Turin the Hopeless?

[davem]

From John Garth's review of Children of Hurin in The Sunday Telegraph:

But The Children of Hurin is no academic excercise, partly because it also breathes the dank air of the 20th Century, with its muddied motives, its opression & slaughter. Cruelty & brutality are explicit. Bitterness ousts charity & hope. this is far from the black-&-white moral landscape that critics too often decry in Tolkien's works. The enchanted world is being killed by a thousand cuts; the rivers are poisi=oned & their divine spirit sent into retreat. As befits a story by a Somme veteran, over-confidence leads to the disastrous Battle of Unnumbered Tears. For survivors, the consequences of heroism are worse. The chieftan Hurin is captured by the forces of the Satnic Morgoth, who forces him to watch with superhuman vision as a curse inexorably pursues his distant family; & particularly his heir, Turin.

As a boy, Turin poses immense questions of fate & death, but no-one in this benighted world knows the answers. If The Lord of the Rings is an expression of faith in a God who turns events to good, The Children of Hurin expresses a visceral sense of evil undermining everything of worth. Evil, here, delights in irony. ...

In what is now effectively Tolkien's last Middle-earth work, I think we hear the authentic voice of the war veteran, entirely open-eyed about the horrors of the human condition but a staunch dissident against the view that endevour is futile.

Now, LotR, & to an extent TH, end in hope of a kind (as Garth points out in the bolded section above). CoH ends in despair. In LotR & TH we have a constant sense that there as 'forces' of good behind events, guiding the protagonists towards ultimate victory. In CoH we have none of that. The Valar, & Eru himself, may as well not exist. Morgoth is the ultimate 'divine' power & does basically what he wants. What 'echoes' throughout CoH is not the compassionate guidance of Eru, but the mocking laughter of Morgoth.

Greg Wright, in his book 'Tolkien in Perspective', suggested that the Athrabeth should be appended to all editions of LotR in order to emphasis the 'Christianity' of the work. This makes me wonder.

Should LotR be 'appended' to CoH, to emphasise the underlying 'hope' of Tolkien's work? CoH as a stand alone work, is bleak, hopeless & ends in despair. Anyone who didn't know LotR & CoH were by the same person would hardly guess that to be the case. Yet CoH is the work that Tolkien put the greatest amount of time & effort into in his later years. It was the one (even above Beren & Luthien & The Fall of Gondolin) that he desired to bring to completion.

Is Garth right? Is this work a reflection of Tolkien the Somme veteran, while LotR, it could be argued, is the work of Tolkien the Catholic? LotR presents the orthodox Catholic view, that God is watching over us all, & that while there may be suffering & loss, in the end God will bring good out of evil, & that, in the end, 'All shall be well, & all shall be well, & all manner of thing shall be well'. CoH seems to present a vision of a world where God won't - where he doesn't actually care enough to bother.

So, what do we make of this situation of CoH being Tolkien's 'final' work on Middle-earth? This is the latest vision we have of Tolkien's world, dark, unremitingly bleak & ending in despair & hopelessness.

Yet, it is also (& perhaps fittingly) the finest manifestation of the Northern theory of courage - to fight on without hope in a light at the end of the tunnel - because it ain't a 'tunnel': its a hole -in fact its a grave. One fights on not in hope of victory, or the defeat of the enemy, but simply because fighting an evil enemy is the right thing to do. As Turin argues:

For victory is victory, nor is its worth only from what follows it....The defiance of Hurin Thalion is a great deed; & though Morgoth slay the doer he cannot make the deed not to have been. ...& is it not written into the history of Arda, which neither Morgoth nor Manwe can unwrite?'

LotR ends in Eucatastrope, CoH in dyscatastrophe. Yet, by chance ("If chance you call it"), the last published work of Tolkien's on Middle-earth reflects not Christian faith, but heroic Northern courage in the face of hopelessness. I think Garth is right, too, that only a Somme veteran could have written CoH.

At the very least we now have a counterpoint to the 'Christian hope' of LotR: the Pagan
courage in the face of 'hopelessness' of CoH. Others have pointed up Tolkien's inspiration in Sigurd & Kullervo. But Beowulf is there at the heart of CoH. Turin is a Northern hero, moreso than any other character Tolkien created.

[Lalaith]

This is the Tolkienian question I find more fascinating than any other.

A long while back, I did start a thread on this subject, entitled Hurin and Despair (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=369) which people currently reading CoH might find interesting.

I am not blowing my own trumpet by recommending a re-read of the thread, as I my own contribution was merely that of instigator. But there are some great analyses here, from fine thinkers such as Aiwendil, Numenorean and of course your good self, Davem. *bows*

I love this point, Davem, and agree absolutely.
Yet, it is also (& perhaps fittingly) the finest manifestation of the Northern theory of courage - to fight on without hope in a light at the end of the tunnel - because it ain't a 'tunnel': its a hole -in fact its a grave. One fights on not in hope of victory, or the defeat of the enemy, but simply because fighting an evil enemy is the right thing to do

Also, the use of irony to highlight evil is very Northern. It only just struck me, now, reading CoH, the irony of Saeros' insult about the women of Hithlum, actually coming true.

[davem]

'kay...

From OFS:

But the “consolation” of fairy-tales has another aspect than the imaginative satisfaction of ancient desires. Far more important is the Consolation of the Happy Ending. Almost I would venture to assert that all complete fairy-stories must have it. At least I would say that Tragedy is the true form of Drama, its highest function; but the opposite is true of Fairystory. Since we do not appear to possess a word that expresses this opposite—I will call it Eucatastrophe. The eucatastrophic tale is the true form of fairy-tale, and its highest function. The consolation of fairy-stories, the joy of the happy ending: or more correctly of the good catastrophe, the sudden joyous “turn” (for there is no true end to any fairy-tale): this joy, which is one of the things which fairy-stories can produce supremely well, is not essentially “escapist,” nor “fugitive.” In its fairy-tale—or otherworld—setting, it is a sudden and miraculous grace: never to be counted on to recur. It does not deny the existence of dyscatastrophe, of sorrow and failure: the possibility of these is necessary to the joy of deliverance; it denies (in the face of much evidence, if you will) universal final defeat and in so far is evangelium, giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief.

Probably every writer making a secondary world, a fantasy, every sub-creator, wishes in some measure to be a real maker, or hopes that he is drawing on reality: hopes that the peculiar quality of this secondary world (if not all the details) are derived from Reality, or are flowing into it. If he indeed achieves a quality that can fairly be described by the dictionary definition: “inner consistency of reality,” it is difficult to conceive how this can be, if the work does not in some way partake of reality. The peculiar quality of the ”joy” in successful Fantasy can thus be explained as a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality or truth. It is not only a “consolation” for the sorrow of this world, but a satisfaction, and an answer to that question, “Is it true?” The answer to this question that I gave at first was (quite rightly): “If you have built your little world well, yes: it is true in that world.” That is enough for the artist (or the artist part of the artist). But in the “eucatastrophe” we see in a brief vision that the answer may be greater—it may be a far-off gleam or echo of evangelium in the real world. The use of this word gives a hint of my epilogue. It is a serious and dangerous matter. It is presumptuous of me to touch upon such a theme; but if by grace what I say has in any respect any validity, it is, of course, only one facet of a truth incalculably rich: finite only because the capacity of Man for whom this was done is finite.

It is not difficult to imagine the peculiar excitement and joy that one would feel, if any specially beautiful fairy-story were found to be “primarily” true, its narrative to be history, without thereby necessarily losing the mythical or allegorical significance that it had possessed. It is not difficult, for one is not called upon to try and conceive anything of a quality unknown. The joy would have exactly the same quality, if not the same degree, as the joy which the “turn” in a fairy-story gives: such joy has the very taste of primary truth. (Otherwise its name would not be joy.) It looks forward (or backward: the direction in this regard is unimportant) to the Great Eucatastrophe. The Christian joy, the Gloria, is of the same kind; but it is preeminently (infinitely, if our capacity were not finite) high and joyous. But this story is supreme; and it is true. Art has been verified. God is the Lord, of angels, and of men—and of elves. Legend and History have met and fused.

Eucatastrophe, according to Tolkien here is essential to successful fairy story- indeed, is its 'highest function'.

CoH is a work that contradicts the core message of OFS. It breaks all the rules of 'Tolkienian fantasy'. What's going on?

[Lalwendë]

Well my thought is that this shows us yet again the two contradictory sides of Tolkien - he is at one moment a believer in Hope and at the next a believer in Fate. On Fairy-Stories was written in 1939, after the publication of the Hobbit, and as Tolkien said in the newly released BBC interview seen on Newsnight last week, some of the thought behind On Fairy-Stories sprang from the reactions of his own children to stories he told them. Lord of the Rings also sprang up at the same time in his life. Children of Hurin however sprang from an earlier, darker phase of Tolkien's life, from the 'war years'.

A person of course, is allowed to take differing views, not to fix upon one way of looking at life! We do get ourselves in knots trying to pin poor Tolkien down to being either Northern or Catholic - when he was both! That's why it's best not to fix on something and then go looking for it, but to read what he says and then see what flows from that...

And what does flow for one is that these periods of Middle-earth's history are quite different. Both are without any visible presensce of Eru or the 'good' Valar, both have Dark Lords - but in the earlier period that Dark Lord is a very real, very physical presence involved with the tangible world whereas later on, Sauron is very distant and remote. The Third Age is more 'modern' in that the Gods are more remote, less 'real', more like true legends. The First Age however is much more like the 'Pagan' age in that the Gods are very real, so real that you can be killed by one in battle, or taken captive by one, that you can try to find them and plead with them. The former would give you a sense of control of your own destiny and hence, a belief in things like hope, which you could bring into being yourself; the latter would leave you feeling subject to Fate and to Wyrd.

[davem]

Of course. Still, its interesting how Tolkien breaks his own rules regarding Fairy story. Then again, it could be argued (has been - here for instance http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/ID24Aa01.html, that his purpose was a more subtle one in CoH - to point up the bleakness & hopelessness of the Pagan worldview.

Of course, reading the Turin saga as part of The Sil is one thing - the Eucatastrophe is present in the War of Wrath & the overthrow of Morgoth. It is not present, however, in the Children of Hurin when read as a stand alone work - which is how it is presented now for the first time.

So, was Tolkien merely writing CoH to point up the failings of the Pagan worldview? Seems a very long, laborious way of going about it if he was. Or was he rather setting out the Pagan ideal? It seems to me that CoH is a story far better suited to a post Christian world than LotR, or at least a story that is easier to understand. I can identify with Turin far more than with Frodo, or even Sam. They may be people I'd like to be, but I know Turin is far more like I actually am.

[Lalwendë]

So, was Tolkien merely writing CoH to point up the failings of the Pagan worldview? Seems a very long, laborious way of going about it if he was. Or was he rather setting out the Pagan ideal? It seems to me that CoH is a story far better suited to a post Christian world than LotR, or at least a story that is easier to understand. I can identify with Turin far more than with Frodo, or even Sam. They may be people I'd like to be, but I know Turin is far more like I actually am.

:eek:

Anyway! No, I don't think it does point out a pessimistic view of the 'Pagan' world - it may be a world where the Gods are closer to hand and so was Fate, as they were in the Pagan world, but there's something else very odd here. These are people close at hand to the Elves, the very Elves who have lived in the Undying Lands and who have lived with the Ainur. They know all about Eru, perhaps more than any other Men ever would - and yet they have less hope? What does that tell us about their times? About Eru? About Hope?

[Lalaith]

What is also interesting is the recurring refrain in CoH of how unfortunate it was that Turin didn't die at various given points in the story. Also how lucky it is for people when Turin passes out of their lives - eg Nellas. This gives a strong sense that his situation really is hopeless.

Norse culture draws a very strong link between morality and luck. Even today, in Icelandic, somebody really morally reprehensible, a child molester for example, might be referred to as "ogaefumadur", or a man of ill fortune.
This idea is very prominent in Turin's story. Turin's hopelessness is very much tied in with his own perception of himself as a man of ill fortune. The whole issue of him refusing to return to Doriath, and thus be protected from Morgoth, is related to his pride - but was his pride the result of his ill fortune, or vice versa?

Interestingly, in CoH we have a very strong sense of Morwen also being cursed with pride which leads to terrible errors of judgement, while Nienor is more let off the hook - her main motive for leaving Doriath with her mother was the hope that her insistence would make Morwen turn back.

[Lalaith]

They know all about Eru, perhaps more than any other Men ever would - and yet they have less hope? What does that tell us about their times? About Eru? About Hope?

There's a really interesting speech by Turin on this very subject in CoH.
*goes to look*

[davem]

Just been re-reading the essay/review I linked to. The writer seems to see CoH as a work 'reflecting' what he sees as the pre-Christian world, full of hopeless, futile heroics which lead to disaster even as they achieve (transitory) victory. He also seems to believe that LotR is a work that reflects the 'Christian' world which superceded the 'Pagan'. Heroism is neither hopeless nor futile & victory may be permanent. God is (as far as the writer is concerned at least) fully present in the world of LotR, whereas he is conspicuous by his absence in CoH. Now, as I've pointed out, if we take the stories in chronological order in M-e history this theory fits as a 'reflection' of Primary world history - the world of CoH is the First Age, that of LotR is the Third.

If, however, we look at when the two works were published then we see the opposite - LotR appeared in the mid 1950's, when Churchgoing (in Britain/Europe at least) was the norm. Every home had a Bible, (which was well read, btw) & most everyone (in Britain again) considered themselves Christian. CoH has just appeared, in 2007, in (again from the British/European perspective) a post Christian world.

"The Valar! They have forsaken you, and they hold Men in scorn. What use to look westward across the endless Sea to a dying sunset in the West? There is but one Vala with whom we have to do, and that is Morgoth; and if in the end we cannot overcome him, at least we can hurt him and hinder him ... Though mortal Men have little life beside the span of the Elves, they would rather spend it in battle than fly or submit."

This statement reflects, for the majority in the post-Christian world, our shared worldview far better than the 'Estel' we find in LotR. In short, it seems to me that the books have actually appeared in the correct sequence to reflect the change that has taken place in the Primary world...

Doesn't CoH actually feel more 'contemporary' than LotR?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

If, however, we look at when the two works were published then we see the opposite - LotR appeared in the mid 1950's, when Churchgoing (in Britain/Europe at least) was the norm. Every home had a Bible, (which was well read, btw) & most everyone (in Britain again) considered themselves Christian. CoH has just appeared, in 2007, in (again from the British/European perspective) a post Christian world.

This statement reflects, for the majority in the post-Christian world, our shared worldview far better than the 'Estel' we find in LotR. In short, it seems to me that the books have actually appeared in the correct sequence to reflect the change that has taken place in the Primary world...

Doesn't CoH actually feel more 'contemporary' than LotR?
Only to add a little correction to the first part: in Western Europe, to be precise.

However, I agree with the second, though I think it was hardly an intention. I agree with that it corresponds much with the change in the Primary world, meaning now the general post-modernistic paradigm, where there actually is nothing certain and for some people, it can lead even to a loss of hope. We saw the rise and fall of big ideologies of the 20th century, from what streams the experience that nothing can be taken for certain, and people who cannot bear the "non-simplified" point of view can be really shaken. Though, I think to doubt is not a reason to lose hope, which would be for another topic. But what I wanted to say is, that though I agree with what you said, I certainly wouldn't like to see the story of Túrin as "hopeless": though it is a sad story, terrific almost (well... why almost? It is), it is the typical storyline we all know from for example Romeo&Juliet. But I don't know why, Tolkien's works, even "dark stories" like that of Húrin's children, have some light in it. This might be, as you say, the Northern heroic image (and I think we might easily track the source - cf. Tolkien's "Monsters and critics" and what he said about Beowulf). But let's face it, the Northern heroic image is ultimately hopeless. "Great deeds worth entering songs, even if there will be no one to sing them." This is exactly the classification of them. But in Tolkien, on the contrary, even the quoted part from the "last" ride of the Rohirrim, although dark in itself, is broken by the typical miraculous blow of estel (here even literally). Why I never felt the tale of CoH really depressing might be that I knew the context: I knew there is hope all around it, before and after, I knew it will ultimately not end in darkness, I know the light will prevail. If anyone read the tale of Túrin out of context, which would be theoretically possible now after releasing CoH, someone might just see it as one separate dark heroic story. But speaking for myself, I always see the larger world behind it - and to be honest, I think no one will just read CoH without at least hearing (even if he didn't want to) of the larger world Tolkien created, he will know Morgoth is going to be defeated etc. This does not change anything on the story itself, though: the complete experience of Túrin and the folk of Dor-Lómin and the whole Beleriand at times after Nirnaeth Arnoediad, the grave situation, can be felt from the story. But why not, it is the reality of the shadow, the true reality, not some cheap pretending of such a thing - the suffering and pain is real. But still, we know this shadow eventually passes away. (What more, if we take the prophecy of Mandos into account, then even Túrin himself will be the one who kills Morgoth, which I would consider quite "just".) But as I said: I don't need these things and after-world signs to have a "feeling of hope beyond Túrin" - it just comes from the tale itself, somehow, Tolkien-wise perhaps, as I said earlier. Does anyone else in here feel the way I do?

