and incorporated all of the things that I quoted in my prior post, and eventually caused a the strength of evil to be overcome by the weakness of good, that is a testament not to the glory of Melkor for being a "free thinker", but to Eru, for taking Morgoth's free but twisted will and still making something good from it. Eru is therefore not a tyrant, as you claimed, but the true benevolent creator and savior of all.

You have said that the Valar are only puppets, aping what Eru "progammed" into them. Where Tolkien said that Iluvatar gave only a theme, a "subject" or "Guideline" from which they could use their individual gifts and talents to create the Music themselves:

You have said that the Flame Imperishable is greater than Eru. Tolkien says the Fire itself is with Iluvatar and inseparable from him. He would have found what he was seeking if he had but turned TO Iluvatar rather than AWAY from him.

Of Sauron you say "they lie who say that He is a Tyrant wreathed in shadow." I do believe it was our beloved professor T. who wrote that of Sauron -- and I thought you despised those who altered his works and his vision.

You have said that Morgoth "hath made valleys, and Eru's slaves filled them; Melkor hath made mountains, and Eru hath cast them down", which is the very opposite of Tolkien's writing on that topic:

Finally, and I think perhaps this is a telling point, you ask "What would the world be without Melkor's Theme?" First of all, there was no "Melkor's Theme", only But more to the point, if there had been no Melkor, theme or no theme, then we would all go on living our lives in the REAL world. For Melkor is a fiction, a non-entity, words on a page (albeit words of genius) composed by a man we all revere, but who in the last analysis, deplored the cult status his words attained. Let us never forget that.

I have not yet made up my mind whether you have some method to your madness, or if you're just one of those folks who wander in to a forum or chat spoiling for a fight, pushing everyone's hot buttons, and watching their predictable knee-jerk reactions. Or perhaps you just quaff too many pints, or there's something "special" in those ciggies you smoke, or perhaps that fried chicken is just a wee bit past its freshness date. Nevertheless, I perceive that there is some valuable intelligence behind this belligerent facade, and I hope that it can spill forth here with less rancor and more gentleness, less veiled vagueries and more directness.

I'm off to bed. I bid you and all my readers a good night.


Responses like that make it all worth it. By Jove man don't you think I know how crazy these Tolkien fans are? For days I have lived in fear thinking that a truckload of them might suddenly appear, tires squeeling in some alley behind the market on my way home . . ."We got you now, don't we!"

But really- do you think I am just fumbling around here with no strategy?
Can I use conventional methods to convey inconventional ideas?
Can I go deeper into the depths without sacrificing myself, for no man can hold his breath that long, and surely I must fail, not at reaching the depths, but only by knowing that I have not enough to get back to the surface.

I disagree with you at two points:

[and since my computer skills are nil I can't remeber what you said and I'm afraid to lose my text so far...

"Eru foresaw and incorporated . . . .and eventually . . .

No. Do Not make excuses for Eru based on secret imagined faults which are not really his, but your own unvoiced or unrecognized limitations.

Eru was not inept and yet fortunately was able to some how in the end eventually make everything all right and use Melkors evil to defeat him. You still cannot fully accept the fact, as revealed, that the whole scope of the music was with Eru from the beginning and even the end, though we are at it's beginning, is within Eru AT PRESENT. According to your reasoning their is an unknown varible in the equation. Melkor, though not as great as Eru, and Eru, not entirely omnipotent, and the conflict between, whereby Eru proves by the end that he is master.

Wrong wrong wrong. Eru does not struggle to prove that he is master somehow by the end, but declares and reveals openly that he is the ultimate souce of all in the beginning. Eru Takes responsibility for evil, that is his greatness, do not rob him of it because you canot accept this or that faced with his glory, you connot fathom, so you humanize him by giving him a slight dose of human frailty, to make him understandable. The fault is not in him, but in you. Accept this.
Want to get serious?
The Hebrew God does not take responsibility for creating evil. He demands that you must take responsibility for evil, or, as seems to be the case, that his Own Son must be tortured and murdered at his own people's request.
By God man that doesn't make me feel saved. It makes me feel wretched.
Tolkien's mythology makes me feel saved. Am I mad?
If Tolkiens mythology is not real then neither is Christ or Moses or any of that. You cannot have your Tolkien and eat it too.
And Tolkiens work is far more moral and complete and plausible and holy than anything found in what is called the Bible.
Do not tell me that Arda is not real or never was. I can't prove it. But I have faith.
I want to continue this. I'll met you again later. Sleep tight preciousss!

[davem]

You do realize that everyone was happy and good even before Morgoth did his crap, right?

But did they realise they were good & happy? Did they realise anything at all?

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

What's the matter tenimer? can't sleep wondering what I'll say next?

[The 1,000 Reader]

But did they realise they were good & happy? Did they realise anything at all?

Yeah, they did.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

And Hookbill, I know why you call yourself that.

Ah! You're a fan of the Super Mario games are you? :p

[Lalwendë]

But did they realise they were good & happy? Did they realise anything at all?

Well, nobody even existed prior to Melkor's work apart from the Ainur. The Children were simply thoughts in Eru's mind, and from the way the Sil is worded, it seems maybe only Elves existed, and that Eru may have created Men as a response to Melkor:

Then the discord of Melkor spread ever wider, and the melodies which had been heard before foundered in a sea of turbulent sound. But Iluvatar sat and hearkened until it seemed that about his throne there was a raging storm, as of dark waters that made war one upon another in an endless wrath that would not be assuaged.
Then Iluvatar arose, and the Ainur perceived that he smiled; and he lifted up his left hand, and a new theme began amid the storm, like and yet unlike to the former theme, and it gathered power and had new beauty. But the discord of Melkor rose in uproar and contended with it, and again there was a war of sound more violent than before, until many of the Ainur were dismayed and sang no longer, and Melkor had the mastery. Then again Iluvatar arose, and the Ainur perceived that his countenance was stern; and he lifted up his right hand, and behold! a third theme grew amid the confusion, and it was unlike the others. For it seemed at first soft and sweet, a mere rippling of gentle sounds in delicate melodies; but it could not be quenched, and it took to itself power and profundity.

Bold one - Elves
Bold two - Men - made in response to Melkor?

If so, that's quite fabulous, as Men were created to respond to and to resist Melkor's themes.

Anyway, to draw out some sense, I've argued before that using the text strictly, Darkness (note, not 'evil', but 'Darkness') must stem from Eru ultimately. From the start he is called the All Father and he is Omnipotent, and the very nature of that means that he creates everything, or causes every possibility.

Eru creates the Ainur from his own thought:
There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Illuvatar; 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

Melkor then, from what he has been given by Eru, which must include the potential to self-realise and imagine, makes up his own themes, different from the tune Eru has asked them to sing:
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 Iluvatar; for he sought therein to increase the power and glory of the part assigned to himself.

And then the Killer Quote from Eru, where he tells Melkor that although he may wish to make up his own theme and may believe he is being a true rebel, those thughts and ideas of Darkness all have their source in Eru:
Then Iluvatar 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 Iluvatar, 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.'

And what's more, because Everything stems from Eru, even if he who reveres Darkness thinks he is doing something different, heis not because Eru planted that there too, along with the fluffy stuff. And the Darkness only serves to make the Light that much brighter.

A lot of readers might not like that as they have the notion that Eru was all 'goodness' in our terms, yet this is at odds with an Omnipotent Eru who states he is the source of everything. This might make some uncomfortable as they believe their God is all 'good' - and I admit I too would be uncomfortable with this perception of God as someone who can cause things I see as quite dark. To me, there is no point in having a God if he is not all sweetness and light in contrast to the evil that people inflict on one another - why believe in a deity that can hurt you for no fathomable reason?

But this is Eru, and we cannot possibly hope to know Tolkien's own relationship with God and if he saw God as the source of all in the Real World, including Darkness, but if Eru is his representation of his own God then he may well have done. It's a common enough belief, especially in Catholicism, that everything stems from God, even the 'bad' things ('bad' because we see them as bad, but does God? Does he abhor war? Does he control tornadoes? Or is this all in his plan?) - it's simply his mysterious way; just take a look at The Book of Job to see an unfathomable God exercising his Omnipotence. By the by, this is assuming Eru is a representation of what Tolkien saw in God - it may well not be at all!