[littlemanpoet]

Would J.R.R. Tolkien have allowed such a work as CoH to be published as Christopher did? Or would JRRT have revised it so as to weave in a glimmer of hope? Who knows?

[davem]

Would J.R.R. Tolkien have allowed such a work as CoH to be published as Christopher did? Or would JRRT have revised it so as to weave in a glimmer of hope? Who knows?

Clearly Tolkien saw CoH as one third of a First Age Trilogy, along with Beren & Luthien & The Tale of Gondolin, so I suspect CoH would have remained 'hopeless', but would have been read in the context of the other two Three Great Tales.

Yet it has not been. I take Legate's point about the context, but I also agree that CoH now stands without such a larger context and neither do so many of us 'post Christians' . This is the point - the suffering in the world may be understandable in the larger context of Christianity/Judaism/Islam/Hinduism..... but remove that context & what one faces is as cruel & nihilistic as Morgoth.

Why did Turin fight - anger, spite against Morgoth, pride, self-aggrandizement, or just because he felt Morgoth was the biggest @£$%@* around & he wasn't going to get away with it if Turin had anything to do with it!

But the bigger point is, neither Eru nor the Valar actually step in to help him. Of course, with Morgoth & Glaurung making him the focus of their malice he has no chance - he needs divine help - but he doesn't get it. He is left to deal with the horror & suffering of his house - & does it as best he may.

Turin is not an athiest - he acknowledges the existence of the Valar - he just considers them to be either useless or uncaring. They play no part in his thinking.

(Too rushed...)

EDIT

And of course, Tolkien wrote the Narn as we have it after completing LotR, so in terms of composition we are also dealing with a post-'religious' work. Tolkien tells the story of a great victory (LotR) first, & follows it up with a tale of despair & defeat without hope. I also note that the planned sequel to LotR also looked to be full of despair & lost hope. Was Tolkien disillusioned after end of the WWII? Did he look around him & see that his England was not about to return to Christianity (remember the hopes of the TCBS?)?

Is the world of CoH the world that Tolkien saw coming, the world of LotR the one that he now realised had passed away?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

But the bigger point is, neither Eru nor the Valar actually step in to help him. Of course, with Morgoth & Glaurung making him the focus of their malice he has no chance - he needs divine help - but he doesn't get it. He is left to deal with the horror & suffering of his house - & does it as best he may.

Turin is not an athiest - he acknowledges the existence of the Valar - he just considers them to be either useless or uncaring. They play no part in his thinking.
Well, not exactly. I think Túrin might be an "atheist" in the meaning of the word, not that he does not know about Eru or Valar, but it means nothing for him. The switch is on the other side - we know Valar came to help the people of Middle-Earth when Eärendil came and asked for it in the name of both Men and Elves. Túrin is in the state of division, as Noldor were, and he (as well as the Noldor in all their great deeds) is not able to defeat the Dark Enemy, as you said, simply because he doesn't have enough power for it. From the side of Noldor it was foolishness at first, lately just pride not to turn back and ask for help, then, as time passed by, they even "forgot" the possibility of turning back for help: and here the despair comes, which all the other nations "caught" from the Elves, and this concerns even Túrin. Túrin, as well as all the folk around him, does not even think of the possibility that Valar could help the folk in Middle-Earth. This does not necessarily mean he would think "nah, they didn't came thus far, they probably do not care anymore about us" or "they are so angry on Noldor still that they wouldn't help us" (the latter was quite common among the Elves at in the start) - he might not thought about it at all, he might just take it as fact, so may have forgotten even the original question why. After Nirnaeth, Beleriand is in the state of "forgetfulness about mercy of Valar", there are very few who get the idea about asking the powers for help: only people around Tuor and Turgon, for example (and even here it is Ulmo who comes first, unasked!).

Tolkien tells the story of a great victory (LotR) first, & follows it up with a tale of despair & defeat without hope. I also note that the planned sequel to LotR also looked to be full of despair & lost hope. Was Tolkien disillusioned after end of the WWII? Did he look around him & see that his England was not about to return to Christianity (remember the hopes of the TCBS?)?

Is the world of CoH the world that Tolkien saw coming, the world of LotR the one that he now realised had passed away?
I think so. I think the Roger Waters-like thought "what happened to the post-war dream" was quite common at that time. Although Tolkien says that e.g. the Scouring of the Shire was logical ending even before the WWII ended, it pretty well catches the point that by the victorious war, world's trouble is not miraculously solved. And as time passed, the world didn't seem to change into a more peaceful place, but rather fall under the shadow of the Cold War. We might of course say, that the tale of Túrin had some shape even before that time and we don't know what shape it had in author's mind (as well as what it represented to him), so it (or its main points, at least) might not necessarily get affected by the changes in the world that much (as the mentioned thing about the Scouring of the Shire).

[davem]

SPOILERS

Of course, one could argue that CoH doesn't obey the rules (principally the absence of a Eucatastrophe) of Fairy story as laid down by Tolkien. Which begs the question: Is CoH actually a fairy story? LotR is, so is TH, so is The Sil as a whole. Yet CoH apparently is not. There is no 'glimpse beyond the walls of the world'. The tale ends in despair, with no glimpse of hope. What there is, is courage against all odds, a flawed human being defying evil alone, even though he is in the end destroyed by it.

Yet in the end he gives in to despair & takes his own life. He has nothing to live for, having apparently accepted that he cannot escape his doom, & throws himself on his sword. It could be argued that he never had a chance. The trigger had been pulled & the bullet was in flight. It was simply a matter of time before it struck him down. Breaks all the rules.

Yet if is is not a 'fairy story' what is it?

Do we admire Turin? He is, on the surface, a hero - he slays Morgoth's ultimate 'WMD'. He defies his fate. The 'incest' is hardly a 'sin' because he is not aware that Niniel is his sister, so he cannot be blamed for it. But is his suicide a 'sin'? From a 'Christian' viewpoint, yes, but from a Pagan one, or a pre- or post Christian one it is not - necessarily. It is a tragic end for a tragic hero. In the pre-/post-Christian worldview there is no moral judgement. Turin can commit suicide without being judged 'sinful' because in the world of the story his act is tragic but understandable, & he is still a 'hero', because he hasn't 'broken the rules'.

Yet, if Frodo had thrown himself on Sting at the end of LotR we would have been shocked. It would have been 'against the rules'., because while LotR is not a 'Christian' story it is one where a deity is a guiding force, & certain rules apply. Denethor ought not commit suicide either, because that act is against the rules. The fact that he does makes him wrong. Turin & Nienor are not wrong in taking their own lives. In fact, if Mablung had done a 'Gandalf' & started 'moralising' to Turin about having 'no authority' to take his life we'd have responded by thinking him a prig. Gandalf is not a prig - Gandalf is right to upbraid Denethor about neglecting his duty, because in the world of LotR there are certain rules - but those rules do not apply in the world of CoH, which is both an older & a more contemporary one.

Turin has not chosen to reject the Valar, he has not chosen not to have faith - he never had any to begin with - because, as Garth stated

As a boy, Turin poses immense questions of fate & death, but no-one in this benighted world knows the answers. If The Lord of the Rings is an expression of faith in a God who turns events to good, The Children of Hurin expresses a visceral sense of evil undermining everything of worth.

Turin is a man of his (& our) time. No-one knows the answers to his questions, because there are no answers that work. There is no overarching religious vision or philosophy - his world is cut off from meaning & all a man can do is fight wrong to the best of his ability. His actions may be wrong, stupid, reckless, even cruel, but they are not seen as 'sins'. One cannot imagine Turin in the world of LotR, because he is of a different time & place. CoH is almost an 'anti-LotR' - different values, different rules. One cannot 'escape' into CoH as one can escape into LotR. For all the suffering, the tragedy & loss in LotR, there is a sense that there is a guiding hand, that somehow it will all be well in the end - because the characters will get what they deserve. Good will win out & evil will be overcome. CoH stands apart from that vision.

Of course, one can read it as part of The Sil, & see it as the darkness before dawn, yet in a sense that is to cheapen the tragedy, & thereby make ourselves 'comfortable' with the horror. Many of the reviewers of CoH have expressed a dislike of CoH - some of them lovers of TH & LotR. Perhaps that's because, deep down, CoH is the more challenging work, uncomfortable reading without a glimmer of hope. There is no 'escape' in CoH, no happy ending, no eucatastrophe to give us hope. As I said, CoH 'balances' LotR, it is an 'anti-fairy story'.

[littlemanpoet]

How does Turin stand up morally against the Nordic code? (I'm using the word "code" to signify "standard of behavior", just for the sake of clarity)

[davem]

How does Turin stand up morally against the Nordic code? (I'm using the word "code" to signify "standard of behavior", just for the sake of clarity)

I think he'd be seen as 'cursed' rather than 'immoral' or 'sinful' in his actions. His desire to rule in his father's place, to be a warrior, defender of his people, enemy of Morgoth, would be seen as right & praiseworthy. Of course he would also have been seen as overly proud in some things & as one who contributed to his own downfall. Yet, he tried, whenever his temper didn't get the better of him, to do the right thing. Principally, he wasn't a coward - which would count for a great deal in such a society. He would, I think, be held up as a tragic hero who defied his fate. In short, his behaviour & attiude wasn't 'out of line'. He faced the Dragon with courage.

(Sorry, that's a bit rambling....)

[Lalwendë]

It's this idea that Tolkien intended to have a version of Ragnarok at the end of time which fascinates me - in which Morgoth, newly returned from the Void, and Turin would fight. In the Norse sagas, Loki is the one newly freed from captivity and Heimdal is the one who fights him at the end of Time. Tolkien clearly envisaged an end to the world he had created drawn directly from the old sagas - but with this kind of intention, does it mean Turin was hopeless? No, he had it laid out in his fate that he would return and finally achieve his victory - and it's also quite fabulous that the end of Morgoth would be brought about by a mere Man.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

It's this idea that Tolkien intended to have a version of Ragnarok at the end of time which fascinates me - in which Morgoth, newly returned from the Void, and Turin would fight. In the Norse sagas, Loki is the one newly freed from captivity and Heimdal is the one who fights him at the end of Time. Tolkien clearly envisaged an end to the world he had created drawn directly from the old sagas - but with this kind of intention, does it mean Turin was hopeless? No, he had it laid out in his fate that he would return and finally achieve his victory - and it's also quite fabulous that the end of Morgoth would be brought about by a mere Man.
That was what I mentioned earlier. But only mentioned. The point is that this is not mentioned in the story, nor in the new CoH (as far as I am aware), so "common reader" might not even know about it. Whether it is right or wrong not to write about that, is another topic.

[davem]

That was what I mentioned earlier. But only mentioned. The point is that this is not mentioned in the story, nor in the new CoH (as far as I am aware), so "common reader" might not even know about it. Whether it is right or wrong not to write about that, is another topic.

Of course - what a writer omits to mention is often more important than what he includes. In the Narn Tolkien chose to omit any 'light', any glimpse of a Eucatastrophe. Does the reader need that?

What the reader is given is not the whole story of Turin, but a version of the story, or if you will an 'episode'. But Tolkien chose to tell the story as he did, & it is a story of hopelessness, despair, & tragedy. It didn't have to be. He could have added the tale of Turin facing down & destroying Morgoth if he'd wanted to. Yet....

That would have turned it into a fairy story, with a 'happily ever after' ending. Tolkien could have turned up the lights at the end. Instead he blows out the candle & leaves the reader alone in the darkness. That is his intent, that's the story he wanted to tell.

I wonder whether LotR reflected the world as he wanted it to be, while CoH reflected the world as he had experienced it? Garth's point about CoH coming from the pen of a Somme survivor is relevant here, I think.

[Bêthberry]

How does Turin stand up morally against the Nordic code? (I'm using the word "code" to signify "standard of behavior", just for the sake of clarity)

There's also Tolkien's own comments about heroism and chivalry and excess of personal glory. How does CoH stack up against Tolkien's comments in The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth?

The hero has an obligation to his people, to do all he can to ensure victory--survivial--for his people in Tolkien's idea of the "heroic northern spirit." Does the ominous [i]lofgeornost'/i], "most desirous of glory", linger over Turin?

I suspect this gets away from the topic at hand, though, which examines hope.

So much for my 'unalloyed' reading of CoH.

[littlemanpoet]

That would have turned it into a fairy story, with a 'happily ever after' ending. Tolkien could have turned up the lights at the end. Instead he blows out the candle & leaves the reader alone in the darkness. That is his intent, that's the story he wanted to tell.Well, this doesn't seem to be accurate in light of earlier comments, which I trust are accurate, that Children of Hurin was meant to be part of a trilogy along with Gondolin and Beren & Luthien. JRRT's intent, then, would seem to have been some light, whereas due to the exigencies of JRR's and Christopher's limited time, only the one book comes to light.

I wonder me, if anyone will have been created "literary executor" upon the passing of Christopher? If so, it would be nice to get editions (literally) of the other two tales (if possible).

[davem]

Well, this doesn't seem to be accurate in light of earlier comments, which I trust are accurate, that Children of Hurin was meant to be part of a trilogy along with Gondolin and Beren & Luthien. JRRT's intent, then, would seem to have been some light, whereas due to the exigencies of JRR's and Christopher's limited time, only the one book comes to light.

Yes - or if the Turinsaga was read as part of The Sil as a whole - or if the prophecy of Turin's ultimate defeat of Morgoth had been included. I'm talking about CoH as we now have it - as a standalone work, & the effect it has on the reader. Tolkien could have (simply by including that prophecy) have introduced a glimmer of hope into CoH. He chose deliberately not to do that. Hence, we have a post-Christian novel (not, as I stated a 'fairy story' according to Tolkien's own rules). I asked at the start (only half jokingly) whether LotR should be appended to CoH to give the reader that glimpse of final victory).

One can put it down to 'the exigencies of JRR's and Christopher's limited time', (or 'chance - if chance you call it') but what I'm arguing is that the work as we have it is a perfect post-Christian/post-religious novel, & therefore a much more contemporary work than LotR.

[Lalwendë]

That would have turned it into a fairy story, with a 'happily ever after' ending. Tolkien could have turned up the lights at the end. Instead he blows out the candle & leaves the reader alone in the darkness. That is his intent, that's the story he wanted to tell.

There's something in all of this also which points to some of the events of the Twentieth century - people fighting beyond hope, without any, but fighting because there was no choice. I'm thinking of events such as the Battle of Stalingrad or even the Miner's Strike (yes, really!) where there was no option but to stand up and fight - it was either that or lay down dead and accept Fate. And indeed, the Somme itself was this kind of battle; it was 'pre-ordained', 'fated', however you want to call it - those involved had no choice but to go over the top and in all likelihood lose their lives and the battle.

[davem]

Just on the point of reading CoH 'in the context of' the Legendarium, & supplying the missing 'hope' either via the ultimate victory over Morgoth at the end of the First Age, over Sauron at the end of the Third, or in terms of the Prophecy & Turin's ultimate defeat of Morgoth – it seems to me that the problem with that is that it reduces CoH to 'more of the same'. The vision is the same as in LotR – there is darkness that is ultimately defeated & good wins out. From that point of view CoH is unnecessary & tells us nothing new.