But we will never know. All we have to work on is what Eru is like in the text and in the Sil he creates All, including the potential for Darkness, and just as say Yavanna makes strawberries with her potential, Melkor makes cold temperatures with his. Eru gives them that potential and asks them to sing for him, and not all sing what he wanted them to sing because he also gives them the freedom to do as they will with the potential he has bestowed on them from his own thought.

Yet at the end of it all, even though Melkor does choose to use his potential in that way - it only serves to further glorify Eru, thus proving that in Arda, Eru has the Last Laugh. ;)

And that's way, way more than I wanted to write...

[The Might]

By the by, when I first saw your name I looked it up on Wikipedia since it sounded strange, and yet familiar.

"Neithan, I'm unsure at this point whether you are a troll, a madman, or a thinker (of sorts)"...I seem to feel the same

Can duplicate accounts actually be started without anyone noticing here, because, if yes, there is a more likely possibility...

[Raynor]

If so, that's quite fabulous, as Men were created to respond to and to resist Melkor's themes.Both races were created in the third theme:
For the Children of Iluvatar were conceived by him alone; and they came with the third theme, and were not in the theme which Iluvatar propounded at the beginning, and none of the Ainur had part in their making. That no Ainu had a part in their making is reinforced in the letters too (such as #200). I would have problems with picturing the Eruhini as a generated response by Melkor; Tolkien holds that their intrusion is the chief one; moreover:
And they saw with amazement the coming of the Children of Iluvatar, and the habitation that was prepared for them; and they perceived that they themselves in the labour of their music had been busy with the preparation of this dwelling, and yet knew not that it had any purpose beyond its own beauty.which implies that the Children existed in design before the themes.
But this is Eru, and we cannot possibly hope to know Tolkien's own relationship with God and if he saw God as the source of all in the Real World, including Darkness, but if Eru is his representation of his own God then he may well have done.I presume he does; the closest he comes to confessing this, that I know:
=Letter #153]I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them. That God would 'tolerate' that, seems no worse theology than the toleration of the calculated dehumanizing of Men by tyrants that goes on today. this theme of respect of Free Will by the Creator is also mentioned previously, in regards to the literary works:
Free Will is derivative, and is.'. only operative within provided circumstances; but in order that it may exist, it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it, whatever betides : sc. when it is 'against His Will', as we say, at any rate as it appears on a finite view. Morality implies free will, which implies possibility of evil - even at grand scales, such as that of angels, with all their terrible effects.

[Thinlómien]

Yeah, they did.Hmmm... care to elaborate? :) I agree with Lal here: nothing existed so no one could be aware of being happy. Though we could speculate if Ilúvatar and Ainur were happy or aware of it...


Can duplicate accounts actually be started without anyone noticing here, because, if yes, there is a more likely possibility...I think they can be made - why couldn't they? If this is some regular downer's joke, I think it's a very bad one.

[Raynor]

You do realize that everyone was happy and good even before Morgoth did his crap, right? But did they realise they were good & happy? Did they realise anything at all?The ainur used their free will to compose their music, so they must have had conscioussness. That they were good before Melkor's discording music is an fundamental idea in the Legendarium. I don't know of any 'evidence' concerning the level of their happiness, but even in this 50/50 situation, I believe it is safe to speculate they were doing quite alright. Ainulindale speaks of them experiencing amazement, harmony, communion, awe, even if only in relation to the music.

[davem]

The ainur used their free will to compose their music, so they must have had conscioussness. That they were good before Melkor's discording music is an fundamental idea in the Legendarium. I don't know of any 'evidence' concerning the level of their happiness, but even in this 50/50 situation, I believe it is safe to speculate they were doing quite alright. Ainulindale speaks of them experiencing amazement, harmony, communion, awe, even if only in relation to the music.

No. They were innocent befoe Melkor's discord - which is not the same thing at all. They could not have been 'good' because a) to be good is a moral choice, not a default position & b) they couldn't have known what 'good' actually was, since no alternative position existed. they didn't know they were happy because they had no experience of unhappiness. They didn't know what harmony amazement or communion was either, never having known disharmony, bordom or isolation. In short they didn't actually know much of anything till Melkor intervened & made them aware of other options.

[Raynor]

They were innocent befoe Melkor's discord - which is not the same thing at all.I am not sure what notion of good and evil you apply here. If being good means using free will in accordance with the stated and perceived intent of Eru, then they were good; and if they had reason, then they were able to differentiate this from its opposite, which would constitute evil.
they didn't know they were happy because they had no experience of unhappiness. They didn't know what harmony amazement or communion was either, never having known disharmony, bordom or isolation.These would be true if we assume that they cannot experience different degrees of these feelings, and thus unable to discerne, from relative difference between such degrees, their scale. The phrasing of the Ainulindale indicates otherwise. Although this announces to be an interesting speculation, I am not sure that we can apply human psychology to them. We are bound by our own human limitations; plus, I believe it is safe to assume that they experienced communion with Eru on various levels, and that they learned much through empathy from Him - not just from His music, or, later, from their actions.

[davem]

I am not sure what notion of good and evil you apply here. If being good means using free will in accordance with the stated and perceived intent of Eru, then they were good; and if they had reason, then they were able to differentiate this from its opposite, which would constitute evil.
.

Then 'good' is simply what Eru decides it is, not some objective standard. In which case all the Ainur could know is what corresponds to the intent of Eru & what does not. How they can make a moral choice on the basis of such limited knowledge is beyond me. They could not even know that Eru was 'good' until they had Melkor to compare him to.

[Bêthberry]

Memory's a bit foggy this morning--not had the requisite jolt of java yet--but wasn't there that Void wherein lay Ungoliant, even before Melkor?

[Raynor]

Then 'good' is simply what Eru decides it is, not some objective standard.However, to imply the opposite would mean either that Eru Himself does not know this objective standard, which would go contrary to His presumed status as ultimate possible being, or that He knows it, but He is deceitful - which would also go against what we know of Him as the ultimate source of good.
In which case all the Ainur could know is what corresponds to the intent of Eru & what does not.Hm, you lost me here, perhaps you could rephrase, so that I can answer this and the rest of the post.
Memory's a bit foggy this morning--not had the requisite jolt of java yet--but wasn't there that Void wherein lay Ungoliant, even before Melkor?You are referring to the void around Arda, which is different from the original void:
The Eldar knew not whence she came; but some have said that in ages long before she descended from the darkness that lies about Arda, when Melkor first looked down in envy upon the Kingdom of Manwe, and that in the beginning she was one of those that he corrupted to his service. ...the minds of Men (and even of the Elves) were inclined to confuse the 'Void', as a conception of the state of Not-being, outside Creation or Ea, with the conception of vast spaces within Ea, especially those conceived to lie all about the enisled 'Kingdom of Arda' (which we should probably call the Solar System).

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

No. They were innocent befoe Melkor's discord - which is not the same thing at all. They could not have been 'good' because a) to be good is a moral choice, not a default position & b) they couldn't have known what 'good' actually was, since no alternative position existed. they didn't know they were happy because they had no experience of unhappiness. They didn't know what harmony amazement or communion was either, never having known disharmony, bordom or isolation. In short they didn't actually know much of anything till Melkor intervened & made them aware of other options.
Well, this is actually what I think is the root of the problem people have with opinions on good. The dualistic view, like you are presenting in the above, counts with that good cannot be known without its opposite in evil. However, there is the other point of view, where good can stand for itself. And here it is, I think, mainly about what we do imagine under the term "good". The first problem is, that a thing like "THE good" (unless you agree with Plato) does not exist. This is the trouble that has risen from the Greek philosophy, which was (in difference to its priors) able to - due to Greek language - make a noun out of an adjective simply by putting an article before it. Ask a philosopher, he could probably tell you more about it. But for our purposes, let's just say for example that I can have a good meal, see a good film, have a good time. Adjectives, we know what it is if a meal is good for me. But "the" good probably no one of us can imagine.
This I wanted to make clear in order for what I want to say now to be understandable. So: there is nothing such as "the good" or "the evil" (using the articles to make it understandable that I am speaking of nouns, of some principles), and when in the following text I am using the terms "good" or "evil" as stand-alones, it means "sum of all good things" and "sum of all bad things".
So, let's move on with the example used. I can have a good meal, and now the question is, can I say I had a good meal without knowing what a bad meal is? Davem presented here the point that I cannot. Let's now make clear if we are talking about words or real things now. If "good" for me defines merely the opposite of "evil" (rather "bad" in the case of a meal), then davem's right. However, if I take "good" not as a word, but as a state (i.e. "good=something healthy, useful etc. for me"), then I would say it can exist without opposite. I can eat only good food for all my life, realize it tastes well (I don't have to have anything to compare with it - anything "better" or "worse" - it is just good, it is good for my taste buds), is healthy for me, helps my growth, provides vitamines or whatever... and I don't necessarily need to compare it. So, if you want to say that "good" is better than "evil" (or that it is "the best alternative"), you have to have evil (or at least something worse than that good thing) to compare with it. But the sole existence of good things, even their attributes of being good (not in the meaning as "better" but in the meaning as "good"=healthy and so on, as shown in the example above) does not necessarily need the existence of evil or bad things as well.
Now to the possibility of choices. There might be an opinion, and with very good reason, that when I have only the "good" things, I don't have any choice. Well, that's not the whole truth. If I return to my example with food, then I can eat healthy food all my life (it's an example, so we are not assuming any negative parts in any of the food, so let's assume we have some really "ideal food" - old Plato would've been pleased) and still I can choose whether to eat X or Y for breakfast. It's both good, but I have the choice.