However, CoH as a story without ultimate hope, where the hero is destroyed by a fate he cannot understand or hope to conquer (he hopes, but his hope actually betrays him), it seems to me is something unique from the pen of Tolkien & shouldn't be seen as merely a part of something else. To bring hope from the wider Legendarium is in a way to cheapen the tragedy – as if it was to turn out that Niniel wasn't really Nienor, that it was just a case of mistaken identity, & to have her turn up at the end with Hurin & Morwen after the death of Glaurung & to even have Niniel have fallen onto a ledge just below the precipice, so that everyone could live happily ever after. That would be a perfect Eucatastrophe, revealing a light & joy beyond the walls of the world, & make the tragedy more palatable. For Tolkien to deliberately miss out any hope or joy from the story is more than an interesting curiosity. As I said, we may wish that the world was like LotR, we may even believe that in the end it will be, that there will be an ultimate victory of good over evil, but what we know (after the Somme, Auschwitz, Hiroshima, 9/11, after all the personal tragedies we live through) is that the world is more like the one we see in CoH. We are more like Turin than Frodo.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

...if you take the story of CoH just by itself, without the context, was something else. Well, maybe not even intention, but just what he thought like when writing the story. I'll leave this to professional Tolkienologists, but as I mentioned much earlier, I think Tolkien was greatly inspired by Béowulf in many things he did, and I believe here this fact also takes part. I just stumbled upon this in the "Monsters and critics" (1936):
(I am really sorry, it's merely my translation - don't have original available - but I hope I haven't screwed up the main points while translating it.)

(about the author of Béowulf)...The poet looks back into the past, overlooking the history of kings and warriors of old tradition, and sees, that all the fame (we could say also "culture" or "tradition") ends in night. It does not come to solving that tragedy - this does not flow from the subject. What we have in front of us is actually a poem... looking back into the depths of time, written by a man acknowledged with ancient stories, who tries in all possible ways to look into them all in sort of a global perspective, when still perceiving the tragedy of fatal doom, which connects them, though still he feels them in a more poetic sense, because he himself is not anymore immediately threatened by the weigh of its hopelesness. The old dogma - hopelesness of the event connected with the faith in the way of hopeless resistance - he could see from outside and at the same time immediately and thoroughly feel it.

...we could say that this poem was inspired (from one part) by the dispute... are we going or are we not going to give over our pagan predecessors to condemnation? ...the creator of Béowulf showed the true value of that pietas which preserves and keeps like a treasure the memory of battles of man in dark pasttime, a man fallen but not yet redeemed, fallen to disfavour, but not dethroned.
The boldened part is mine and for me it actually is the key element here. Tolkien speaks about how he imagines the author of Béowulf thought, and I actually am inclined to think that the above can be in (some ways, of course) adopted to Tolkien's creation of the story of Túrin (among others). In my opinion, it might not be at all reflecting the situation in reality, it was just a free intention of the writer to write a story like these of "ancient days, when dark was dark and in darkness it ended". Whether it was or was not consistent with the Legendarium (in which the Light ultimately prevails) then might or might not bother him, and questions like whether Tolkien thought that in the context we would know the light will shine or whether he just haven't had the time to solve this somehow are probably just left to speculation.

[davem]

I think Tolkien is correct – up to a point. The Beowulf poet doesn't so much reflect the actual Pagan worldview so much as the Christian understanding of it. The Pagans weren't without hope – they didn't go around under a cloud, feeling depressed & hopeless. They were, like us post Christians for the most part, quite happy. However, they lived, again for the most part, in dangerous, violent times & didn't look much 'beyond the walls of the world' for hope or much else.

I think the same could be said of the Christian/religious understanding of the post-Christian/non relgious world view. It is not without hope, but it doesn't focus on anything beyond the world either during life or after death.

Turin doesn't look for hope or salvation from beyond the world, but faces the monsters within it with courage & determination – so, it isn't so much the tragic aspect of his story that makes it post religious – that's a side issue for the moment – it’s the fact that he doesn't look for any help to come from outside, for any divine intervention. He deals with his problems as best he can.

Tolkien may well have written from the perspective of a Christian looking back from a safe distance on a world without supernatural hope, or belief in a divine guiding hand, but what he has written is a work that lookedforward to a similar world.

[littlemanpoet]

One can put it down to 'the exigencies of JRR's and Christopher's limited time', (or 'chance - if chance you call it') but what I'm arguing is that the work as we have it is a perfect post-Christian/post-religious novel, & therefore a much more contemporary work than LotR.I hope not, because contemporaneity has as its corollary that this work will some day become passé; which I highly doubt.

It is, however, perfectly honorable to say that one likes one work better than another by the same author because it jibes with one's beliefs.

[Sir Kohran]

Absolutely fantastic posts, everyone.

Do we admire Turin? He is, on the surface, a hero - he slays Morgoth's ultimate 'WMD'. He defies his fate. The 'incest' is hardly a 'sin' because he is not aware that Niniel is his sister, so he cannot be blamed for it. But is his suicide a 'sin'? From a 'Christian' viewpoint, yes, but from a Pagan one, or a pre- or post Christian one it is not - necessarily. It is a tragic end for a tragic hero. In the pre-/post-Christian worldview there is no moral judgement. Turin can commit suicide without being judged 'sinful' because in the world of the story his act is tragic but understandable, & he is still a 'hero', because he hasn't 'broken the rules'.

Yet, if Frodo had thrown himself on Sting at the end of LotR we would have been shocked. It would have been 'against the rules'., because while LotR is not a 'Christian' story it is one where a deity is a guiding force, & certain rules apply. Denethor ought not commit suicide either, because that act is against the rules. The fact that he does makes him wrong. Turin & Nienor are not wrong in taking their own lives. In fact, if Mablung had done a 'Gandalf' & started 'moralising' to Turin about having 'no authority' to take his life we'd have responded by thinking him a prig. Gandalf is not a prig - Gandalf is right to upbraid Denethor about neglecting his duty, because in the world of LotR there are certain rules - but those rules do not apply in the world of CoH, which is both an older & a more contemporary one.

I do admire Turin. But not for being a hero, for slaying the dragon and being such a great warrior...but for failing. I can empathize with him exactly. He drives forward, blundering through his life, blindly fighting and failing, achieving small successes but overall making mistakes everywhere. And that's how my life really is. I'm not like Aragorn or Ecthelion or Faramir or Eomer or Gandalf or Elendil; I don't live a perfect life with epic achievements at every throw. I don't defeat my enemies; more often than not they defeat me. I don't have a stunningly good record, I've done many things I'm ashamed of. But like Turin, the victory or defeat is not important - what is important is the trying. I admire Turin for trying at life and failing - for being weak and breakable. It sounds like a paradox. But for some reason I like him, more than most of Tolkien's other characters.

I think it's right to say that Turin and indeed the world he lives in are much more like our modern time. The world of The Lord Of The Rings is the time around and after World War II. You can see plenty of parallels. Though both the real war and the War of the Ring are devastating, they are also 'glorious', in a way - the 'good' leaders are inspirations to their soldiers through the speeches of Churchill and Theoden, the heroes' cause is just, the enemies are clearly evil and need to be defeated whether they are Orcs or Nazis, the battles are decisive victories from Pelennor Fields to the Bulge, the good guys win in the end as the Dark Tower falls and Hitler is found dead, and happiness is achieved as people in both worlds celebrate the epic victory. The people are strong - they believe in their ideals and faith, as Damrod invokes the Valar to protect him and Allied soldiers pray before battle. Even through the dark nights of the Blitz and the enemies besieging Minas Tirith, there is always that comfort at the back of our minds that God is there with us, on our side, supporting us in everything we do, and assuring the eventual victory. Whilst the impact and effects of both wars is felt even after them, through both the Cold War and the Scouring of the Shire, ultimately good has won. Though thousands die in World War Two, a new, safer generation will take over, just as when Frodo departs forever, Sam and the other hobbits rebuild their realm to an even better state than it was before.

The world of The Children Of Hurin, in contrast, is much bleaker, as is perhaps our own world. No longer do we have the unshakeable comfort of God in the back of our minds - many people now question the credibility and even the worth of religion, just as no-one can tell Turin where his dead sister has gone, because none of them can quite agree or even understand. Questions that were once obvious now stand unanswered. No longer are the wars glorious, simple and decisive - just as Fingon confidently looked out over his armies and allies, and drove forward against Morgoth, so did George Bush and the Coalition armies drive into Iraq, confident of victory. And in both situations the outcome was terrible, as the well-laid plans and sturdy soldiers and epic speeches went awry and dismayed both worlds. The 'bad guys' are no longer so obvious, nor as defeatable as they once were - Turin never gets his chance at defeating Morgoth because he is constantly deceived and turned aside by him, just as hidden criminals and corrupt politicians walk freely upon our streets. People are not as united as they once were - Turin encounters distrust in most places he visits and in fact spreads much of it himself. Our world is much less certain, just as Turin's is, the people less strong, the orders less firm. We are no longer in the comfortable, safe world of The Lord Of The Rings in the 20th Century - now we live in the grim, insecure world of the The Children Of Hurin in the 21st Century.

[davem]

Tolkien must have seen it happening - perhaps that's why he chose to focus on CoH rather than Beren & Luthien & The Fall of Gondolin. Both those tales offer a sense of hope to the reader - Gondolin may fall, but Tuor & Idril escape with Earendel.

Actually, the 'War on Terror' was in my mind too as I read CoH. While evil is clearly present in Morgoth & Glaurung, good is not so clearly present. There is confusion, selfishness, pride & hopelessness on the 'good' side. For all its 'mythological' setting & characters CoH seems to me one of the most insightful comments on where we are right now. There are a lot of novels around which attempt to explore the state of our world at the beginning of the 21st century, but CoH, it seems to me, is perhaps one of the profoundest.

Which is not to claim it as an 'allegory' - clearly it cannot be, given when it was written - but as far as 'applicability' goes, its not far to seek...

[littlemanpoet]

I do admire Turin. But not for being a hero, for slaying the dragon and being such a great warrior...but for failing. I can empathize with him exactly. He drives forward, blundering through his life, blindly fighting and failing, achieving small successes but overall making mistakes everywhere. And that's how my life really is. I'm not like Aragorn or Ecthelion or Faramir or Eomer or Gandalf or Elendil; I don't live a perfect life with epic achievements at every throw. I don't defeat my enemies; more often than not they defeat me. I don't have a stunningly good record, I've done many things I'm ashamed of. But like Turin, the victory or defeat is not important - what is important is the trying. I admire Turin for trying at life and failing - for being weak and breakable. It sounds like a paradox. But for some reason I like him, more than most of Tolkien's other characters.The description here of admiration reads like sympathy. Which brings to mind the way many of us are sympathetic to Sméagol, and for the same reasons. Maybe a new thread ought to be started on it, but I'll broach the question anyway: Is Túrin most like Sméagol of all the characters in LotR?

[davem]

The description here of admiration reads like sympathy. Which brings to mind the way many of us are sympathetic to Sméagol, and for the same reasons. Maybe a new thread ought to be started on it, but I'll broach the question anyway: Is Túrin most like Sméagol of all the characters in LotR?

Don't think so, but I'm not sure in what way you mean 'like' Smeagol. I could see the argument that he is 'like' Boromir, who is also a flawed hero. Yet Boromir repents at the end, admits he was wrong. Turin never does, even at the very end. He admits he failed, but he never, unlike Boromir, repents of his 'sin', & doesn't see his death as either punishment or atonement. Boromir gives his life, Turin takes his. I suppose one could also argue that Boromir loses his life while Turin casts his away. Yet....

Turin, it seems to me, realised at the end that he would never be the hero he wanted to be, that as long as he lived he would be Morgoth's fool, & ended his life almost as an act of defiance. Its perfectly correct to say that he was mastered by his doom, yet in another way he did master his doom - by ending his life he put an end to his doom. Hence even his suicide could be seen as an act of defiance as much as one of despair.

[Sir Kohran]

The description here of admiration reads like sympathy. Which brings to mind the way many of us are sympathetic to Sméagol, and for the same reasons. Maybe a new thread ought to be started on it, but I'll broach the question anyway: Is Túrin most like Sméagol of all the characters in LotR?

Not really sympathy...more like empathy. In Turin's misguided attempts at greatness, ending in failure yet somehow still achieving something, I see many similarities with myself.

I never felt sorry for him, not in any great way. I felt bad for him, but ultimately he brought a lot of it on himself - just I do with certain things, so again I could empathize with him.

[Maédhros]

Would J.R.R. Tolkien have allowed such a work as CoH to be published as Christopher did? Or would JRRT have revised it so as to weave in a glimmer of hope? Who knows?

And of course, Tolkien wrote the Narn as we have it after completing LotR, so in terms of composition we are also dealing with a post-'religious' work. Tolkien tells the story of a great victory (LotR) first, & follows it up with a tale of despair & defeat without hope.

I'm in total disagreement with this. I don't think that there is a story in all of Tolkien's Legendarium that has more hope in it than the Narn i Chîn Húrin. Let's see:

From Unfinished Tales: Narn i Chîn Húrin
"You say it," said Morgoth. "I am the Elder King: Melkor, first and mightiest of all the Valar, who was before the world, and made it. The shadow of my purpose lies upon Arda, and all that is in it bends slowly and surely to my will. But upon all whom you love my thought shall weigh as a cloud of Doom, and it shall bring them down into darkness and despair. Wherever they go, evil shall arise. Whenever they speak, their words shall bring ill counsel. Whatsoever they do shall turn against them. They shall die without hope, cursing both life and death."
Can Morgoth actually do this to a person in particular that is not in his grasp? No he cannot. Does it help that Morgoth is really against you? It really hinders the person though.
From Morgoth's Ring: Ainulindalë
But to Men I will give a new gift.'
§39 Therefore he willed that the hearts of Men should seek beyond the world and find no rest therein; but they should have a virtue to fashion their life, amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Ainur, which is as fate to all things else. And of their operation everything should be, in shape and deed, completed, and the world fulfilled unto the last and smallest. Lo! even we, Elves, have found to our sorrow that Men have a strange power for good or ill, and for turning things aside from the purpose of Valar or of Elves; so that it is said among us that Fate is not master of the children of Men; yet are they blind, and their joy is small, which should be great.


In Arda, it is almost dominated by Morgoth, after the defeat of the Ñoldor in the Nirnaeth Arnoediad. You have Doriath that is isolated from the rest of ME, Gondolin which is hidden and Nargothrond, there are other minor elven enclaves and some scatter Men. Túrin was sent by Morwen to Doriath to have a better future, but she remains in Dor-Lomín with Nienor.
Túrin grows and becomes a great warrior, but because of the incident with Saeros (he has a new name now in the CoH) instead of relying in the judgement of his foster father Thingol he leaves, never to return again. Did Morgoth make him do this? No.
Túrin with the outlaws, was given an opportunity by Beleg to return to Doriath, but Túrin refuses. Was that Morgoth's doing? No.
Túrin kills Beleg when he is rescued. That was a big boo boo by him, and he goes to Nargothrond. Does Túrin forces Orodreth into open warfare with Morgoth? No, Orodreth had his own mind, but he was swayed by Túrin. Nargothrond is destroyed, but he is spared.
Nargothrond could not beat the armies of Morgoth, if they had decided to keep hiding, they would have fallen sooner or later.
Glaurung bewitches Túrin into leaving Findulias, leading to the events of going into Brethil and marrying his sister. But he ultimately kills Glaurung, but the thing is that his sister kills herself. Then he learns the truth about Nienor and kills himself.

And yet, even with all this, his mother (Morwen never looses hope).
From Morgoth's Ring: Athrabeth Finrod an Andreth
'Have ye then no hope?' said Finrod.
'What is hope?' she said. 'An expectation of good, which though uncertain has some foundation in what is known? Then we have none.'
'That is one thing that Men call "hope",' said Finrod. 'Amdir we call it, "looking up". But there is another which is founded deeper. Estel we call it, that is "trust". It is not defeated by the ways of the world, for it does not come from experience, but from our nature and first being. If we are indeed the Eruhin, the Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves. This is the last foundation of Estel, which we keep even when we contemplate the End: of all His designs the issue must be for His Children's joy.
Morwen, was alone. Her 3 children were dead, and her husband was imprisioned in Angband with no hope of ever escaping, and yet she never lost hope that Húrin would return.
From Unfinished Tales: Narn i Chîn Húrin
"Prudence, not doubt," said Húrin; yet he looked troubled. "But one who looks forward must see this: that things will not remain as they were. This will be a great throw, and one side must fall lower than it now stands. If it be the Elven-kings that fall, then it must go evilly with the Edain; and we dwell nearest to the Enemy. But if things do go ill, I will not say to you: Do not be afraid! For you fear what should be feared, and that only; and fear does not dismay you. But I say: Do not wait! I shall return to you as I may, but do not wait! Go south as swiftly as you can; and I shall follow, and I shall find you, though I have to search through all Beleriand."
Why did she had still estel?
From the War of the Jewels: The Wanderins of Húrin
But Húrin did not look at the stone, for he knew what was written there, and, his eyes had seen that he was not alone. Sitting in the shadow of the stone there was a figure bent over its knees Some homeless wanderer broken with age it seemed, too wayworn to heed his coming; but its rags were the remnants of a woman's garb. At length as Húrin stood there silent she cast back her tattered hood and lifted up her face slowly, haggard and hungry as a long-hunted wolf. Grey she was, sharp-nosed with broken teeth, and with a lean hand she clawed at the cloak upon her breast. But suddenly her eyes looked into his, and then Húrin knew her; for though they were wild now and full of fear, a light still gleamed in them hard to endure: the elven-light that long ago had earned her her name, Eðelwen, proudest of mortal women in the days of old.
'Eðelwen! Eðelwen!' Húrin cried; and she rose and stumbled forward, and he caught her in his arms.
'You come at last,' she said. 'I have waited too long.
'It was a dark road. I have come as I could,' he answered.
'But you are late,' she said, 'too late. They are lost.'
'I know,' he said. 'But thou art not.'
'Almost,' she said. 'I am spent utterly. I shall go with the sun. They are lost.' She clutched at his cloak. 'Little time is left,' she said. 'If you know, tell me! How did she find him?'
But Húrin did not answer, and he sat beside the stone with Morwen in his arms; and they did not speak again. The sun went down, and Morwen sighed and clasped his hand and was still; and Húrin knew that she had died.
So passed Morwen the proud and fair; and Húrin looked down at her in the twilight, and it seemed that the lines of grief and cruel hardship were smoothed away. Cold and pale and stem was her face. 'She was not conquered,' he said; and he closed her eyes, and sat on unmoving beside her as night drew down.
It doesn't makes any sense, yet with all of that had happened to her and her family she never lost hope.

What the reader is given is not the whole story of Turin, but a version of the story, or if you will an 'episode'. But Tolkien chose to tell the story as he did, & it is a story of hopelessness, despair, & tragedy. It didn't have to be. He could have added the tale of Turin facing down & destroying Morgoth if he'd wanted to. Yet....
But that is exactly what happened:
From The Lost Road and other Writtings: Quenta Silmarillion
§31 Thus spake Mandos in prophecy, when the Gods sat in judgement in Valinor, and the rumour of his words was whispered among all the Elves of the West. When the world is old and the Powers grow weary, then Morgoth, seeing that the guard sleepeth, shall come back through the Door of Night out of the Timeless Void; and he shall destroy the Sun and Moon. But Eärendel shall descend upon him as a white and searing flame and drive him from the airs. Then shall the Last Battle be gathered on the fields of Valinor. In that day Tulkas shall strive with Morgoth, and on his right hand shall be Fionwë, and on his left Túrin Turambar, son of Húrin, coming from the halls of Mandos; and the black sword of Túrin shall deal unto Morgoth his death and final end; and so shall the children of Húrin and all Men be avenged.

Or course, the Narn i Chîn Húrin, ends with the dead of Túrin and not with the fate of Morwen.

[davem]

Yes, but we're discussing CoH as a stand alone work, which it now is, & how a reader would take it if they hadn't (or didn't want to) read any of the other writings you mention. Most readers of CoH will not work their way through HoM-e.

[Sir Kohran]

Yes, but we're discussing CoH as a stand alone work, which it now is, & how a reader would take it if they hadn't (or didn't want to) read any of the other writings you mention. Most readers of CoH will not work their way through HoM-e.

Exactly. We're talking about the BOOK Children Of Hurin, not the story Children Of Hurin. When I first read it I had no idea about Earendil or Mandos' prophecy and it made for very grim reading.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Yet, it is also (& perhaps fittingly) the finest manifestation of the Northern theory of courage - to fight on without hope in a light at the end of the tunnel - because it ain't a 'tunnel': its a hole -in fact its a grave. One fights on not in hope of victory, or the defeat of the enemy, but simply because fighting an evil enemy is the right thing to do

Except, except, except.......

It seems to me that the contemporary Zeitgeist has little to do with fighting on against anything, but just saying "Ahh, fuggit" and wallowing in either faineance or angst. The contemporary figure to my mind is not Turin but Mim.

[Lalaith]

Morwen never looses hope

Hmm...interesting....I thought Morwen *had* lost hope, and I always interpreted that comment of Hurin's as a bitter one, bred by the lies of Morgoth.
Morgoth had twisted everything he'd seen, remember, and made him lose faith in almost everything.
He could not see that hope still lived in Doriath, and in Gondolin. (Although after the way Turgon behaved, who can blame Hurin for believing the lies of Morgoth....grr....don't get me started....)
But I thought his "She was not conquered" comment showed that the one thing Morgoth couldn't twist was Hurin's faith in his wife. Even though Morwen had actually messed up and she had lost faith.

[littlemanpoet]

Except, except, except.......

It seems to me that the contemporary Zeitgeist has little to do with fighting on against anything, but just saying "Ahh, fuggit" and wallowing in either faineance or angst. The contemporary figure to my mind is not Turin but Mim.
In fact, Túrin is the only character in the entire story who virtually brandishes the Nordic Ethos. Húrin comes closest after him, but even his talk has more to do with the righteousness of the Eldar. The Eldar are written by Tolkien to appear little if anything like their Alfar counterparts from Nordic legend. The words of all Eldar in the story, and even the wisest of the men (such as Brandir in his better moments, and others) counsel caution and hanging on, cognizant of the devastating power of Morgoth.

And Morgoth. This is one entity that cannot be found in the Nordic mythos. This evil personage goes way beyond a Loki, or a Surtr, or any such antagonistic figure from Norse myth. This is a will full of malice, seeking by means of a curse, and the carrying out of all of his plans, to fulfill that curse. And the curse might have been overcome had Túrin become powerful enough, and just one plot turn not have turned out for the worst, despite his pride. If Mím had not acted upon his vengefulness, if he had not been forced to sit idle while his son died, .... and so on. There are so many turns of the plot where something better could have happened, but the worst thing did. This goes to show that Túrin was up against an unbeatable foe. This is not blind fate, even though Túrin may think so. This is Morgoth willing Túrin's life to be a living hell.

So yes, there is plenty of hope in The Children of Húrin, but not for the Children of Húrin, ironically.

[Sir Kohran]

In fact, Túrin is the only character in the entire story who virtually brandishes the Nordic Ethos. Húrin comes closest after him, but even his talk has more to do with the righteousness of the Eldar. The Eldar are written by Tolkien to appear little if anything like their Alfar counterparts from Nordic legend. The words of all Eldar in the story, and even the wisest of the men (such as Brandir in his better moments, and others) counsel caution and hanging on, cognizant of the devastating power of Morgoth.

And Morgoth. This is one entity that cannot be found in the Nordic mythos. This evil personage goes way beyond a Loki, or a Surtr, or any such antagonistic figure from Norse myth. This is a will full of malice, seeking by means of a curse, and the carrying out of all of his plans, to fulfill that curse. And the curse might have been overcome had Túrin become powerful enough, and just one plot turn not have turned out for the worst, despite his pride. If Mím had not acted upon his vengefulness, if he had not been forced to sit idle while his son died, .... and so on. There are so many turns of the plot where something better could have happened, but the worst thing did. This goes to show that Túrin was up against an unbeatable foe. This is not blind fate, even though Túrin may think so. This is Morgoth willing Túrin's life to be a living hell.

So yes, there is plenty of hope in The Children of Húrin, but not for the Children of Húrin, ironically.


That's a very interesting look at the Nordic ideas and in particular Morgoth.

Morgoth seems almost out of place in COH. You're absolutely right in stating that the Nordic mythology, upon which the era of COH is 'based on', contains no-one equivalent to him - though there are evil beings, even terrifying beings, they just don't have that sense of malice and overhanging wickedness that surrounds the figure of Morgoth. In many ways Morgoth is, in this regard, most similar to Satan - the Christian being of evil. Both Morgoth and Satan are the prime evils in their worlds - the greatest, oldest incarnation of the shadow in its most evil form.

I'm reminded of the story of Job from the Bible - like Turin, he is tormented by the ultimate evil and put through absolute hell. The big difference is that Job is eventually relieved from his evil fate and is rewarded for his endurance. Turin receives no such reward from Eru for his heroism. Instead he is damned to a bitter, tragic end. The Christian 'hero' survives thanks to his Christian god whilst the Nordic 'hero' perishes thanks to his Christian devil. Essentially the world of COH lacks any Nordic god to defend it. Am I getting anything here or is this just mindless rambling?

[littlemanpoet]

Well, yes, I think you're getting the gist of what I'm saying, Sir Kohran. :) Just a few things to note. You will remember that Ulmo had a role to play in Turin's life, but Turin rejected the god's counsel. It's a shame that the Beren & Luthien tale, and the Fall of Gondolin~Eärendil tales probably won't get the same treatment as the Children of Hurin tale, because as The Silmarillion shows, Ulmo, like Manwë, comes closest of all the Valar to understanding the mind of Eru. So if Ulmo is giving the counsel, it is safe to conclude that it is in agreement with the mind of Eru.

I understand why Job might come to mind as comparable to Children of Hurin, since Satan is introduced as a persona in the book as is Morgoth in CoH. However, a closer comparison can be drawn to King Saul of Israel. Both Saul and Turin labor vainly against curses; Turin's initiated by Morgoth; Saul's initiated by Yahweh as punishment for Saul's disobedience. Saul's life after the punishment begins is every bit as "downhill" as is Turin's.

Another thing CoH does not tell the reader (therefore yet another fault in the work as published) is that Turin will be at the Arda version of Ragnarok, and will slay (shoot I forget who) either Morgoth or some great evil wyrm or monster of some sort. So Turin's "eucatastrophe" is assured.

[Aiwendil]

Another thing CoH does not tell the reader (therefore yet another fault in the work as published) is that Turin will be at the Arda version of Ragnarok, and will slay (shoot I forget who) either Morgoth or some great evil wyrm or monster of some sort.

Up to at least the 1937 Quenta Silmarillion, Turin was to slay Morgoth at the Dagor Dagorath. In the post-LotR revision (which, however, was very cursory in the later chapters) Tolkien made a note that Beren was to accompany Turin in this endeavour.

But it's worth noting that Tolkien made a late decision to change this; in a note on 'The Problem of Ros' he refers to a prophecy of Andreth: Turin would return at the Great Battle (i.e. the War of Wrath, not the Dagor Dagorath) and slay Ancalagon.

Both Saul and Turin labor vainly against curses; Turin's initiated by Morgoth; Saul's initiated by Yahweh as punishment for Saul's disobedience. Saul's life after the punishment begins is every bit as "downhill" as is Turin's.


Interesting that this makes Yahweh the analogue of Morgoth!

As long as we're finding parallels for Turin, let's not forget his intra-Legendarium doppleganger: Tuor. There are too many obvious parallels between their stories to list, but one slightly more subtle one is that between Morgoth's influence over Turin's fate and Ulmo's influence over Tuor's - the obvious difference being that Ulmo is good and Morgoth evil.

[davem]

Another thing CoH does not tell the reader (therefore yet another fault in the work as published) is that Turin will be at the Arda version of Ragnarok, and will slay (shoot I forget who) either Morgoth or some great evil wyrm or monster of some sort. So Turin's "eucatastrophe" is assured.

Its not so much a fault in the book, as a fault in Tolkien. Tolkien wrote the Narn & the Narn ends with the death of Turin & Nienor. There is no eucatastrophe in this story & Tolkien clearly intended there to be no eucatastrophe. CT hasn't edited a eucatastrophe out.

And, unfortunately, I fear that this work will never be fully appreciated as a work of literature in its own right. It will always be read in the light of the other writings, & have a eucatastrophe forced on it, in order (imo) to make it 'safe' & 'palatable'. Read as a part of the Legendarium, in the light of the other writings, this is a supremely unncessary exercise - Bad guy triumphs temporarily, but its always darkest before the dawn, & just when you think all's lost, the sun comes out & everyone lives happily ever after. Pointless excercise & a waste of time & money for all concerned. We got that from LotR.

Its only when we read CoH as a stand alone work, divorced from the rest of the writings, entirely absent of any hope or eucaastrophe, that it becomes important & significant - & more importantly says something new
.

[littlemanpoet]

Regardless of what a reader may want from this particular author, I think it has been demonstrated that Tolkien never intended this story to be published on its own, in its current condition. He intended it to be accompanied by Beren & Luthien, the Fall of Gondolin, and the journey of Eärendil. So regardless of whether one wants eucatastrophes, Tolkien intended there to be one, for that is precisely what Eärendil's journey accomplishes, it's what the story of Tuor leads up to.

Saying something new would be nice, if that were what was really going on in CoH. It would be more accurate to say that this particular CoH says some things that some readers like. A lot.

But it is best to take the whole story rather than pick just the parts that most appeal if one is going to make sweeping declarations about it.

As has been demonstrated by other posters as well, as a stand alone, CoH is a stunted work. Plain and simple.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bad guy triumphs temporarily, but its always darkest before the dawn, & just when you think all's lost, the sun comes out & everyone lives happily ever after. Pointless excercise & a waste of time & money for all concerned. We got that from LotR.


Ouch! ;) I think this is an overstatement of what LotR is. My own perception is different.

Rather than everyone living happily ever after, I saw a woman who gave up immortality and embraced death, however unwillingly, for a lifetime with someone she loved. I saw a "hero" who was not a hero, one who paid an unknown price....unknown because the reader can not even sail West to find out what happened to him. I saw a good man like Boromir corrupted because he, like many, could not withstand the evil that infects every corner of Arda because of a train of events originally initiated by Morgoth and now carried on by many others. This list of examples could be extended.

For every glimmer of hope in LotR, and there are many, I also saw a burden of sorrow and evil. We are given a short glimpse of one victory but at a heavy price and no indication that there was a "happily ever after".

I do wonder how JRRT would feel about one of his stories (and this story in particular) being separated out from the Legendarium and examined in isolation, without reference to the rest of the structure, beliefs, powers etc. of Middle-earth that he so carefully defined and crafted. I am extremely grateful to CT for editing this story and making it available. I think Davem makes some excellent points about the tone of this tale and to what extent modern readers will have an easier time identifying with it. But in the end, for me at least, this story fails to capture my heart or attention to the same degree as LotR or Silm, which present a much broader picture.

[davem]

Regardless of what a reader may want from this particular author, I think it has been demonstrated that Tolkien never intended this story to be published on its own, in its current condition. He intended it to be accompanied by Beren & Luthien, the Fall of Gondolin, and the journey of Eärendil. So regardless of whether one wants eucatastrophes, Tolkien intended there to be one, for that is precisely what Eärendil's journey accomplishes, it's what the story of Tuor leads up to.

But it stands as it is - a separate story, with a beginning, middle & end. Just as TH stands as a separate story, without needing LotR to give it meaning (or LotR without needing The Sil).

CoH is not 'stunted' as far as I'm concerned. I find it one of the greatest, most profoundly interesting & challenging works Tolkien produced - as it is. Its only going to seem 'stunted' or 'incomplete' to those who want it to be something other than it is, to have a different 'message'. In itself it is as full & complete as LotR - it simply says something different.

My fear is that it will be judged & critiqued not as a work in its own right, but as an episode in a 'greater' story & that it will never be seen for what it is - because too many readers don't want it to be what it is, or say what it does.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:
And, unfortunately, I fear that this work will never be fully appreciated as a work of literature in its own right. Read as a part of the Legendarium, in the light of the other writings, this is a supremely unncessary exercise - Bad guy triumphs temporarily, but its always darkest before the dawn, & just when you think all's lost, the sun comes out & everyone lives happily ever after. Pointless excercise & a waste of time & money for all concerned. We got that from LotR.