So, the Ainur could have been good - for example in the sense that they were good for the world. You could choose whether here would be a nice sea or here would be a beautiful forest, and nothing of that was bad in any sense of the word. This is a model situation, mind you, but I think it shows what I had in mind.

[alatar]

wench.
A typo? Did you mean wrench, as in torque? ;)


but Hurin said: "at least none shall pity [her] for this, that [she] had a craven for father."
Thanks for the quote, but mine eyes have not seen the glory nor the point. Is Melkor riding the 'Children of Hurin" bandwagon as well? Book signings at Wal-Mart soon to come? ;)


And what's more, because Everything stems from Eru, even if he who reveres Darkness thinks he is doing something different, he is not because Eru planted that there too, along with the fluffy stuff. And the Darkness only serves to make the Light that much brighter.
Initially, your post sparked thoughts of wavelengths, radiation and dark matter, but thankfully I've moved back from physics to literature and philosophy. It's been always hard for me to accept an omniscient creator god that somehow is not responsible for even the 'bad,' as others have argued here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/evil.html). At least in Tolkien's word, we (or at least I) see that the bad was to be part of the piece from the first note. That, to me, is different that the Christian Genesis account (and other books that refer to the Fall), where it seems that all wasn't to go sour but did.

And thanks to other posters for more good thoughts.

[davem]

Legate I still can't see how you could classify the meal as 'good' if you had nothing with which to compare it. If you only ever had 'good' meals you would not think of the meal as good - you would simply think of it as a meal. 'good' implies the existence of 'bad'. If only 'good' existed you wouldn't need the word 'good'. But this is not merely a linguistic debate. What of morality? Specifically how can anyone develop the capacity to make moral judgements if they are never faced with a choice between good & evil, right & wrong?

Of course, some people will think that in an 'ideal' world 'evil' would not exist - indeed their 'ideal' world would not even contain manifestations of 'evil (guns, violent pornography, violent movies/games - even 'bad' language would be banned). Of course, this would not produce a 'morally good' world - it would produce a world where no-one had the opportunity (or the need) to make moral choices. It would be at best an amoral world. One could argue that a truly morally good world would be one in which guns, violent pornography & the like was freely available, but everyone had made a free choice not to have anything to do with it.

Hence the necessity for evil to exist - if the human race is to become fully adult. One has to have the freedom to choose evil if ones choice of the good is to count for anything. If you only have various 'goods' to choose from then choosing the good is valueless - because you can't choose anything else. Of course 'good' can exist without evil - but good cannot be freely chosen, in full knowledge, without evil existing as a possibility. Remove evil & you remove freedom to choose good.

Which is why Morgoth's rebellion is necessary, why he could be said to be the 'liberator' of the Children - his rebellion not only enables, but actually forces them to choose between good & evil & to make a stand. He makes the choice of good matter, by making it a costly choice. If the only choice the Children faced was between various 'good's then what would choosing the good actually count for? Of course, Morgoth's intention was to enslave the Children, but (as Eru stated would be the case) his actions actually serve to liberate them by forcing them to grow up & choose the good over its opposite.

[Lalwendë]

Initially, your post sparked thoughts of wavelengths, radiation and dark matter, but thankfully I've moved back from physics to literature and philosophy. It's been always hard for me to accept an omniscient creator god that somehow is not responsible for even the 'bad,' as others have argued here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/evil.html). At least in Tolkien's word, we (or at least I) see that the bad was to be part of the piece from the first note. That, to me, is different that the Christian Genesis account (and other books that refer to the Fall), where it seems that all wasn't to go sour but did.



Even though I can only really accept a God that's all fluffy niceness - I see that this stems from a Protestant upbringing, where God is good and The Devil or Humans (in a world where the Devil does not exist, which is the plane I exist on) are the sinners and do the bad things. However in a more Catholic mindset, and maybe in other faiths that I don't know about, God works in far more mysterious ways and can do some truly scary things to seeming innocents. In many ways, that is in fact not scary, but comforting, as if something bad does happen to you and you're left wondering "What the ....?" you can shrug and say "God is mysterious". That's what they get in Middle-earth too - and that's why Numenor and the deaths of innocents are explainable within the context of Eru's world.

And going into what davem is saying, an example of why imperfection must exist alongside perfection can be found in the Cybermen! They of course want to 'upgrade' humanity and take away all the imperfections, make everyone utterly equal - in one of the episodes of Doctor Who (The Age of Steel??? Hookbill will know!) the Cybermen tell the humans how great this upgrade will be, how it will bring an end to strife and bring them peace because everyone will be perfect. But the thought of everyone being 'perfect' is horrific - humans will have their freedom of choice taken from them and will have No Option but to be perfect.

Without choices we become machines, Cybermen. We may then have an easy life, with no challenges to face, but without challenges how could we learn and grow?

I really, really like what Tolkien says about Darkness and Light, as it's quite comforting to think that even though there is Darkness, it only serves to make that Light so much brighter. You could draw all kinds of metaphors - from the sublime: seeing stars on a black night, the rising of the sun in the morning, the waxing of the moon, the bright light people see after death, to the ordinary: improving after an illness, fighting off an enemy, finding a tenner when you're skint, finishing work and getting out into the fresh air at long last, etc, all of them depend on both Darkness and Light to make them much sharper and more valuable. If life was all Roses they might not smell quite so sweet. ;)

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

By the by, when I first saw your name I looked it up on Wikipedia since it sounded strange, and yet familiar.

"Neithan, I'm unsure at this point whether you are a troll, a madman, or a thinker (of sorts)"...I seem to feel the same

Can duplicate accounts actually be started without anyone noticing here, because, if yes, there is a more likely possibility...

Yes, go on, what are you saying?

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

The ainur used their free will to compose their music, so they must have had conscioussness. That they were good before Melkor's discording music is an fundamental idea in the Legendarium. I don't know of any 'evidence' concerning the level of their happiness, but even in this 50/50 situation, I believe it is safe to speculate they were doing quite alright. Ainulindale speaks of them experiencing amazement, harmony, communion, awe, even if only in relation to the music.

For nothing is evil in the beginning, even Sauron was not so.

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

Star Trek fans will remember when Data got his emotions chip and went to the bar and tried a drink and says, ' uhhgh! oohhhggg! that's terrible! ohhgh! yuk. Wow! I hate this! I really hate this!
Bartender asks, "would you like another?"
Data responds eagerly, "yes, please!"

[The Saucepan Man]

Hmm, the subject matter of this debate would seem to present rather a good opportunity for parody (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=428721&postcount=289). :p

Of course, having twisted the words of the Professor, I am sure that I will earn Senor Turambar's eternal disapprobation.

(Bovvered? ;) )

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

Ah! You're a fan of the Super Mario games are you? :p

Doo doot do doot, do do doot do doot........

[alatar]

Star Trek fans will remember when Data got his emotions chip and went to the bar and tried a drink and says, ' uhhgh! oohhhggg! that's terrible! ohhgh! yuk. Wow! I hate this! I really hate this!
Bartender asks, "would you like another?"
Data responds eagerly, "yes, please!"
That actually makes sense - I track you. :)



"...Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "

After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "
It's not 'evil' - a thing, a being, a force, the Darkness - it's the action, what comes out, given the choices.

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

Hey wow man you should see if you can find out the other sites I write on.
Real Idenity stuff. Some people think it's really really bad, but I think it's cool.

But I regret to announce that I've been threatened with excommunication and must seek absolution. It was, any way, part of my Grand Design from the begining to switch characters and then tear my own arguments apart . . . .

[Raynor]

One could argue that a truly morally good world would be one in which guns, violent pornography & the like was freely available, but everyone had made a free choice not to have anything to do with it.
...
Which is why Morgoth's rebellion is necessary, why he could be said to be the 'liberator' of the Children - his rebellion not only enables, but actually forces them to choose between good & evil & to make a stand. It is one thing to argue that evil is necessary as a moral choice, so that rational beings can manifest free will and morality, and totally another to argue that we must have Melkor - the most powerful ainu falling to the most powerful agent of evil. In fact, it can be argued that the fall of Melkor makes it harder for Men (being the weakest) to exercise their free will, since they are more susceptible to marring through their hroa. Thus, Melkor's marring doesn't help (in this sense), quite the contrary. Melkor didn't create evil as a moral choice, he merely became its first victim and most powerful agent.

[davem]

It is one thing to argue that evil is necessary as a moral choice, so that rational beings can manifest free will and morality, and totally another to argue that we must have Melkor - the most powerful ainu falling to the most powerful agent of evil. In fact, it can be argued that the fall of Melkor makes it harder for Men (being the weakest) to exercise their free will, since they are more susceptible to marring through their hroa. Thus, Melkor's marring doesn't help (in this sense), quite the contrary. Tolkien didn't create evil as a moral choice, he merely became its first victim and most powerful agent.

But in a mythological setting evil must have a manifest form, & that form must be the ultimate archetypal form that evil can possibly take. It must, in other words, show evil in its most extreme form. Melkor is the ultimate extreme & rarely enters into the story directly after the destruction of the Trees & the theft of the Silmarils. What we see more usually are, if you will, lesser 'harmonics' of the evil Melkor symbolises - Balrogs, dragons & Orcs. Hence, it is evil in more 'manageable' form that Men & Elves actually confront, rather than 'pure' evil in most cases.

[Raynor]

But in a mythological setting evil must have a manifest form, & that form must be the ultimate archetypal form that evil can possibly take. It must, in other words, show evil in its most extreme form.Well, evil has a manifest form in all Ea, since it was corrupted. Melkor himself was not wholly evil, since Tolkien argued this would be a zero. Also, for every exponent of evil in any mythology, I believe that he could be conceived as more evil/powerful than he actually is depicted; even in this fantasy Universe, it seems that Sauron is the closest representation of evil, not Melkor:
In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil. Satan fell. In my myth Morgoth fell before Creation of the physical world. In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible.I hope I am coherent, a cup of wine seems to take its toll :D

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

Acolyte Hookbill The Goomba refered to C.S. Lewis earlier, I thought that when I had a chance I would say something more about it, but one thing drives out another as they say, and well, maybe it was better so because the course of the thread seems to have evolved into an even more appropriate setting for what I was to suggest, which is:
C.S. Lewis wrote a fantastic book called "The Screwtape Letters".
I think it was his best.

"Insult the devil, that proud spirit, and he will flee from you, for he cannot bear to be mocked." (paraphrase) [too lazy and not vain enough and not good enough at computers to get it right.

[Thenamir]

It was, any way, part of my Grand Design from the begining to switch characters and then tear my own arguments apart .

How many guises do you wear, Neithan? An intellectual, a philosopher, a buffoon, a drunkard, and an insufferable snob...have I missed any?

If you wish to announce who and what you are finally, and then point out what you were trying (unsuccessfully) to do, and the deficiencies in our responses, please do so under your own nick. The admins here take a very dim view of people who register multiple nicks here to get "under our radar".

On the other hand, I would be most pleased to hear an explanation of exactly what you hoped to accomplish, and the way in which you would tear down your own arguments. There is something to be said for learning to properly debate against a "devil's advocate", or perhaps in this case, "Morgoth's advocate."

If only it hadn't been done so often here before...

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Legate I still can't see how you could classify the meal as 'good' if you had nothing with which to compare it. If you only ever had 'good' meals you would not think of the meal as good - you would simply think of it as a meal. 'good' implies the existence of 'bad'. If only 'good' existed you wouldn't need the word 'good'. But this is not merely a linguistic debate.
Only to this: this is what I said in my post, that if you use "good" as description of something which is "better than something else" , then you must have evil with it, of course. I emphasised the "linguistic debate" thing - this is actually also what I said in my post above, it depends on what you imagine under the word "good" (you say "good" but if you wanted to describe what you imagine under it, you imagine actually something "better", "qualitatively higher than standard". Cf. above). Otherwise, in a world where no evil exists, the "good"=simply "normal", the inhabitant does not feel the "good" things as something "better than normal" because "good" is norm - as you said. But this does not mean that the "normal" thing is not "good" for you - qualitatively, it helps you somehow, it is, well, good for you. This is the meaning of good I'm using here. And this is the point of my post above. This is what I wanted to say.

Aside from that, with the rest of your points - as well as Lal's - I more or less agree. Good point about the light looking brighter next to darkness, yes, and the moral choices impossible without choice of evil - quite. Nothing to add to that (or at least I don't want to start on it now).

EDIT: Okay, I decided to add something. Well, the main thing I'd point to your two posts would be that the main thing we have to take in mind, and this is what the point was, that Eru/God does not invent (in a metaphysical, not physical sense = by physical I mean things like that "if he didn't want Men to kill each other, he should not have invented pointy things" - this is another dimension and totally out of what the main meaning is) or support evil, if you want to say it like that, he "sided" with the good things. There is the option to do evil, though he does not approve this. So there is no way of saying "but he made the evil..." Nope. So to make matters clear, for those who could think different, because this I think wasn't mentioned. So applying this on Melkor, he was on the "wrong side" - yes, evil.

That would be all.

[davem]

Of course one may live in a world where everything is 'good for' one. But is a thing that is 'good for you' the same a a thing that is 'Good' in a moral sense? Vegetables are 'good for you' but they are not 'Good' in a moral sense - ie it is not immoral not to 'eat your greens'. In the same way smoking may be 'bad for you' but smoking (while it may be anti-social & harmful to others around you) is not an 'immoral' act like rape or murder or theft.


There is the option to do evil, though he does not approve this. So there is no way of saying "but he made the evil..." Nope. So to make matters clear, for those who could think different, because this I think wasn't mentioned. So applying this on Melkor, he was on the "wrong side" - yes, evil.

But Melkor must exist & when he ceases to exist he is replaced by Sauron - because evil must have a name & a 'location'. From this perspective it would matter little whether Melkor/Sauron created the evil that found its way into Men's hearts or whether the evil in Men's hearts created Melkor/Sauron. Evil has to exist as a possiblity so that Men may choose the Good (rather than simply choosing what's 'good for them'.

You see, choosing what's 'good for you' may be the most selfish of acts & in fact be little better than narcisism, if it becomes an obsession. And one would have to ask 'good' in what way? Good for the body, or good for the spirit? One could ask whether Frodo did what was 'good for' him & find oneself arguing with oneself for a very long time. However, if one asks did Frodo do a 'Good' thing one would have to simply say yes. So doing a Good thing may be very bad for you. Hence, I suppose it must follow that some things which are 'good for you may actually be Bad, even Evil, because they demonstrate a self love & a lack of concern for, & interest in, those around you - or even a desire to force others to do as you wish, to control them 'for their own good'.

[narfforc]

If we take one scenario and look at it from a distance and suppose that the powers of Good and Bad are also looking in then we can start with the moment Frodo Baggins stand at the Cracks of Doom, the power of Good is rubbing his/her hands thinking 'I'm going to win', in the background Bad is trembling. Suddenly Frodo the Good becomes Frodo the Naughty, the grin returns to the face of Bad, he's managed to corrupt the blighter, enter stage left the evil Gollum who unbeknown to Bad is going to do the power of Good a favour. 'Oh no! how can this be' thinks Bad, 'he's supposed to be one my side', so evil destroys evil and it's a good thing, for Good has triumphed over Bad by Bads own means. In all this Fate has shown it's hand, did Good win because Gollum fell or was he pushed, was he there because Good wanted him there or Bad?. What I am trying to say is that even very good people can do bad things by accident, there is no intention, fate has dealt an ugly blow, evil can do good without intention also.