Are you really claiming that :

1. LotR has a simple "everyone lives happily ever after" ending
2. The Silmarillion has a simple "everyone lives happily ever after" ending
3. Once there exists one story with a happy ending, it's pointless for there to be any more
4. Tolkien, contrary to all evidence, would have published the 'Narn' on its own, deliberately suppressing the tale of Earendil
5. The eucatastrophe of the War of Wrath erases all the suffering of Turin and his family; tragedy is so weak a thing that subsequent joy robs it of its potency?

I think that each one of those points is clearly false.

[davem]

Davem wrote:


Are you really claiming that :

1. LotR has a simple "everyone lives happily ever after" ending
2. The Silmarillion has a simple "everyone lives happily ever after" ending
3. Once there exists one story with a happy ending, it's pointless for there to be any more
4. Tolkien, contrary to all evidence, would have published the 'Narn' on its own, deliberately suppressing the tale of Earendil
5. The eucatastrophe of the War of Wrath erases all the suffering of Turin and his family; tragedy is so weak a thing that subsequent joy robs it of its potency?

I think that each one of those points is clearly false.


Well, I think my posts on the LotR read through more or less confirm that as my position, yes.

However, CoH has been published as it is, as a stand alone work, & I think it stands as one of the most important & significant works of fiction in recent years. I also think that if it had been published as part of a wider story much of that significance would have been mitigated. If JRRT would not have published it alone & CT has, then I think CT is the wiser of the two.

[littlemanpoet]

CoH is not 'stunted' as far as I'm concerned. I find it one of the greatest, most profoundly interesting & challenging works Tolkien produced - as it is. Its only going to seem 'stunted' or 'incomplete' to those who want it to be something other than it is, to have a different 'message'. In itself it is as full & complete as LotR - it simply says something different..Then please outline what LotR says, and what CoH says that is different. I'd like to see your comparisons, point for point. In other words, please prove what you're saying.

[davem]

Then please outline what LotR says, and what CoH says that is different. I'd like to see your comparisons, point for point. In other words, please prove what you're saying.

I already did. I 'outlined' what I think LotR is saying in the CbC thread - I think, (apart from Esty's intros for each chapter) that I was the only one who contributed to every chapter. I've outlined what I think CoH is saying on this thread. As you know, I'm not someone who goes in for needless repetition.....

EDIT

Just linked to this article on the 'Christopher Tolkien' thread, but I think it contains some support for my position that CoH is essentially different in mood, tone, & 'message' to LotR.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_reviews/article1742663.ece

[littlemanpoet]

Not being a student of other members here, I'll pass on the invitation to research. ;)

Obviously, the mood and tone are different. As to message, it is a mistake to glory in Turin's Nordic zeal, which leads him lockstep into all of his tragedies. Turin is to be pitied. One pities fools who cannot learn from past mistakes. Turin may be a heroic fool, but he brings his tragedy upon himself. Morgoth brought his curse to bear upon him, but the story reveals that Turin could have overcome it. No, Turin was responsible for his own downfall. Morgoth is of course responsible for all the evil he brought to bear upon Turin and his family. But that does not excuse Turin his murders, his wasting of many others' lives, his rejection of all beneficence that requires a shred of humility. Turin is not someone to be admired, except perhaps for his courage; but even that is flawed since he flees from his own name and thereby causes his own doom. What one sows, so he reaps.

[davem]

Obviously, the mood and tone are different. As to message, it is a mistake to glory in Turin's Nordic zeal, which leads him lockstep into all of his tragedies. Turin is to be pitied. One pities fools who cannot learn from past mistakes. Turin may be a heroic fool, but he brings his tragedy upon himself. Morgoth brought his curse to bear upon him, but the story reveals that Turin could have overcome it. No, Turin was responsible for his own downfall. Morgoth is of course responsible for all the evil he brought to bear upon Turin and his family. But that does not excuse Turin his murders, his wasting of many others' lives, his rejection of all beneficence that requires a shred of humility. Turin is not someone to be admired, except perhaps for his courage; but even that is flawed since he flees from his own name and thereby causes his own doom. What one sows, so he reaps.

Yes, & he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone. It is, as I argued, Turin's flaws that makes it possible for us to relate to him as we do. Its his defiance, & refusal to be broken - the fact that he always comes back fighting - that endears him to us, for all the wrong he does. We root for Turin all through, because we want him to win, & that's why we're so affected by his death. We also know that Turin is a victim. He's a victim of his own pride & bloody mindedness as much as he's a victim of Morgoth, but a victim nonetheless.

This is what is so powerful about the work. Yes, Turin murders innocent people (directly & indirectly), & wrecks the lives & hopes of those around him. He also brings peace & stability to the land, thwarts Morgoth's plans, & kills, through an act of supreme courage, his most devastating 'weapon'.

And thoughout it all, in Turin the thug, the murderer, the walking disaster, the hero, we see Turin the boy, asking Labadal 'What is Fate?', & being sent away from the mother he loves, the mother he will never see again.

Turin is of his time (& as I argue, of our time too). He lives in a world which has lost hope in itself, a world in which no-one has any simple answers to the essential questions. Its not a world in which some kindly counsellor is going to sit him down & tell him 'Your father was meant to have the Helm of Hador, & so you, too, were meant to have it, & that may be an encouraging thought' - because in the world of CoH things don't work that way. There is no Shire. There are isolated, embattled islands of temporary safety. People exist on the edge of death - their own & that of those they love, & there's no Gandalf or Aragorn to teach & guide them. In place of a wise counsellor like Gandalf, who can tell Frodo what's happening, why its happening, what he should do, & be there to help him do it, Turin has Labadal, a broken old man, who can tell him precisely nothing, answer none of his questions, & offer him no protection at all.

And here's a good statement of the Catholic position http://anamchara.blogs.com/

[littlemanpoet]

Yes, & he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone. One cannot cast stones at a fictional character.

Turin is of his time (& as I argue, of our time too). What you describe says that Turin is a universal figure rather than particularly of our time.

[davem]

I see you picked up on the salient points of my post & rightly ignored the irrelevancies.

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil
Davem wrote:


Are you really claiming that :

1. LotR has a simple "everyone lives happily ever after" ending
2. The Silmarillion has a simple "everyone lives happily ever after" ending
3. Once there exists one story with a happy ending, it's pointless for there to be any more
4. Tolkien, contrary to all evidence, would have published the 'Narn' on its own, deliberately suppressing the tale of Earendil
5. The eucatastrophe of the War of Wrath erases all the suffering of Turin and his family; tragedy is so weak a thing that subsequent joy robs it of its potency?

I think that each one of those points is clearly false.

Well, I think my posts on the LotR read through more or less confirm that as my position, yes.

Well you've signed off on some rather strange claims.

Numbers 1 and 2 are the sort of literary snobbery I'd expect from Edmund Wilson. Number 3 implies that there should be no such thing as literature. Number 4 is demonstrably false. There seems little point, then, in arguing against them.

But number 5 sounds reasonable enough that someone might fall for it. Yet it's also false, and I think that is nowhere clearer than in Tolkien's writings. To paraphrase Turin, tragedy is tragedy, however small, nor is its worth only in what follows from it. But the tragedy of the 'Narn' is not small; it is deep and potent. The ultimate defeat of Morgoth no more wipes away the suffering of the 'Narn' than the defeat of the Nazis wipes away the holocaust.

In my opinion (as I think I've harped on elsewhere) the synthesis of antitheses is one of Tolkien's chief strengths. In LotR two very different concepts of evil are synthesized (as Shippey discusses in Author of the Century). In the tale of Turin, fate and free will are synthesized. And in the Silmarillion as a whole, Norse hopelessness and Christian hope are synthesized. Now it is the special power of Tolkien's synthesis that neither of the apparently contradictory elements is mitigated. Contradictory though it may seem, in the Silmarillion as in life, the deepest sorrow and the highest joy co-exist, and neither invalidates the other.

[littlemanpoet]

I see you picked up on the salient points of my post & rightly ignored the irrelevancies.
Whether this comment is meant at face value or as ironic, I don't know. I was pressed for time.

...he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.The analogy invoked implies a desire to condemn to death. This cannot be accomplished, even were the character not fictional, as he has already killed himself.

It is, as I argued, Turin's flaws that makes it possible for us to relate to him as we do. Its his defiance, & refusal to be broken - the fact that he always comes back fighting - that endears him to us, for all the wrong he does.This is an interesting point. I was sympathising and relating to Túrin right up until, having joined the outlaws, he did nothing to stop them from their crimes. This showed either cowardice or extreme self-centeredness, narcissism. From then on I wanted Túrin to make virtuous, or at least right, choices, fully aware that he would not, and made note of not only the incidences of his continued failed opportunities as well as the motivations behind them. Not a pretty story.

One particular incident comes to mind. Túrin was spelled by Glaurung (as was Nienor later), and therefore it could be argued that his failure to save Finduilas was not his fault but Glaurung's. Such would be a mistaken view. Túrin was so full of wrath and revenge, not to mention guilt at having brought Nargothrond directly to its destruction, and so filled with reckless courage (which is to say foolish - "where angels fear to tread") that it doesn't occur to him not to look in Glaurung's eyes.

Compare this: Bilbo was now beginning to feel really uncomfortable. Whenever Smaug's roving eye, seeking him in the shadows, flashed across him, he trembled, and an unaccountable desire seized hold of him to rush out and reveal himself and tell all the truth to Smaug. In fact he was in grievous danger of coming under the dragon-spell. But plucking up courage he spoke again.

Obviously, a comparison of Bilbo and Túrin requires plenty of qualification. Bilbo was not known for courage, but had just enough to "pluck up". One thing is certain, though: Bilbo was not given to rashness. Nor did he have a Morgoth-sized Curse upon his family. That notwithstanding, he hung on and did not come under the dragon-spell. One might object that Tolkien's purpose was entirely different in the two stories. To that I answer that, as Aiwendil has suggested, Tolkien has here yet another contrast, and both fall within his creative ouvre, and are thus worth comparing. They shed light on each other.

[davem]

This is an interesting point. I was sympathising and relating to Túrin right up until, having joined the outlaws, he did nothing to stop them from their crimes. This showed either cowardice or extreme self-centeredness, narcissism. From then on I wanted Túrin to make virtuous, or at least right, choices, fully aware that he would not, and made note of not only the incidences of his continued failed opportunities as well as the motivations behind them. Not a pretty story.

It shows neither - it shows that he had lost faith, felt betrayed & disrespected. Later he does stop them behaving in that way, & actually leads them in the 'right' path.

One particular incident comes to mind. Túrin was spelled by Glaurung (as was Nienor later), and therefore it could be argued that his failure to save Finduilas was not his fault but Glaurung's. Such would be a mistaken view. Túrin was so full of wrath and revenge, not to mention guilt at having brought Nargothrond directly to its destruction, and so filled with reckless courage (which is to say foolish - "where angels fear to tread") that it doesn't occur to him not to look in Glaurung's eyes.

Of course, one could argue that, Glaurung being the father of Dragons, Turin did not know what the effect of looking into his eyes would be. Bilbo had the benefit of knowing - possibly as a result of what had happened to Turin. Of course Turin looked his foe in the eye - that's what a warrior would do, & that's precisely why Bilbo didn't look Smaug in the eye. His 'betrayal' of Finduilas was a direct consequence of his over-riding desire not to betray his mother & sister. As far as he knew he had to choose between them.

[littlemanpoet]

It shows neither - it shows that he had lost faith, felt betrayed & disrespected. Later he does stop them behaving in that way, & actually leads them in the 'right' path.In other words, if someone has lost faith, feels betrayed and disrespected, he is excused from looking the other way, full well knowing that his "colleagues" are raping and pillaging? This is rather horrific reasoning, don't you think?

Of course, one could argue that, Glaurung being the father of Dragons, Turin did not know what the effect of looking into his eyes would be. Bilbo had the benefit of knowing - possibly as a result of what had happened to Turin. Of course Turin looked his foe in the eye - that's what a warrior would do, & that's precisely why Bilbo didn't look Smaug in the eye.Not all warriors would do that. Then again, it is possible that Aragorn, for example, might have been able to look the dragon in the eye and not been bespelled because of his no doubt greater store of wiscome, character, and nobility. But that's speculation.

His 'betrayal' of Finduilas was a direct consequence of his over-riding desire not to betray his mother & sister. As far as he knew he had to choose between them.And this in spite of clear warning ignored, to at all costs seek Finduilas.

[davem]

In other words, if someone has lost faith, feels betrayed and disrespected, he is excused from looking the other way, full well knowing that his "colleagues" are raping and pillaging? This is rather horrific reasoning, don't you think?

No, it doesn't excuse it, it merely explains it. And as I pointed out, when he is forced to confront the reality of their behaviour he puts a stop to it.

Not all warriors would do that. Then again, it is possible that Aragorn, for example, might have been able to look the dragon in the eye and not been bespelled because of his no doubt greater store of wiscome, character, and nobility. But that's speculation.

But the point is Turin would not have known the full consequences of looking into the Dragon's eye. And maybe not all warriors would have done it - but the type of warrior Turin was would have.

Are you saying that if you had been in Turin's place, experienced what he had, had no faith (because of everything you'd been through), had been, from childhood up, living in a war zone, never knowing when you or those you loved might be killed or enslaved, given your life over to defending your adopted people - mostly living rough too - having lost your parents & sisters through their imprisonment, death or your being sent away in childhood to a strange land ... that having been through all that & more you would never have made one mistake, one bad judgement in the heat of the moment, or done some really stupid things - even wrong things? The most I can say is that I hope I wouldn't have behaved in the way Turin did, but to be frank I can't say I wouldn't.

As I stated earlier, Frodo, Sam, Aragorn - these are characters we like to identify with, because they do what we hope we'd do in a similar situation. But if we're honest, we're all much more like Turin. I think that's why some readers are made so uncomfortable by him.

Of course, I would have to ask, given that you consider him such a selfish, narcissistic jerk, you want the reference to his killing of Morgoth to be included?

To broaden the discussion: Just come across CS Lewis review of LotR

"The book is like lightning from a clear sky... To say that in it heroic romance, gorgeous, eloquent, and unashamed, has suddenly returned at a period almost pathological in its anti-romanticism, is inadequate... It marks not a return but an advance or revolution: the conquest of new territory. Nothing quite like it was ever done before."

What about that? Lewis praises LotR for its 'romanticism', & sees it as a reaction against, almost an antidote to, the pathological anti-romanticism prevalent at the time. It strikes me that CoH, by contrast, could be described as pathologically anti-romantic.

Yet, it was in the idealistic 60's that LotR really took off in popularity, not in the 50's. LotR wasn't taken up by those 'anti-romantics' of the 50's, but by the romantics of the 60's. And now, in the anti-romantic, cynical, frightened & fanatical world of the early 21st century, we have CoH topping the bestseller lists across the world.

[littlemanpoet]

Are you saying that if you had been in Turin's place, experienced what he had, had no faith (because of everything you'd been through), had been, from childhood up, living in a war zone, never knowing when you or those you loved might be killed or enslaved, given your life over to defending your adopted people - mostly living rough too - having lost your parents & sisters through their imprisonment, death or your being sent away in childhood to a strange land ... that having been through all that & more you would never have made one mistake, one bad judgement in the heat of the moment, or done some really stupid things - even wrong things?Of course not. And of course the situation here posed is yet another extreme; you've made my response to easy to make. ;)

The most I can say is that I hope I wouldn't have behaved in the way Turin did, but to be frank I can't say I wouldn't.Not being a warrior myself, I really couldn't say. But this is not about you, nor about me, but about the character Túrin as described by Tolkien.

As I stated earlier, Frodo, Sam, Aragorn - these are characters we like to identify with, because they do what we hope we'd do in a similar situation. But if we're honest, we're all much more like Turin. I think that's why some readers are made so uncomfortable by him.Funny thing is that I did identify rather strongly with Túrin until he turned a conveniently blind eye to the evils of the group he was with. His refusal to defend himself to Mablung by saying what really happened, is the kind of thing I have done repeatedly; and I've paid for it ... but that's about me which means I digress. It's not a matter of uncomfortability but disappointment.