It's a Good thing I know what this gibberish means.



.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

C.S. Lewis wrote a fantastic book called "The Screwtape Letters".
I think it was his best.

"Insult the devil, that proud spirit, and he will flee from you, for he cannot bear to be mocked." (paraphrase) [too lazy and not vain enough and not good enough at computers to get it right.

He begins his introduction to STL with two quotations

'The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to text of scripture, is the jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn. - Luther.'

and

'The Devil, the proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked. - Thomas Moor.'

It is also interesting to note that STL was addressed to Tolkien. :D

[davem]

It is also interesting to note that STL was addressed to Tolkien. :D

And that he didn't like the book apparently - because he didn't think true evil should be treated that lightly.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

To davem: I agree with your last post (not the last short, the long one). I was not speaking of the moral point of view, nor about the state where the good and evil already exist (where the setting of narfforc's wonderful story takes place), I was speaking of a state where evil does not exist at all, saying that such a state would be theoretically possible (the original question concerned "unspoiled" Ainur - I was trying to show that in Ainulindalë, evil does not have to exist until the "fall" - concretely, Melkor's fall. At the beginning there is one choice of evil, the model situation of "fall", before which everything was good, then the evil can repeat until the eschatological Second Music, where "...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...". The time between, where evil exists, is the moment where everyone can learn, grow, make moral choices as you said, and so on. For more comparison, cf. my signature, for example :p ).

[davem]

Ok, so, Arda 'renewed', when the Music shall be played aright, is effectively a consequence of the 'Fall' resulting from Melkor's rebellion? The First Music could not have been played aright, because the capacity for moral choices was not within the Ainur. If Arda was not to be inhabited by a bunch of robots, or 'Yes-men' the Children of Eru (including the Ainur), had to be placed in a position where they would need to make moral choices - ie, where their allegiance to the Good was not simply a consequence of not having any alternative, but where they have known Evil & had the option to ally themselves with it. Hence, at the end, those who participate in the Second Music will sing the themes aright, not because they don't have anything else to sing, but because they will have chosen in full awareness to sing the right themes.

Which, if I'm right, requires not only Morgoth's rebellion, but all the suffering which takes place. Evil has to be fully known & each potential participant in the Second Music must make a choice in full knowledge (ie not out of fear of Eru, or willful ignorance, or desire for reward).

Or in short, if Morgoth hadn't existed, Eru would have had to create him......

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

More or less, yes. The thing I'd point out is:
Or in short, if Morgoth hadn't existed, Eru would have had to create him......
Not actually. If we speak of persons only, then he wouldn't have to create Morgoth - he only would have to create any free-willed person. It could have been an Elf, or a Man (as in the Bible), who would make the first "falling step". The only prerequisite for it would have to be free will to choose even evil. The prerequisite, as we can deduce, Eru gave already to all the Ainur. He said: "Now play some variations in terms of this theme." Melkor was the one who chose to play "outside" of the theme. But even if all Ainur played according to the theme and created a 100% perfect world (mountains where they should be, seas where they should be etc.), the first Elf/Man could still choose evil, and he will be the first "Morgoth". Because they have free will, the possibility existed.

If you want it in plain English: from the moment when a being capable of do good/evil exists, evil (and good in the meaning as you presented it before, as opposite of evil) exists. Singularity (Eru - "the One") does not allow contradictions, because everything is good (!in the meaning I presented here all the time) for it. The second being can cause things the One does not "like" (said very, very vaguely; for using terms for transcendental things is vague at best, but for our purposes let's take it like that, this is not our subject now). As long as the Eä exists, the One can choose how to interact with the Creation (if ever), e.g. in Christianity we have the example that God interacts very much with the Creation, and even is himself the one who completely turns the tide for the Creation by choosing to lead its path from self-destruction (which would result if the Creation were left to itself) to Redemption. In Middle-Earth, the matters are less clear, because Eru intervenes very scarcely - or maybe he does more, but we are not told about it, so this is left to speculation. But what we know for sure even for Middle-Earth is that at one moment, finally, there is the eschatological "Cut!": "Then he raised up both his hands, and in one chord, deeper than the Abyss, higher than the Firmament, piercing as the light of the eye of Ilúvatar, the Music ceased." There is the End of Eä, and after that, there is the Second Music - as I said earlier - and yes, here I'd quote you,
"Hence, at the end, those who participate in the Second Music will sing the themes aright, not because they don't have anything else to sing, but because they will have chosen in full awareness to sing the right themes."

[davem]

So Eru must permit not only the possibility, but also the actuality of Evil. Evil cannot simply be obliterated by Eru (because that would obliterate free will too, & all but guarantee that the Second Music would go the way of the First), but must be rejected (or accepted) by each individual. While the capacity to choose evil exists within any of the Children Eru must permit the existence of evil - until each has made a free choice one way or the other.

Eru 'needs' evil to exist as a possibility, an option. Hence, it seems to me, it is too simplistic to say that Eru 'hates' evil, he may do - but he also needs it because without it the Children would not be able to choose the Good/Eru freely, in full knowledge. Evil is necessary in that sense, & hence so is Melkor/Morgoth - not necessary for what he does, but for what he is.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

So Eru must permit not only the possibility, but also the actuality of Evil. Evil cannot simply be obliterated by Eru (because that would obliterate free will too, & all but guarantee that the Second Music would go the way of the First), but must be rejected (or accepted) by each individual. While the capacity to choose evil exists within any of the Children Eru must permit the existence of evil - until each has made a free choice one way or the other.
Couldn't have said it better. You summed it up.

Eru 'needs' evil to exist as a possibility, an option. Hence, it seems to me, it is too simplistic to say that Eru 'hates' evil, he may do - but he also needs it because without it the Children would not be able to choose the Good/Eru freely, in full knowledge. Evil is necessary in that sense, & hence so is Melkor/Morgoth - not necessary for what he does, but for what he is.
Well, there actually is one possibility - unless, for some unexplicable reason, all decided to choose good from the very beginning, even before knowing evil. This is the theoretical "all-good" state. It's merely theoretical, mind you. But what I want to show on that is, that Eru does not need to create evil himself, or support it, or name it among the possibilities of what can be done - the only thing he has to do is allow it for the free choice. Simply said, he has to allow to be disobeyed. Which is, of course, only natural if he wants to give the beings he created a free will. Eru said: you can play the music in any way you wish, using any way, and here is my theme, play it in C-dur. Melkor decided to play it in C-moll, and it was Melkor who got the idea of playing it in C-moll, Eru didn't propose it as an option.
Yet to Morgoth needing necessarily have to exist - I suppose you take Morgoth here not as person, but as the personification of evil? As the representation of the "other choice", of the "C-moll", right? Well in that case, you are right, obviously. The way I understand it (if I misunderstood you, please correct me) I would better say it like this: there was the need to create the option of choosing Morgoth instead of Eru. (using Morgoth=symbol of the evil) So if you take it like that, yes, of course. There is quite thin line however, of interpretating what we said above the wrong way - like as if it was Eru who proposed Men the choice to choose Morgoth, thus, even choosing Morgoth would go with Eru's will (and we might even completely overlook that we are rejecting Eru!). So yes, I agree with all you said - assuming I understood you correctly - only I thought it's needed to make this clear, for errare humanum est and people tend to wrongly interpretate many things.

[narfforc]

What has always intrigued me about The Second Music is that when all The Children sing before Eru will this include the corrupted forms that had life, will Eru cleanse and renew them also, will they see the Light of The Secret Fire and be at one with all things that have come from the divine spark, or will they suffer the fate of their Master who twisted them into hateful beings that had little or no control over their creation or fate, for are they not also victims. In bodily form an elf may return, what form would an orc be if allowed to return for the Second Music.

[davem]

Of course, being omniscient Eru must have known the choices Melkor & those who followed him would make, & therefore brought them into being knowing what they would do. Hence in making them he is 'responsible' - not for making Melkor choose evil over Good, but for making him knowing that he would choose evil over Good. Which means he made him knowing that he would rebel & that he would suffer being cast into the Void.

But Eru didn't have to act. He didn't have to create anything. When he chose to create in full knowledge of what would happen rather than not create at all, he makes himself ultimately responsible for the suffering that will ensue - as well as the Glory that will result. Note: Eru is not responsible for creating evil as such, but he is responsible for creating anything at all when he knows full well that evil will come into being as a result (direct or indirect) of that act of creation.

(Of course, maybe he did have to act - maybe creation is Eru's nature & he cannot therefore not create.)

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Davem: You answered yourself in your post :) Whatever Eru would create, if it had free will, it could've rebelled, so the only other option was not to create anything at all. Only to what you say about the possibility of him having to act, we don't know, but I think it is not logical, since it makes Eru a not-free being (contradiction with that he's omnipotent).

or will they suffer the fate of their Master who twisted them into hateful beings that had little or no control over their creation or fate, for are they not also victims. In bodily form an elf may return, what form would an orc be if allowed to return for the Second Music.
Well, that depends. I don't know if there is anywhere stated what would happen to Orcs&co. at the End of Arda. Also, if you are speaking only of appearance here, I think we don't know anything from Tolkien's works about if the Children will have any bodily form any longer, or at least, they would obviously not have the same they had in life (since that one might be burned, quartered or whatever). So the difference between an Elf (or Man)& an Orc would be only in their "spirit", if you like. I don't know much about this "Arda renewal" stuff - better ask someone else - but if there would be a "new" Arda, I might think that it would be up to the Children what form they'd choose to take. But I'm only speculating, this is a mystery for me as much as for you. The only thing for sure is probably that the form will be "good".

Oh, and I would like to point one funny thing I noticed. Please see what the thread came to now, and look at the first words of the opening post of the thread:
I would like to start a thread to glorify Lord Melkor...
And now, please, compare what you saw here, with this:
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.
:p ;)

[davem]

Davem: You answered yourself in your post :) Whatever Eru would create, if it had free will, it could've rebelled, so the only other option was not to create anything at all. Only to what you say about the possibility of him having to act, we don't know, but I think it is not logical, since it makes Eru a not-free being (contradiction with that he's omnipotent).

But then aren't we left with Eru being ultimately responsible for the suffering of his creatures - they only really suffer because he creates them knowing what their fate will be? Its not even the case that Eru knew Hurin might suffer at the hands of Morgoth, & that Turin might commit incest with his sister - Eru knew for an inevitable fact that those things would happen (along with everything else) & still spoke the 'Ea!'

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

But then aren't we left with Eru being ultimately responsible for the suffering of his creatures - they only really suffer because he creates them knowing what their fate will be? Its not even the case that Eru knew Hurin might suffer at the hands of Morgoth, & that Turin might commit incest with his sister - Eru knew for an inevitable fact that those things would happen (along with everything else) & still spoke the 'Ea!'
Well, in that matter, of course. But he is not responsible for anything more than giving them the option to do what they did, the evil was their "invention". The responsibility and choice was all theirs, the only thing they can say to Eru is: "It would be better if you haven't created me at all." So, the question you set here now is not about Eru, it is the Hamletish question. If you take the example of Húrin, then Eru could have chosen not to speak "Eä!", as you said earlier, but then there would be no Creation. And if he chose to speak it, then there will be the suffering Húrin.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Eru gave them the choices and they chose the ones that he didn't like. He didn't want to cripple their free will, but he still didn't want them to take those paths of darkness.

Eru is not responsible for Morgoth being evil. Morgoth took that path himself. All was well in the beginning until Morgoth went down a dark road. In that case, Morgoth is to blame for his actions, not his father.

[davem]

Eru gave them the choices and they chose the ones that he didn't like. He didn't want to cripple their free will, but he still didn't want them to take those paths of darkness.

Well, they didn't all choose the ones he didn't like - that's the point - they all had the choice; in fact they all had to have the choice if the Music was to be played aright in the end - & more importantly if they were to be able to choose to play it right. The 'paths of darkness' must exist if the Children are to be truly free. They must make a free choice not to take them. Yet Eru creates them knowing that some will take those paths. He doesn't make them take the 'paths' but he knows that some will take them (because he knows everything). So he gives them life knowing some of them will suffer (as a result of their own free choice of course). Was he right to do that? If a couple decide to have a child knowing that child will inherit a painful, crippling disease are they free of all responsibility for that child's suffering?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Yet Eru creates them knowing that some will take those paths. He doesn't make them take the 'paths' but he knows that some will take them (because he knows everything). So he gives them life knowing some of them will suffer (as a result of their own free choice of course). Was he right to do that? If a couple decide to have a child knowing that child will inherit a painful, crippling disease are they free of all responsibility for that child's suffering?
It's miraculous you come to the same thoughts as I, davem - when I finished my last post and quitted the Downs for a while, I thought "oh, I could have used an example, like of parents deciding to have a child even though they know it will suffer". As you said, Eru (in difference to human parents) knew some of them would suffer - well, possibly all of them, but only in certain moments of their life, some more, some less. But I think you cannot say that it would be a child who would only suffer. If you take Húrin, he was certainly happy at some moments of his life, before his capture by Morgoth, or even Túrin, the very personification of ill fate, he was happy with his friends, with Finduilas, even with Nienor... Another thing: If I reversed the question, it is fair not to create someone who would be happy? This might sound pretty selfish (from the point of view of the happier ones, though even they obviously suffer in their life, at least a little). I think that actually, the answer to your question depends on whether there would be any people who would say, at the end of their life (or in some after-death state where they'd have the possibility to ponder all their life without momentary emotions), "this was not worth living at all". Or, if even those who suffered, would say "no, my life was good, although it was mostly suffering". This is probably unanswerable question.

[davem]

I think that actually, the answer to your question depends on whether there would be any people who would say, at the end of their life (or in some after-death state where they'd have the possibility to ponder all their life without momentary emotions), "this was not worth living at all". Or, if even those who suffered, would say "no, my life was good, although it was mostly suffering". This is probably unanswerable question.

Yes, but....

Eru puts them in that position without asking them, or giving them any choice at all in the matter. They may well, in the end, look back & be grateful for the 'good' they have known, even feel that the good so far outweighed the evil that they accept the evil as the necessary price. However, Eru did not get their consent before he created them. He placed them in a world where they would have to choose good or evil, & suffer either way. They are innocent & if they are deserving of anything at all they deserve to know good, not evil & pain - yet that is what they get: because Eru puts them in a situation where they will inevitably know suffering. Let's say that in the end they all say to Eru 'Thank you. It was worth the pain.' Does that absolve Eru absolutely for putting them in a place where they would suffer? Is not his creation of them, & his need for them to choose to sing his Music aright at least a little bit selfish? After all, they could not desire existence before they existed, so Eru made the choice for them, & that choice involved their suffering.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Eru doesn't put them in that position. They happen to wind up in those positions. If Eru micromanaged the whole world every day like some people think, he'd be crippling the free will of his people.

[davem]

Eru doesn't put them in that position. They happen to wind up in those positions. If Eru micromanaged the whole world every day like some people think, he'd be crippling the free will of his people.

But he knew before he created them that they would end up in that position. And he created them nonetheless.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

(ad davem's first post after my last one)
This is partially a paradox, because we are speaking of some state where you should ask someone who does not exist yet if he wanted to exist. To ask someone whether he wants to exist, you have to first bring him to existence, ergo, this is unsolvable, since by bringing him to existence you already chose instead of him.
Moving to the line of speculation, however, we might assume that, Eru being omniscient, he might know that all the beings will finally thank him and will reply that they wanted to exist. This is only a speculation, though, but it occured to me as one possibility of a solution. Otherwise, as I said above, the question is probably still unsolvable because of the paradox - if we don't happen to think of anything else.