Of course, I would have to ask, given that you consider him such a selfish, narcissistic jerk, you want the reference to his killing of Morgoth to be included?I said self-centered, not selfish. I did say narcissistic because his behavior fits the definition. I never described him as a jerk. Seeing that the given supplied is so fraught with misappropriations, I'm afraid I must ask for a restatement of the question, should its author wish to seriously re-pose it.

And now, in the anti-romantic, cynical, frightened & fanatical world of the early 21st century, we have CoH topping the bestseller lists across the world.Thou dost protest too much, methinks. CoH's bestselling most likely has more to do with it having been authored by Tolkien, and it being a brimming good yarn. These facts do not make Túrin a more noble character.

I suppose one might relate so strongly to Túrin if one had lost faith.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Yet, it was in the idealistic 60's that LotR really took off in popularity, not in the 50's. LotR wasn't taken up by those 'anti-romantics' of the 50's, but by the romantics of the 60's. And now, in the anti-romantic, cynical, frightened & fanatical world of the early 21st century, we have CoH topping the bestseller lists across the world.

Interesting....

But isn't the important question this. Just why are all those people buying C of H? Is it because the "anti-romantic, cynical" aspects of the book draw readers into the story, and then they urge their friends to give it a try? Or is it because most of these readers had already read LotR and, based on their attraction to that bittersweet tale (a word which I prefer to davem's adjective "romantic") they would invariably search out any new Tolkien title? Perhaps, that searching would take place no matter what the tone of the new book was. Admitedly, people must like the story enough to pass on positive words to their friends. But does it really go beyond that to an attraction to the work because of its distinctive tone is somehow better suited to the 21st century?

On a personal level, I read and was moved by C of H. Yet it hasn't drastically altered my perception of the author, since there were certainly stories in Silm/HoMe with a similar grim tone. Stand alone novel or no, it is one small piece of a much larger story, and it is that larger story that holds the greater attraction for me.

[davem]

Thou dost protest too much, methinks. CoH's bestselling most likely has more to do with it having been authored by Tolkien, and it being a brimming good yarn. These facts do not make Túrin a more noble character.

But does it really go beyond that to an attraction to the work because of its distinctive tone is somehow better suited to the 21st century?


Possibly. Yet many, I think, who didn't care for Tolkien's other work will try the book because of the many reviewers in the 'serious' press who have said that while they didn't get on with Tolkien's other work they found the darker, bleaker vision of CoH a revelation. Also, something else I've noted in quite a few of the reviews (& I think this is due in no small part to John Garth's work)- references to Tolkien's wartime experiences & the way they have influenced his work. CoH will be for many readers a return to Tolkien after many years away.

Another point re the Lewis review is that while it applies perfectly to LotR:

"The book is like lightning from a clear sky... To say that in it heroic romance, gorgeous, eloquent, and unashamed, has suddenly returned at a period almost pathological in its anti-romanticism, is inadequate."


It could not be applied to CoH. As I said, CoH is 'pathologically anti-romantic'. And I wonder if that is due to the presence of 'God' in LotR & his absence in CoH? It seems as if (in Tolkien's case at least) the 'gorgeous, eloquent, unashamed & principally 'romantic' dimension required the presence of 'God'. When he comes to write a story without 'God' he swings to the opposite ('pathological') extreme - whatever can go wrong will go wrong & go as badly wrong as it possibly can. The one is the inverse of the other, & I can't help feeling that they reflect the two aspects of Tolkien's personality.

[Aiwendil]

As I said, CoH is 'pathologically anti-romantic'.

I think one ought to be careful about how one defines 'romantic'. If you ask me, the 'Narn' is rather romantic. Tragedy and Romanticism are not opposites.

[littlemanpoet]

CoH is of a piece with LotR and all of Tolkien's other writings. To emphasize the differences will get one only so far.

Perhaps it would be best to say "I like CoH because ..... ", rather than making claims about it as if the 21st century, or paganism, or Christianity, could own it. It is its own work.

That does not mean that the characters may not be evaluated.

Well, that's enough from me on this thread. Signing off.

[davem]

I think one ought to be careful about how one defines 'romantic'. If you ask me, the 'Narn' is rather romantic. Tragedy and Romanticism are not opposites.

Of course. One can use it in the precisely defined literary sense, or one can use it in the colloquial sense. CoH, as Garth & James Parker in the Boston.com review make clear, CoH is a post WWI, specifically a post Somme, novel. The 'romantic' idealism of the Victorian/Edwardian world died on the battlefields of France. Parker states

Late in "The Children of Hurin" the warrior Dorlas suffers a failure of courage ("He sits shivering on the shore") that Tolkien's contemporaries would have recognized immediately as shell shock. To his admirer W.H. Auden, Tolkien confided that he was a writer "whose instinct is to cloak such self-knowledge as he has, and such criticisms of life as he knows it, under mythical and legendary dress." John Garth, in his 2003 book "Tolkien and the Great War," imagines the convalescent Tolkien in 1917, sitting up in bed with pen and paper, poised at the creation of a work that will either be called "Tuor and the Exiles of Gondolin" or "A Subaltern on the Somme." He did not, of course, write a trench memoir: The path he took went inward, and down, and it would require the faithful excavations of another Tolkien generation to see exactly how far he went.

[Sir Kohran]

I have to say I feel kind of annoyed that almost everyone I've talked to or read about regards The Children Of Hurin as merely something to do with LOTR - like a DVD add-on or an extended edition. All the reviews from casual readers say that Tolkien fans will like it but it will be impossible for anyone else - only the people familiar with LOTR will read it. Like davem said, this will probably never be seen as a standalone work - the 'Tolkien' on the front cover will immediately lead it to be forever associated with the story of LOTR. The tragic ending, the hopeless frustration and the dark atmosphere will be either regarded as 'anachronistic' or simply be forgotten about, and the work will be shoved into the world of LOTR to 'make it fit in'; to make sure we maintain the idea of Tolkien writing generic, simple, good-beating-evil fantasy stories. Tolkien as an author and his latest story will never be able to break out of this 'mould', it seems.

[davem]

From fantasy novelist Wayne Thomas Batson's blog:
http://enterthedoorwithin.blogspot.com/2007/05/review-children-of-hurin.html

I said above that I was glad that I read CoH, but I don’t think I’ll ever read it again. That must sound strange. But you have to understand, I’m a sucker for a happy ending. No, I’m not a sap who unrealistically wants everything to turn out rosy. I absolutely love how in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien presents heroic victories, but they all come at tremendous cost. Sacrifice, death and suffering—okay, but I still want the victory. CoH is a tragedy and an intimate, penetrating tragedy at that. Anyone and everyone you will come to love in this story will die and usually in the most gut-wrenching ways. You will be yelling at Morwen, Turin, and Nienor in your mind, saying, “No, don’t do that! Don’t say that! Don’t fall for that!” And of course, they’ll do just what you feared they would. Time after time, characters will ignore the sage advice of friends who love them, and peril will result.

And after reading Children of Hurin, I am convinced there are things far worse than death. Watching every tragedy known to humankind befall your offspring—being chief among them. Morgoth’s curse so utterly devastated Hurin’s kin that it makes me wonder why he didn’t just throw a curse on ALL of his enemies and then, sit back and watch the mayhem unfold. And about Morgoth: there’s nothing better than having a really bad villain get what’s coming to him. But not in CoH. Morgoth escapes virtually unscathed. I guess I knew that going in, as Earendil and the Valar take care of Morgoth much later in the history of Middle Earth. Still, I wanted to smack Morgoth with a big war hammer, but it never happens. CoH struck me much like Mystic River, Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan, and The Departed. These are all extremely well-told stories. Well designed, well-directed, well-cast, well-acted, and well-shot—but dreadfully depressing. The Children of Hurin ended and left me with a vacant sense of dread, but no hope.

So, anyone else feel the same way - is CoH a book that you're glad you read but one that you won't want to read again?

I was very struck by Batson's comments because he's someone who knows the larger story, that Earendel will make it to the West & rouse the Valar, that Morgoth will fall & the eucatastrophe will occur.

Yet, he is left 'with a vacant sense of dread, but no hope.' This is what I meant about the effect of publishing CoH as a stand alone work - even those who know the greater context will be affected by the story's darkness & lack of hope. In effect we have two CoH's - one which is part of the Legendarium, & is the darkness that comes before the dawn. The other is the novel as a stand alone work, one that some may not want to read twice....

[tumhalad2]

This is (or was) an interesting thread, and three years later I'd like to respond to the question Davem was exploring - shall I read CoH again? Absolutely!

It is, by far, my favourite work by Tolkien, I think exactly for the reasons that have been discussed in this topic: its apparent applicability, the sense of a distinct non-, or anti-providence, the immanence of menace incarnated in Morgoth, and, I think, the unanswered questions.

It is tempting to answer Turin's question: What is fate?, or his agnosticism regarding the Valar, and his apparent ignorance (indeed, everyone's apparent ignorache) concerning an all powerful creator God, with recourse to The Lord of the Rings, of "Quendi and Eldar", or "Ainulindale" or some other extraneous text. But I think this is a mistake. I have no evidence to support my claim, but I'm not entirely certain that Tolkien wouldh've recommended such a reading either. Just remember, in the chapter "The Words of Hurin and Morgoth", the last words a given to Morgoth, not to Hurin's hopefully "estel" like pronouncements. Morgoth rebukes Hurin's "Elvish lore" by stating emphatically that "you shall see and you shall confess that I do not lie". I wouldn't go so far as to say that Morgoth is actually speaking truthfully; clearly the Valar do intervene eventually, and yet; their actions, and the actions (or non actions) of a supposedly good and benevolent God (Eru) leave something to be desired. I think CoH is cheapened if it is merely perceived as a part of a greater story; no, it is so powerful, so forceful, too grandiosely tragic, that it accumulates meaning that does not, even tangentially, support the "thesis" of ultimate eucatastrophe in the world. The cost is so stunning, and the ignorance of the "gods" so complete, that we are left with little choice but to embrace the story on its own terms.

[Formendacil]

I'm really glad this thread got revivified--I seem to have missed it, the first time around.

So, anyone else feel the same way - is CoH a book that you're glad you read but one that you won't want to read again?

I was very struck by Batson's comments because he's someone who knows the larger story, that Earendel will make it to the West & rouse the Valar, that Morgoth will fall & the eucatastrophe will occur.

Yet, he is left 'with a vacant sense of dread, but no hope.' This is what I meant about the effect of publishing CoH as a stand alone work - even those who know the greater context will be affected by the story's darkness & lack of hope. In effect we have two CoH's - one which is part of the Legendarium, & is the darkness that comes before the dawn. The other is the novel as a stand alone work, one that some may not want to read twice....

Speaking for myself, CoH is one of my favourite parts of the Silmarillion
legendarium, and I like the Silmarillion as a complete work. However, when I read the Silmarillion, I invariably skim through the Túrin chapter. Perhaps this is simply because it's the condensed version, and being familiar with the fuller tale, I naturally prefer that.

From that alone, it's understandable that I would prefer the fuller account, CoH, and naturally I'm grateful to have an unabridged account that doesn't have me reading Unfinished Tales, and having to skip back to the Notes and the Silmarillion account to fill the gap. However, I think it's more than that: when I read CoH, I don't want to finish the Silmarillion. At most, I wish that Tolkien had gone on with The Last Wanderings of Húrin, and that the tale of woe and doom had proceeded thence, more fully, to the mournful last days of Húrin and the woe wraught with the Nauglamir.

But I don't particularly want to come to the eucatastrophe and the War of Wrath. CoH makes one hate Morgoth as much or more than the whole fall of the Noldor and the rape of the Silmarils, but it casts a whole different air on him--or, perhaps, on those fighting him. In the Silmarillion broadly, the Noldor are doomed, but heroic figures facing an unbeatable enemy, holding him back at all costs, and then winning at last through the heroism of one who sought the West and won their (deserved?) pardon. In CoH, however, Morgoth is never portrayed as unbeatable--rather, he is portrayed as winning time and time again because his enemies are fallible, and foolish, and frail, and prone in the end to do as HE wants. Túrin, Nargothrond, and Doriath--the world of "good" portrayed in CoH--always seem to have the chance of more victory within their human grasp... but they fail to achieve it, whereas the "good" of the Silmarillion--perhaps to be characterised as Beren and Lúthien, Tuor and Idril,and Gondolin--not only seem to deserve victory, they win victories beyond what they SHOULD win.

As I come up with this, it is occurring to me that perhaps this is why CoH needs to have these two versions: one set contextually in the broader tale, and one set alone. The tale set alone shows the full consequences of the Fall, both Elven and Mannish, and just how doomed we are alone. In a sense, I think, it is an atheist's tale, whereas the Silmarillion is the tale of a Believer, and in Túrin's part of the broader tale, you can see how the convincing despair of "there is no hope, no God" might fit into the grander scheme of hope in eucatastrophe....

Nonetheless, I do prefer reading CoH alone. It's stands alone splendidly.

[Morthoron]

As I come up with this, it is occurring to me that perhaps this is why CoH needs to have these two versions: one set contextually in the broader tale, and one set alone. The tale set alone shows the full consequences of the Fall, both Elven and Mannish, and just how doomed we are alone. In a sense, I think, it is an atheist's tale, whereas the Silmarillion is the tale of a Believer, and in Túrin's part of the broader tale, you can see how the convincing despair of "there is no hope, no God" might fit into the grander scheme of hope in eucatastrophe....

I think CoH is what one gets when writing about a certain subject for one's entire adult life -- in this case 40 some years. The literary style changes as the author's opinions and tastes change, and we are left with a piecemeal history with various points of view, as if different hands added to the chronicles. Actually, I think this variegation adds to the appeal of Middle-earth, giving it that 'authenticity' that sets the story, or series of stories, apart from more mundane fantasies.

CoH may appear unrelentingly cruel and without hope, but this mirrors the principal influences Tolkien was under at the time he formulated the story. What we have is integral aspects of the Finnish Kalevala told as a Greek tragedy. CoH fits in quite well with any number of Greek classics: with Oedipus, Agamemnon, Prometheus Bound, and even elements of The Iliad and The Odyssey, particularly with a vengeful deity following the ill-fated heroes and the very idea of 'doom' or 'fate' itself. Faithfully following the classic Greek form, Tolkien must end CoH on a despairing note. It is the difference between pagan pessimism and Christian hope, where even in death a martyr triumphs.

[Nerwen]

I'm going to take issue with the claim (made earlier in the thread) that CoH is only popular because everyone's all world-weary and disillusioned these days, whereas in the past they were naive romantics, the poor fools, etc, etc. For a start, I don't think that actually is the case– that view of the world seems more of a media fantasy to me, and not a new one. It has not been my experience that most people these days live lives of bitter, endless despair, at all. Yes, journalists and such seem to assume they do, but that hardly makes it true. It's all just another kind of romanticism, really, anyway.

I tend to get a little annoyed by those kind of sweeping sociological explanations of why anything sells. Sometimes they're valid, of course, but it does seem like somebody will always come up with one every single time. I mean, can't anything get popular because it's, you know, good, rather than because Society Did It?;)

Also, it is fashionable to praise things primarily for being supposedly particularly relevant to "these times", for somehow tapping into the Zeitgeist (if a Zeitgeist is in fact something capable of being tapped into). I call this faint praise indeed, because if you really believe that's the secret of something's appeal, it follows that it's liable to get stale very fast. (In fact, the angst–is–all attitude was really more of a 90s thing, as far as I can recall. So on that measure of "worth" CoH would have been dated before it was ever in print!)

I think CoH is cheapened if it is merely perceived as a part of a greater story; no, it is so powerful, so forceful, too grandiosely tragic, that it accumulates meaning that does not, even tangentially, support the "thesis" of ultimate eucatastrophe in the world. The cost is so stunning, and the ignorance of the "gods" so complete, that we are left with little choice but to embrace the story on its own terms.

But tumhalad, it is part of a greater story. You can't really ignore that, just because otherwise you feel it doesn't quite mean what you'd like it to. It takes place in an incredibly complex fictional world with a long past and future history. Doesn't dismissing all that cheapen it?