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

Legate of Amon Lanc QOUTE: ". . .Eru/God . . ."
That is my secret intention. Can I get more specific than that?
"Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
If you asked me to build you a motorcycle, and I asked you what style you were looking for, and you responded, "Well I'll take what is standard, because I do not know exactly what motorcycle engineers have in mind." Then afforded me the budget, and then went on a journey, returning after it's completion.
Seeing the completed motorcycle you realize that there are many many things about it that do not appeal to you, and then, unlike before, you can see exactly what changes that you would have made to bring the bike into harmony with the new ideal vision that has dawned on your mind. Now you know what you want. That is what you have been asking of me, so that you may reject it, and then see clearly how to conform it to your own ideal.
This I have refused to do. I say to you Thenamir, I will not do this thing. I will not build this motorcycle for you. But now that I know the desire of your heart, I will force this thing upon you, and if you try to go on your journey, I shall hinder you when I may, I shall follow you and waylay you upon the road, and detain you.
You shall have your motorcycle, but Lo! I will try to force you to build it yourself, though you do not know the way. I shall show the parts I had in mind and that I have prepared for you, I shall show them each to you singly, and though apart from the others you do not know the purpose or meaning of each, and cannot comprehend how they are connected, still I will lay them out before you, in perfect reverse engineered order so that all you have to do is follow the trail of parts, applying them to the growing whole. When you are finished it shall be that same motorcycle that I had designed from the beginning, only now, ye shall love it. Ye shall love it more dearly and in your eyes it shall be perfect.

[davem]

Moving to the line of speculation, however, we might assume that, Eru being omniscient, he might know that all the beings will finally thank him and will reply that they wanted to exist. This is only a speculation, though, but it occured to me as one possibility of a solution. Otherwise, as I said above, the question is probably still unsolvable because of the paradox - if we don't happen to think of anything else.

Of course - all such speculations are.... Can God create a rock that is too heavy for him to move? etc. But what interests me is what it says about Eru & what Tolkien is saying about him here. Eru creates a world that is already flawed by Melkor's disonance & introduces the Children into it. Even if he knew that they would thank him in the end does that make it ok to do it? And even if it does, & even if it is the only way to achieve his perfect end he is still responsible for their suffering in that if he hadn't created them they would not have suffered. They suffer, but he does not. Unless, of course, his entry into Arda (cf Athrabeth) means that he too suffers as they do.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Of course - all such speculations are.... Can God create a rock that is too heavy for him to move? etc. But what interests me is what it says about Eru & what Tolkien is saying about him here. Eru creates a world that is already flawed by Melkor's disonance & introduces the Children into it. Even if he knew that they would thank him in the end does that make it ok to do it? And even if it does, & even if it is the only way to achieve his perfect end he is still responsible for their suffering in that if he hadn't created them they would not have suffered. They suffer, but he does not. Unless, of course, his entry into Arda (cf Athrabeth) means that he too suffers as they do.
Well this is, I suppose, the difference of Eru and the Christian God, whatever Tolkien wanted to draw that parallel true or not, Eru does scarcely intervene, where the Christian God does precisely what you said - he expresses solidarity and in the person of Christ he even participates on the suffering himself. I am not familiar with the Athrabeth, however, only from summarized version, so I don't know how close the parallel is in that point - you probably are not getting an answer on this from me.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I think davem has a point. To raise, again, one of my favorite writers, C.S. Lewis, in his book, 'The Problem of Pain' he says something along the lines of this:

If God were to prevent anything, bad from happening then what would our lives be like? To be offered a choice in anything would be pointless because one choice would lead to nothing and so wouldn't be a choice at all because God would stop it from happening. Likewise, it would be impossible to insult someone or say anything that might (intended or otherwise) offend or hurt someone because God would have to put a stop to our vocal cords from being able to form such a phrase or statement. By the same logic, evil thought would be prevented, meaning that the membranes and things would be severed from making the connections necessary to form a thought that might be bad.
Omnipotence means: "Power to do all" or "everything". Many argue that 'If God were real and good he would do such and such', if one were to argue back that this would be impossible, we are met with the answer "But I thought God could do everything." This raises the question of what 'impossibility' is. How often do we hear the word 'impossible' attached to the word 'unless'?
For example, it is impossible for me to see the street from where I am sitting... that is, it is impossible unless I am to walk over to another room with a window that overlooks the street. If, however, I had broken my legs, I should say 'it is impossible to go to the other room' that is, 'it is impossible... unless some friends come over who would be willing to carry me'.
So, it is impossible to see the street so long as I stay where I am and the intervening walls remain where they are. Someone might add, 'unless the nature of space or vision were changed so that you could see around corners.' I do not know how the best physicists would reply, but I should say, "I don't know if space and time could possibly be of such a nature as you suggest." Here the words 'could possibly' obviously refer to some kind of ultimate possibility or impossibility, which is different to relative possibility. I do not know if seeing around corners is impossible or not because I do not know if it is self-contradictory or not. But if it is self contradictory, then it is absolutely impossible. The absolutely impossible may also be called the intrinsically impossible because it carries its impossibility in itself. It has no 'unless'. It is impossible in all worlds and for all agents.
God's omnipotence is power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not nonsense. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you say, "God can give a creature free will and at the same time take it away" you have not said anything about God. Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire meaning because we attribute them to God.
We must also remember that human reasoners often make mistakes, by either arguing from false data or other means. We may then come to think things possible that are impossible and vice versa. One needs great wisdom to define what these intrinsic impossibilities are.

So what do people expect of God then? For him to take away everything that makes us who we are? Stop us from having experiences and such so that we never learn from mistakes or otherwise? Or do people just want a God that is indifferent or says, "What does it matter if they are good or Bad? As long as they are happy!" so what they really want is less a Father in heaven, more a Grandfather, a senile old man giving out sweets indifferent to all. For, of course, one man may find great pleasure in the torture of another or the throwing of insults, which means that the other party would not feel pleasure but pain. What is to happen here?
Some say that they wish God would just leave us alone and to our own devises in order to seek out our own happiness (a thing in itself we cannot define, really). It seems that people do not want more love from God, but less. If a father sees a son playing with matches and the child is very happy in itself, will he not take the matches from him lest he burn himself thought the child may feel that he is unfairly treated or had had a great asset taken from him?

I have abridged it, of course. The whole argument is... well... as long as a book.

Whether or not one can associate Lewis' theology with Tolkien's world I do not know. I know that Lewis apparently read much of The Problem of Pain out to the Inklings so, if nothing else, Tolkien may well have been aware of it and very possibly influenced by it.

We, of course, cannot say for certain.

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

'Such questions cannot be answered,' said Gandalf. 'You may be sure that it was not for any merit that others do not possess: not for power or wisdom at any rate. But you have been chosen, and you therefore must use such stength and heart and wits as you have.'
'But I have so little of these things! You are wise and powerful. Will you not take the Ring?'
'No!' cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. 'With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly.' His eyes flashed and his face was lit as by a fire within. 'Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity. Pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me.'

I wonder sometimes exactly how the wisdom and will of Gandalf to do good would have been twisted to evil. To my mind, I cannot help but to see parallels in our own modern societies.
If Gondor and Harad went to war over conflicts between farmers, tradesmen and their caravans along the southern border, and let's say for arguments sake that a citizen of Gondor had planted rows of wheat along and over the border, in the years following the Great War when Harad had been driven back, and then a Haradian's retaliation began a series of events which brought both kingdoms head to head once more.
Would Gandalf with his farseeing and deep vision see that judging each individual case on it's merits would ultimately lead to more cause for even more and more unceasing struggle? Perhaps, I think, Gandalf would see that the Border itself was to blame, no border, no source of contention. Once realizing that, he would see that the idenities themselves of the people within the two geographic areas had brought the border into being, and that that was even more deeply the fundamental source of the border, over which the contentions had been given birth, to grow into wars between the two peoples. So, in pursuit of peace and the happiness therin, Gandalf erases all sense of idenity from the minds of both Haradians and Gondorians and they cease even having a conception in their minds as being anything other than people, and . . . .
In todays world I have seen a mentally retarded man love the Catholic Priest who beats him unmercifully for his sins. I have seen drought in primative agrarian cultures lead to a million deaths by starvation and read the treatise of economist who calculate the advantages of this vacumn created within labor, out of which will pour surpluses from industry, the resulting loss in production in each, will then drive values up, and benefit the economy.
In The Lord of the Rings, I think of two occasions, the 'deaths' of Saruman and Sauron. In both occasions their physical forms became like clouds, like a basic lesson in chemistry: Solids to Gasses. And then, the gasses were blown by another gas, more dense and greater volumn, more turbulant; the Wind: Manwe.
And the converted gasses of both Saruman and Sauron became vapor. Complete molecular disintegration. They, in effect, lost their self awareness, life, or, Idenity if you will. The molecules were scattered all over the world. And eventually inhaled, inbibed, eaten, or shallowed, and each one of us to this day has a little particle of Sauron and Saruman integrated into our own atomic structure.