EDIT:X'd with Morth and Form; typo.
EDIT2: revision.

[Nerwen]

I think CoH is what one gets when writing about a certain subject for one's entire adult life -- in this case 40 some years. The literary style changes as the author's opinions and tastes change, and we are left with a piecemeal history with various points of view, as if different hands added to the chronicles. Actually, I think this variegation adds to the appeal of Middle-earth, giving it that 'authenticity' that sets the story, or series of stories, apart from more mundane fantasies.

CoH may appear unrelentingly cruel and without hope, but this mirrors the principal influences Tolkien was under at the time he formulated the story.

Good point.

I don't anyway think Turin's story is such a "misfit" in the broader context of Tolkien's work as some have suggested. (The Silmarillion as a whole isn't exactly a laugh-a-minute, and even LotR gets pretty darned grim.)* It seems to me that those getting upset at the prospect that "the work will be shoved into the world of LOTR to 'make it fit in'; to make sure we maintain the idea of Tolkien writing generic, simple, good-beating-evil fantasy stories" are offering a false dichotomy.

Of course, I just don't think that a story's quality necessarily increases as its message approaches utter hopelessness. It just depends. The story of Children of Hurin is meant to be a very bleak tragedy. If all his stuff was like that, it would likely have got downright tedious.



*Yes, I'm aware davem does apparently see the rest of the Silm (to say nothing of LotR!) as pretty much the work of Pollyanna on happy pills, but I don't believe that's a very common complaint.

[davem]

But tumhalad, it is part of a greater story. You can't really ignore that, just because otherwise you feel it doesn't quite mean what you'd like it to. It takes place in an incredibly complex fictional world with a long past and future history. Doesn't dismissing all that cheapen it?


It certainly makes it easier for the reader - like with the little girl in the red coat in Schindler's list - of course, we can view her story in the context of the whole film/Second World War (defeat of the Nazis, victory of the Allies), but that's to ignore the essential tragedy of her own tale: a little girl who should have spent her time playing with dolls, going on holidays with her family, making friends, growing up & having children of her own, ends up a corpse on a pile of corpses - and that story is just as true (if only in a symbolic way) as the big story of the Allied victory & the destruction of the Third Reich. All such victims, throughout history, have their own tales, & whether or not good ultimately triumphs does not invalidate their suffering & the fact that their tales end in despair & tragedy. There is no great victory, no Eucatastrophe, in Turin's story - & that's why its important.

Its also why a determination to see it as simply part of a greater tale where good wins out & everyone lives happily ever after is wrong - because in the (earthly - which is all they know) lives of the characters there is no Eucatastrophe. There is just despair, hopelessness & a futile death - whether they bring it on themselves or not. That is also true - just as true as the story of the defeat of the bad guys & triumph of the good. The big story may give context to the suffering of individuals like Turin - but only for the survivors, those looking on (or back) from a distance. For Turin his story is the 'big story', & that story doesn't end with the victory of the good guys.

[Morthoron]

Its also why a determination to see it as simply part of a greater tale where good wins out & everyone lives happily ever after is wrong - because in the (earthly - which is all they know) lives of the characters there is no Eucatastrophe. There is just despair, hopelessness & a futile death - whether they bring it on themselves or not. That is also true - just as true as the story of the defeat of the bad guys & triumph of the good. The big story may give context to the suffering of individuals like Turin - but only for the survivors, those looking on (or back) from a distance. For Turin his story is the 'big story', & that story doesn't end with the victory of the good guys.

I definitely agree and, again, I think this point is germane to my earlier thought that the piecemeal quality of the telling of the entire history of Middle-earth, from the Ainulindalë to the dawning of the 4th Age, complete with various points of view and different literary treatments from highly formal to colloquially whimsical, gives Tolkien's compendium a rarified feeling of an authentic chronicle.

And with every great victory or any monumental endeavor, there are hundreds, sometimes thousands of proportionately smaller losses, sacrifices and untold stories that make a tragic mosaic of the greater picture, and that are worthy of a tale in and of themselves. That a great wartime poet like Wilfred Owen should die within a week of the signing of the armistice that ended WWI is just such a tragedy, or the equally senseless death of another poet, Isaac Rosenberg in April, 1918. Their deaths added really nothing to the overall war effort; on the contrary, they were just two of thousands of men who fell needlessly while the generals continued the slaughter and political leaders wrangled over war and peace.

But the vindictive nature of Morgoth's endless torment of Hurin and his family is not that different than the plight of other families in the real world who face such horror and sadness brought on by the powers that be or powers beyond their control.

[tumhalad2]

Good point.

I don't anyway think Turin's story is such a "misfit" in the broader context of Tolkien's work as some have suggested. (The Silmarillion as a whole isn't exactly a laugh-a-minute, and even LotR gets pretty darned grim.)* It seems to me that those getting upset at the prospect that "the work will be shoved into the world of LOTR to 'make it fit in'; to make sure we maintain the idea of Tolkien writing generic, simple, good-beating-evil fantasy stories" are offering a false dichotomy.




CoH is not a misfit because it is a tragedy; I agree there are many a small or large tragedy dotted around Tolkien's fiction, including in some respects the end of the Lord of the Rings. What is unique in CoH is the treatment of the tragedy. Unlike the players in LOTR, Turin, as has been noted (and also Nienor, his heroic sister) do not feel, nor are led to feel, that they are acting under the influence of divine guidance or providential "estel". It is not merely that they are cursed by a demonic and demiurgic god (who may as well be the only one that actually exists, in this story. Sure, Ulmo brings messages to Nargothrond, but they are many times removed from their source: Morgoth is not distant but at all times immanently present), it is also that the characters under the curse have no other guidance, no other will or power to turn to at all. This sets up a fundemental difference between CoH and LOTR, even the Sil. Sure, LOTR is at times bleak, or glum, or grim, but it is shot through with a hope not only that things will turn out well (there are no invocations to Elbereth in CoH, nor are our characters spurned on by the sight of the stars. Instead, these seem oppressive and distant) but that the characters are doing the right (in a moral sense) thing.

As Davem has noted, the moral and existential dimensions are almost completely absent from CoH, and it is this more than anything else that sets it apart. Unlike the Elves and Gondorians in LOTR, who are apparently not only sure of but aware of the existance of and alliance with the Valar (see Mablung's invocation to the Valar in Ithilien: he has total faith), Turin is critical of their capacities and their choices; indeed he rebukes them. Moreover, it seems to me that CoH, as a stand alone work, goes some way toward critiquing Tolkien's LOTR worldview. I can't say whether this was intentional or not (Although I suspect so), but the timbre of the story is so unforgiving that it almost seems gratuitous to merely point to the War of Wrath and say, it will be alright in the end. Well, it wasn't alright for Turin, Nienor or thousands of others whose lives they effected in direct or indirect ways.

And I was not, by the way, advocating that we should dismiss the rest of Tolkien's writings; I was agreeing with Davem that to only experience CoH through the prism of his other works not only cheapens the story as it is, but misunderstands its importance. The story demands to be read on its own terms without constant chant like invocations toward the eventual "eucatastrophe" of the Valar, which is something that CoH calls into question, on a moral level. Can there be eucatastrophe in such a world, or will it always be, as I said, "gratuitous" in some sense? If he had wanted to, Tolkien couldh've written in little hints pointing toward a hopeful future as we often read in LOTR (the invocations to Elbereth, the gradual dawning relevance of Aragorn etc). Indeed, it is a theme of LOTR that the greatest evils are always defeated in the end, essentially because the world is fundementally good, benign and therefore cannot tolerate evil. CoH is not set in this world at all; it is a world wherein hope itself is futile because there is no God; indeed, one is almost tempted to agree with Morgoth and say that there is "Nothing" beyond the void. For all the characters in the story know, this is perfectly true. We think we know better because we have the Silmarillion, which says that Eru created the world, etc, but once again I'm not certain CoH should be read through that prism.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Nerwen
But tumhalad, it is part of a greater story. You can't really ignore that, just because otherwise you feel it doesn't quite mean what you'd like it to. It takes place in an incredibly complex fictional world with a long past and future history. Doesn't dismissing all that cheapen it?
It certainly makes it easier for the reader - like with the little girl in the red coat in Schindler's list (etc...)

But that's not the question I asked, Davem.

Its also why a determination to see it as simply part of a greater tale where good wins out & everyone lives happily ever after is wrong


But I never said that; I don't think that is a fair characterisation of the "greater tale", anyway. I said it was part of that tale, and was intended as such by the author.

And I was not, by the way, advocating that we should dismiss the rest of Tolkien's writings; I was agreeing with Davem that to only experience CoH through the prism of his other works not only cheapens the story as it is, but misunderstands its importance

If you'll review the thread, tumhalad, you'll see Davem's previously said rather a lot more than that– and I was actually referring back to some of these earlier claims as well.

CoH is not set in this world at all; it is a world wherein hope itself is futile because there is no God; indeed, one is almost tempted to agree with Morgoth and say that there is "Nothing" beyond the void. indeed, one is almost tempted to agree with Morgoth and say that there is "Nothing" beyond the void. For all the characters in the story know, this is perfectly true. We think we know better because we have the Silmarillion, which says that Eru created the world, etc, but once again I'm not certain CoH should be read through that prism.
Which neatly settles the question of whether the author ever meant it to be a stand-alone work, doesn't it? Obviously, he didn't.

My personal view is that Turin's story, though it may stand up by itself, also works perfectly fine in the general Middle-earth context. I'm not arguing that it's invalid to prefer the stand-alone version, but to claim that that's somehow the "true" way to read it seems to me to rest on some pretty shaky arguments.

One's reaction does depend on temperament, of course: I admit freely I am basically an optimist, and so stories of total, absolute despair don't give me the sense of "Ah, yes! The truth!" that I suppose they do some people. Thus, for me, the story actually has more impact if taken as part of the greater Legendarium, because I'm not subconsciously rejecting it on some level. Does that make sense? This is not a weak preference for "happy endings", in case you think it is. It's about what feels truer to a particular person. Or, if you prefer the expression, it's about whether it "resonates" with me. Okay?

Finally, I don't see that the analogies people are giving to this story are the right ones. Turin isn't simply a passive, innocent victim of circumstance: he may have a malevolent power personally gunning for him, but nonetheless much of what befalls him can be also attributed to his own character flaws and lapses of judgement. (Unlike lmp, this does not remove my sympathy from the character– rather, I think it makes him more of a classic tragic hero.)

[Nerwen]

Now that I think about it, the question of which reading is "better" is probably not a resolvable one anyway, because clearly so much of the reader's opinion in the case depends on his or belief-system and overall world-view. So, we're going to have agree to disagree on that point.

What can be argued is whether the author intended it to be a stand-alone work, existing in a different world to the rest of the Legendarium. I just don't think he did.

[tumhalad2]

[QUOTE=Nerwen]


Which neatly settles the question of whether the author ever meant it to be a stand-alone work, doesn't it? Obviously, he didn't.

[QUOTE=Nerwen]

Obviously? I'm not entirely convinced about that. It is clear that he put most of his effort into finishing this story, as opposed to the other more hopeful ones, toward the end of his life. And he didn't write it happily, or with a sense of hope, as I said. Although he could have done so if he had felt so inclined.

As to the LOTR being a "happy ending" where everything is "happily ever after"; I don't think anyone, including Davem, is rejecting the sadness, the clear sense of loss, and the brokenness felt toward the end. Nonetheless, as I explained before, everything works out with reference to a kind of divine plan, or at least providentially. There is a big qualitative difference here, whether Tolkien intended it or not, and whether or not he intended us to read it as part of a larger trilogy. Point is, the story itself exhibits these characteristics. Now, I think there are better readings and worse readings, by no means are all "equal". In this case, to completely diss the novel's major thematic, emotive energy in favour of a kind of reading that at best seeks to mitigate or at worst ignore the utter defeat and nihilism of it is, I think, fatuous. Clearly we should read it as a "part" of a greater tale, but only to a degree; not insofar as, say, our interpretation of Beren and Luthien clouds our sense of sorrow in this story. It is clear that we are positioned not to feel hope of happiness. Just sorrow.

[davem]

Well, I haven't re-read this whole thread (As a dog returneth to its vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly - & there is no real going back: the thread may be the same, but I am not the same, ect, ect...) so I may or may not be repeating earlier points here...

I do think its possible to view CoH as a counterbalance to LotR/The Sil as a whole. Tolkien wrote it as it is - & unless we want to accuse him of 'lying', or at least of attempting to mislead, it is equally as 'true' in & of itself, as the more 'hopeful' works. LotR & CoH are both tales set in an invented world, but that's no reason to reduce one of them to being merely a 'part' of the other. They are both equal, but in a moral sense, opposites.

Many people do live desperate, pointless lives, devoid of hope & purpose - & see Tolkien's own comments on Simone de Beauvoir in this documentary http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/writers/12237.shtml “There is no such thing as a natural death. Nothing that happens to [a] man is ever natural, since his presence calls the whole world into question. All men must die, but for every man his death is an accident. And even if he knows it and consents to it, an unjustifiable violation.”

Well, you may agree with the words or not, but those are the keyspring of The Lord of the Rings.

"All men must die, but for every man his death is an accident. And even if he knows it and consents to it, an unjustifiable violation.”

I'd argue that they are not the keyspring to LotR (well, maybe a bit), but they are the keyspring to CoH - & they are definitely essential to an understanding of Tollkien's worldview.

Both LotR & CoH are true reflections of the vision of Tolkien, & ultimately true of the world we inhabit. I think to only read CoH in the light of LotR/The Sil is as wrong as to only read LotR/The Sil in the light of CoH. Just because the stories are set in the same world doesn't make one of them less true - or even dependent on each other. And it certainly doesn't mean we should see one of them as untrue if read alone.

[tumhalad2]

I do think its possible to view CoH as a counterbalance to LotR/The Sil as a whole. Tolkien wrote it as it is - & unless we want to accuse him of 'lying', or at least of attempting to mislead, it is equally as 'true' in & of itself, as the more 'hopeful' works. LotR & CoH are both tales set in an invented world, but that's no reason to reduce one of them to being merely a 'part' of the other. They are both equal, but in a moral sense, opposites.

In a moral sense, opposites. This is the crucial distinction between the two works, I think. As Andrew O'Hehir wrote in his review on Salon.com, "I came away from "The Children of Húrin" with a renewed appreciation for the fact that Tolkien's overarching narrative is much more ambiguous in tone than is generally noticed" However, O'Hehir grants that this change in tone is a result of Tolkien's "imperfect success" trying to "harmonize the swirling pagan cosmology behind his imaginative universe with a belief in Christian salvation". This begs the question, is Tolkien trying, in CoH, to "harmonize" these two worldviews, which are morally and eschatalogically at variance?

O'Hehir continues: "Salvation feels a long way off in "The Children of Húrin." What sits in the foreground is that persistent Tolkienian sense that good and evil are locked in an unresolved Manichaean struggle with amorphous boundaries, and that the world is a place of sadness and loss, whose human inhabitants are most often the agents of their own destruction." We've certainly identified here that "salvation feels a long way off". Yet it's interesting here that O'Hehir assigns the epithet 'persistent' to the idea that good and evil are "locked in an unresolvable...struggle" This seems to be quite at odds with the usual critical stance, which (half rightly) suggests that good will triumph over evil eventually. Usually, this is a kind of boxing bag for some critics, who perceive this as a kind of existential flaw in Tolkien's mythos. All the same, does CoH afford a sense of "unresolvability"? As I wrote in my last post, I'm drawn to the idea that CoH is in some ways not merely a backdown from but a moral repudiation of the doctrine of "eucatastrophe". When the story ends, Hurin knows that his wife "had died" in his arms. No more is said, and no more need be said.

[Puddleglum]

[I]
I'm drawn to the idea that CoH is in some ways ... a moral repudiation of the doctrine of "eucatastrophe". When the story ends, Hurin knows that his wife "had died" in his arms. No more is said, and no more need be said.

While CoH has (posthumously) been published as a separate book and can, to some extent, be enjoyed in its own right, I think its purpose and meaning can really only be interpreted or understood in the context of the world and mythos in which it is set.

Tolkien's concept of eucatastrophe relies on an appreciation of how bad and hopeless things are before the eucatastrophe occurs. Eucatastrophe refers to the sudden, joyous, turn which cannot be anticipated from what has gone before.