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

Mr. Goomba's Lewis qoute got me thinking, about how God could stop our minds and vocal cords from forming hurtful phrases. What if our government, not satisfied with helmets and seatbelt laws, passed a law that we had to take bionano technology, microscopic computerchips that interface with the electro-chemical operations of our brains, to prevent us from running red lights when we're late for work.

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

Besides, Manwe was dull and boring. No personality. Going over my memory, I believe the most often appearing exclaimation from Manwe goes something like, "I don't know, let me go ask Illuvatar . . ."

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

There is trouble in the forest.
There is trouble with the trees.
For the Maples want more sunlight,
And the Oaks ignore their pleas.

The Trouble with the Maples;
and they're quite convinced they're right,
They say the Oaks are just too lucky,
And they grab up all the light.
But the Oaks can't help their feelings,
If they like the way they're made,
And they wonder why the Maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
For the Maples scream, 'Oppression!',
And the Oaks just shake their heads.

So the Maples formed a union,
And demanded equal rights,
They say the Oaks are just to greedy,
'We will make them give us light!'
Now there's no more Oak oppression,
For they cast a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal,
By hatchet, axe and saw.

[alatar]

So what do people expect of God then? For him to take away everything that makes us who we are? Stop us from having experiences and such so that we never learn from mistakes or otherwise? Or do people just want a God that is indifferent or says, "What does it matter if they are good or Bad? As long as they are happy!" so what they really want is less a Father in heaven, more a Grandfather, a senile old man giving out sweets indifferent to all. For, of course, one man may find great pleasure in the torture of another or the throwing of insults, which means that the other party would not feel pleasure but pain. What is to happen here?
Some say that they wish God would just leave us alone and to our own devises in order to seek out our own happiness (a thing in itself we cannot define, really). It seems that people do not want more love from God, but less. If a father sees a son playing with matches and the child is very happy in itself, will he not take the matches from him lest he burn himself thought the child may feel that he is unfairly treated or had had a great asset taken from him?
Thanks for the quote, Hookbill.

How about a god who, having the ability, stops needless suffering? Sure, I know that a little suffering does me some good, as I, as an adult, have the ability to understand and therefore gain wisdom from the ordeal. But what about children? What about those that live out a mean short life full of pain and sorrow then end up dead. Where's the point in all of that? Some might say that these little ones are to suffer that I may learn something, but that, to me, is just whitewash.

As a father, I know that there are times when my children must learn via pain - the burned hand, the skinned knee, the bruised heart. But there are times when I must intervene, as the child may not survive the lesson (i.e. swallowing poison), and so there is no point to allowing the rebellion to continue. Maybe there are more strong-hearted fathers out there who allow their children to explore free will to death, literally, but me - I want to save all of them. Anyway...

And what is good? I've never been comfortable when confronted with, purportedly, moral absolutes, as I've always noticed that there's an asterisk next to the "thou shall not..."

Note that I'm not after any particular religion or creed here, but just trying to make a point:

Thou shall not kill...except when unbelievers get in the way.
Thou shall not eat each other...except when stranded in the Andes.
Incest is bad...except when consolidating power via a monarchy.
etc

So what is good? When we act in conformity with our community's needs and expectation? When we promote the survival of our genes (and the genes of those like us - a possible explanation of altruism)? Anyway.

Life under Melkor would not be good. He was all about power, and the only way to know that you're in control of another, as indicated by George Orwell, is to make the other miserable. That way, you know that they do your will and not their own, which would be to escape misery. Eru and Manwe allow for a possible good life. I can do what I want - seek happiness - to the limits that the world allows, knowing that Melkor, Sauron or one of his spawn will be trying to hedge me in.

Melkor could have been good, but he sought to interfere with others' abilities to explore their freedom, and did not want to establish a border with some compromise.

[davem]

Thing about lewis was his tendency to adopt extremes - he flips from 'The idea of God makes no sense, & belief is irrational' to 'The idea if God is the most sensible thing in the world, & belief is an entirely logical response.'

Its this 'extremism' that is the problem. Lewis never seemed able to simply admit 'Er, you know what - I can't explain that. It doesn't make sense. In fact, it seems unfair. However I trust that things will make sense in the end.' His 'explanation' as given by Hookbill, works up to a point, but it doesn't cover every base - which Lewis seems to imply it does.

[alatar]

Another reason Sauron is not due praise and adoration: He, like Gandalf, had Gollum in his grasp. He interrogates the wretch, then sends him out into the world to hunt for the Ring, hoping that the trail left by this one-thought-desire creature will lead him to his Precious. He even put a fear on the creature that Gandalf wasn't able to break with his pyrotechnics. Yet...

Unlike Gandalf, didn't the Eye see that Gollum would have a part to play in the end game? Did Sauron see this, yet remain hopeful that things would still 'fall' in his favor?

Gandalf knew; Sauron blew (it).

[Elmo]

A bit of a change of topic here, but does anyone else findit slightly uncomfortable that Tolkien connected atheism and Morgothism in Morgoth's Ring?

[obloquy]

A bit of a change of topic here, but does anyone else findit slightly uncomfortable that Tolkien connected atheism and Morgothism in Morgoth's Ring?

"Morgothism" is not connected to atheism. Morgoth was a nihilist. He could personally never be an atheist because of his knowledge of and direct contact with Iluvatar; and anyone who worshipped Morgoth would consider him either God or the rightful ruler in defiance of God--obviously not atheistic beliefs either. Someone who imitated Morgoth's "philosophy" (at least, as much as it was outwardly discernible; he did not preach like a prophet, as far as I know) would be adopting a nihilistic ethos, not an atheistic one. Incidentally, I think nihilism is probably the only appropriate outlook for a being like Melkor, originally absolute in his rights and unmatched in potential, but ultimately utterly frustrated and diminished by his own inflexibility and intolerance of boundaries.

Relevant text from Myths Transformed:Morgoth had no 'plan': unless destruction and reduction to nil of a world in which he had only a share can be called a 'plan'. But this is, of course, a simplification of the situation. Sauron had not served Morgoth, even in his last stages, without becoming infected by his lust for destruction, and his hatred of God (which must end in nihilism). Sauron could not, of course, be a 'sincere' atheist. Though one of the minor spirits created before the world, he knew Eru, according to his measure. Sauron was not a 'sincere' atheist, but he preached atheism, because it weakened resistance to himself (and he had ceased to fear God's action in Arda). As was seen in the case of Ar-Pharazôn. But there was seen the effect of Melkor upon Sauron: he spoke of Melkor in Melkor's own terms: as a god, or even as God.[Sauron's] cunning motive is probably best expressed thus. To wean one of the God-fearing from their allegiance it is best to propound another unseen object of allegiance and another hope of benefits; propound to him a Lord who will sanction what he desires and not forbid it. Sauron, apparently a defeated rival for world-power, now a mere hostage, can hardly propound himself; but as the former servant and disciple of Melkor, the worship of Melkor will raise him from hostage to high priest. But though Sauron's whole true motive was the destruction of the Númenóreans, this was a particular matter of revenge upon Ar-Pharazôn, for humiliation. Sauron (unlike Morgoth) would have been content for the Númenóreans to exist, as his own subjects, and indeed he used a great many of them that he corrupted to his allegiance.

[The Might]

Unlike Gandalf, didn't the Eye see that Gollum would have a part to play in the end game? Did Sauron see this, yet remain hopeful that things would still 'fall' in his favor?I doubt Sauron ever thought of such a possibility, as seen later in the decisions he makes. If he had considered this possibility, he would have made sure nothing would ever come into Mordor unwanted.

He probably thought that Gollum would never come close to repentance and would never lead anyone into Mordor, but would instead try to kill the Ringbearer and hide himself with the Ring somewhere, where he would eventually, sooner or later, be discovered by Sauron's minions.

Too much self-confidence...

[alatar]

What's even sadder about Morgoth, at first First amongst all of Eru's creations, is that, when he goes to Fëanor's door in attempt to woo Curufinwë to his cause, when the creator of the Silmarils realizes that Morgoth wants the gems for himself - and that he too is one of the Valar (jailers in Fëanor's mind) - Fëanor slams his door in the most powerful Vala's face like a so much unwanted door-to-door salesperson.

How humiliating! He didn't even know enough to stick his foot in the door...

[Elmo]

Poor Melkor, all he really wanted was to be loved.