Thus, if good is gradually winning over evil and finally achieves victory, that is not a eucatastrophe. The war of wrath *was* a eucatastrophe because, while the elves and men might wish for divine intervention, they had no basis for expecting it based on anything that had gone before. The Valar had turned a deaf ear to all the destruction and killing of elves and, even, of Men (who had not been involved in rebellion).

Similarly, if there had been no death and destruction (if the Elvish kingdoms had simply managed to continue the siege of Angband indefinitely) the divine intervention and defeat of Morgoth would not be that special. Most Elves might just feel "we had things sorted just fine, thank you. We had our realms and here you come sinking our realms under water - destroying all we built. why didn't you just let us handle it."

In this context, the value of the eucatastrophe is proportional to the defeat and destruction and failure that preceded it. CoH (the Narn i hin Hurin) is one (the longest and most poignant) story of that evil - played out very personally in the lives of (in the mythos) real men and women with real egos, and loves, and strengths and faults.

The more we grieve at the evil of Morgoth (felt personally in CoH more than in any other tales of those days), the more we cheer or weep with joy at his eucatastrophic defeat.

[Nerwen]

Which neatly settles the question of whether the author ever meant it to be a stand-alone work, doesn't it? Obviously, he didn't.

Obviously? I'm not entirely convinced about that. It is clear that he put most of his effort into finishing this story, as opposed to the other more hopeful ones, toward the end of his life. And he didn't write it happily, or with a sense of hope, as I said. Although he could have done so if he had felt so inclined.

Let me quote you again, tumhalad:
CoH is not set in this world at all; it is a world wherein hope itself is futile because there is no God; indeed, one is almost tempted to agree with Morgoth and say that there is "Nothing" beyond the void. For all the characters in the story know, this is perfectly true. We think we know better because we have the Silmarillion, which says that Eru created the world, etc, but once again I'm not certain CoH should be read through that prism.

1. Tolkien was a deeply religious man. While I certainly don't think his work is just a Christian allegory, I would highly doubt he'd write something overtly athiest as a stand-alone work.

2. We "think" we know better? Um... it does rather appear to be set in the same world as the rest, doesn't it? You know, names, places, and all that? If you think Tolkien meant it to be set in a separate world, one with a different background as regards history, the nature of the supernatural, etc. then I rather think the burden of proof is on you.

Once again, I'm not saying the book can't be read, or doesn't work, on its own. What you're saying here actually goes considerably beyond that:
Now, I think there are better readings and worse readings, by no means are all "equal". In this case, to completely diss the novel's major thematic, emotive energy in favour of a kind of reading that at best seeks to mitigate or at worst ignore the utter defeat and nihilism of it is, I think, fatuous.
"Fatuous". I see. You know, I could find some equally colourful ways to describe what I consider to be your leaps of logic (see above)– but heck, that's not how I play, my friend :p

Many people do live desperate, pointless lives, devoid of hope & purpose
And many people– almost all people, in my personal experience– don't. I don't. Thus, a world without hope altogether does not and cannot convince me.

Just because the stories are set in the same world doesn't make one of them less true - or even dependent on each other. And it certainly doesn't mean we should see one of them as untrue if read alone.

But davem, that's not what I said. I say that I find the story of the Children of Hurin more satisfying if read as part of the greater story. This is partly because of the general richness of the background, the sense of past and future history, and partly because for me a tale of total despair, presented as the last word on life, the universe and everything, does ring essentially false. (Once again, this is my temperament and my experience of life, neither of which we get to choose, I think.) For me, both these considerations make the "in context" version more real, and thus more emotionally affecting. I also think that the story is in its turn an integral part of the greater work, which would be diminished without it. Again, just my reaction.

Now, look, guys, I don't have a problem with anyone who prefers to read it as a stand-alone work. What I am disputing is that a.) this is an inherently "better" reading, b.) that it's what the author intended, c.) that reading it in the context of the Legendarium necessarily "cheapens" or "disses" it, and d.) that wishing so to read it is a sign of weakness or moral failing (or– in tumhalad's words, is "fatuous"). I don't know if you all intended this last, but that's kind of how it's coming across.

Can't you see this is a matter of personal taste, and nothing more?

[Nerwen]

Also, since having an overall happy(ish) ending does not erase individual suffering– what's the problem? I quite agree, for instance, that Turin & Co. had no way of knowing Morgoth would be eventually defeated. Therefore I don't see why reading the whole thing– or reading CoH with the rest in mind– somehow "invalidates" Turin's anguish.

My guess– though this may be way out, and possibly offensive, for which I apologise in advance– is that the answer perhaps lies in what some of you imagine is taking place in the minds of people reading it the "wrong" way. I mean all this talk of "shoving it into the world of LOTR to 'make it fit in'", of people having a "determination to see it as simply part of a greater tale where good wins out & everyone lives happily ever" of the in-context reading being "easier on the reader". It is my belief that in saying this you're attributing "bad" (as you see it) motives to other people which aren't necessarily there.

Once again, you are all free to read any book any way you like. If you don't like one of the author's concepts, why, then, reject it. One is not obliged to take a writer's whole philosophy onboard, anyway. I never do.

[Morthoron]

What Usually, this is a kind of boxing bag for some critics, who perceive this as a kind of existential flaw in Tolkien's mythos. All the same, does CoH afford a sense of "unresolvability"? As I wrote in my last post, I'm drawn to the idea that CoH is in some ways not merely a backdown from but a moral repudiation of the doctrine of "eucatastrophe". When the story ends, Hurin knows that his wife "had died" in his arms. No more is said, and no more need be said.

How is the plight of the House of Hurin any different than the House of Feanor? The dire consequences of Feanor's oath lasts into a third generation (if you consider Celebrimbor to be the grandson of Feanor). Maedhros commits suicide, Maglor ruefully roams the shores of the Belegaer for eternity, and the rest of Feanor's sons die in battle as traitors and kinslayers (including infanticide). Maedhros and Maglor's sorry ends happen concurrently with a eucatastrophic event: the coming of Eonwe and the armies of Valinor and the final defeat of Morgoth. The House of Feanor's doom is no less dismaying than that of Hurin or Turin. The only difference is that CoH is a bit more developed, and follows the formula of a Greek tragedy more consistenly than in the case of the House of Feanor, although there is certainly hamartia in the making of an unbreakable vow, and anagnorisis, the sudden awareness of the tragic hero's folly, in the final actions of Maedhros and Maglor.

Contextually speaking, the fall of the House of Hurin is completely compatible with the long defeat of the Elves. Just as Hurin is forced by Morgoth to watch the hideous doom against his family unfold, so too did Morgoth chain Maedhros by the wrist atop Thangorodrim for many years. The Valar, the angelic intermediaries of Eru (whose hands-off attitude towards his creation is completely at variance with the Judeo-Christian god of the bible), simply do not interact with Middle-earth save for extraordinary circumstances. The Valar's seeming indifference causes untold suffering for nearly an entire age of Middle-earth, and Hurin's family, just like countless other families, are left to the diabolical whims of Morgoth, including captives the Dark Lord released to cause further pain to both those he had freed as well as the relations they returned to.

Therefore, to say that CoH is incongruous or better as a stand-alone tale separate from the rest of the history of the 1st Age is spurious. Hurin valiantly cries out, "Day shall come again!" seventy times as he hewed down trolls. Unfortunately, the day that dawned came too late for Hurin and his family, but that does not mean that he was not prescient in what he said. Very few prophets live to see the outcome of their revelations.

[tumhalad2]

How is the plight of the House of Hurin any different than the House of Feanor? The dire consequences of Feanor's oath lasts into a third generation (if you consider Celebrimbor to be the grandson of Feanor). Maedhros commits suicide, Maglor ruefully roams the shores of the Belegaer for eternity, and the rest of Feanor's sons die in battle as traitors and kinslayers (including infanticide). Maedhros and Maglor's sorry ends happen concurrently with a eucatastrophic event: the coming of Eonwe and the armies of Valinor and the final defeat of Morgoth. The House of Feanor's doom is no less dismaying than that of Hurin or Turin. The only difference is that CoH is a bit more developed, and follows the formula of a Greek tragedy more consistenly than in the case of the House of Feanor, although there is certainly hamartia in the making of an unbreakable vow, and anagnorisis, the sudden awareness of the tragic hero's folly, in the final actions of Maedhros and Maglor.

Contextually speaking, the fall of the House of Hurin is completely compatible with the long defeat of the Elves...The Valar, the angelic intermediaries of Eru (whose hands-off attitude towards his creation is completely at variance with the Judeo-Christian god of the bible), simply do not interact with Middle-earth save for extraordinary circumstances. The Valar's seeming indifference causes untold suffering for nearly an entire age of Middle-earth, and Hurin's family, just like countless other families, are left to the diabolical whims of Morgoth, including captives the Dark Lord released to cause further pain to both those he had freed as well as the relations they returned to.

Therefore, to say that CoH is incongruous or better as a stand-alone tale separate from the rest of the history of the 1st Age is spurious.

I pretty much agree with all of this, but I would reiterate a difference between the LOTR and CoH again: while it is certainly true, and clear, that neither Eru or the Valar intervene much in Middle-earth, the narrative of the Lord of the Rings is nonetheless resplendant with a sense of providential purpose. This is something that is not only lacking in the Children of Hurin, but the possibility of it is mocked by Turin, and the conversation between Hurin and Morgoth ends ambiguously. The wider Silmarillion too is repleat with much suffering, of course, but the Valar are nonetheless shown to be active participants in thought or deed. In the novel, the Children of Hurin, they are distant, amourphous and almost entirely unkown entities, especially to humans. For example, when Turin asks Sador where his deceased sister ends up, he has no answer. Now, we know that the Valar don't either, but the point is that neither Sador nor anyone else has any authority to turn to. In the Lord of the Rings, by contrast, characters appear to have faith. Turin has no faith. Sador has no faith, precisely because there is nothing to have faith in, except the drive to defend one's family and House. This is, after all, Turin's motivation throughout the novel. There is a diabolical force to the north, with which his people are at war; Turin perceives it as his duty to defend his family and the free realms against it. Unlike Frodo, he is not on a divine quest, and unlike Feanor, he has not held personal recourse with the Valar. As Morgoth asks Hurin: "Have you seen the Valar? Or measured the power of Manwe and Varda?" to which Hurin replies "I know not." He guesses, perhaps, that should they will it they could protect him and his family, and he asserts the primacy of Manwe, but Morgoth scoffs at this, and names himself the Elder King.

For all Hurin knows, and for all we should care, Morgoth is telling the truth. Manwe doesn't deign to intervene until the very end of the war, when the Noldor are utterly defeated and Hurin and his family have all died. Yes, the War of Wrath constitues a eucastraphe, an underserved episode of grace. But still, I'm uncomfortable with the notion that we should be complicit in it. As Nerwen pointed out, it is completely acceptable to see the suffering of Turin's family in the context of a final victory against Morgoth without diminishing it. However, I think where I'm getting at is that CoH, in its novelistic form, seems to undermine this construction; it seems to make eucatastrophe gratuitous. Now, I'm not saying we should take this interpretation because our own lives are bleak and nasty; I don't have such a life either, but I am saying that to my eyes the text itself seems to lend weight to such an interpretation. Now, we then have the issue of interpreting it along side its peritexts, the Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings.

Should we then, treat Middle-earth as a kind of ontologically consistent history? Or should the novels absolutely stand on their own? Well, I think a balance is required. Certainly, CoH is set in the same world, as Nerwen points out, in so far as names, places and people are familiar. But it is this qualitative difference, this much terser, less aesthetic use of langauge that characterises CoH that worries me. It is entirely unlike either the LOTR or the Sil. It brings to bear its own style, and thereby its own unique tone and atmosphere. How is this to be understood?

[Morthoron]

I pretty much agree with all of this, but I would reiterate a difference between the LOTR and CoH again: while it is certainly true, and clear, that neither Eru or the Valar intervene much in Middle-earth, the narrative of the Lord of the Rings is nonetheless resplendant with a sense of providential purpose. This is something that is not only lacking in the Children of Hurin, but the possibility of it is mocked by Turin, and the conversation between Hurin and Morgoth ends ambiguously. The wider Silmarillion too is repleat with much suffering, of course, but the Valar are nonetheless shown to be active participants in thought or deed. In the novel, the Children of Hurin, they are distant, amourphous and almost entirely unkown entities, especially to humans...

... However, I think where I'm getting at is that CoH, in its novelistic form, seems to undermine this construction; it seems to make eucatastrophe gratuitous. Now, I'm not saying we should take this interpretation because our own lives are bleak and nasty; I don't have such a life either, but I am saying that to my eyes the text itself seems to lend weight to such an interpretation. Now, we then have the issue of interpreting it along side its peritexts, the Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings.

Should we then, treat Middle-earth as a kind of ontologically consistent history? Or should the novels absolutely stand on their own? Well, I think a balance is required. Certainly, CoH is set in the same world, as Nerwen points out, in so far as names, places and people are familiar. But it is this qualitative difference, this much terser, less aesthetic use of langauge that characterises CoH that worries me. It is entirely unlike either the LOTR or the Sil. It brings to bear its own style, and thereby its own unique tone and atmosphere. How is this to be understood?

I agree with many of your points, T2. CoH is very bleak, without redemption and lacking in providence. However, taken in context with the overarching storyline -- and this is why I have emphasized the necessity of CoH remaining within the overall tale -- isn't the story of Hurin/Turin the antithesis of their kinsmen Hour/Tuor? Particularly in the case of the cousins Turin and Tuor. Tuor implicitly follows the directives of the Valar (even though his message to the prideful Turgon is ignored, to the utter ruin of Gondolin), while through Turin's arrogance, Nargothrond is destroyed. Bitterness, pride and folly follow Turin through the choices he makes, and his line ends abruptly; whereas Tour accepts his mission and through him the great line of Middle-earth heroes spring. We see the positive and negative effects of human nature and faith within the divergent plots.

[Formendacil]

One thing that has occurred to me in reading through the recent discourse here, is to what extent it is fair to say that Tolkien always considered CoH as a part of the "The Silmarillion" and not as an independent story. Obviously, I think, you cannot divorce it from the wider Legendarium (and I would consider anyone who attempted such an endeavour to be a fool). At the same time, however, "The Silmarillion", as it stands, is not really a single tale, but a compendium of related tales. It is somewhat like the Bible, in that respect, the Bible being a collection of books (a library) rather than a single book.

It's more complicated than just saying "The Silmarillion" is just a library of tales, however. Like the Bible, there is a single story throughout, and unlike the Bible, it is the work of a single human editor, who was specifically interested in following a specific story. It is worth noting that I am not speaking of "The Silmarillion" here as the 1977 volume published posthumously, and including "The Ainulindalë," "The Valaquenta," etc. Rather, I mean the "Quenta Silmarillion," considered as a single narrative tale. "The Silmarillion," then, considered as a single narrative, is really the story of the Silmarils, the story of the Noldor, the story of the House of Fëanor, and the story of Morgoth. It intersects with the stories of the House of Húrin, of Gondolin/Eärendil, of Beren and Lúthien, and so forth... but these other stories are, for "The Silmarillion" really only chapters, and not fully considered tales in their own right.

From the point of view of "The Silmarillion," the real chief characters of "The Lay of Leithian" are Celegorm, Curufin, and Morgoth--they are the continuing characters of the previous chapters, who are now jointly spited by the interloping lovers. From the perspective of "The Silmarillion," Beren and Lúthien only start becoming really important AFTER they have the Silmaril--in other words, when they become entangled in the Doom of the Noldor, and avenge Thingol's killers, and thus set up Doriath for both the creation of the Nauglamír and the revenge of the Sons of Fëanor--and the deaths of Celegorm, Caranthir, and Curufin.

What about the love story, however, of the Man and the Elf, and the doomed romance of death and inevitably sundered destinies and the eucatastrophe of Mandos bending Lúthien's doom? This barely plays from the perspective of the main narrative in "The Silmarillion," because it is not the point there.

I think this difference of focus is even stronger with CoH, because CoH features even fewer of the main players of "The Silmarillion" story, and is an even more insignificant chapter in that narrative. The Nirnaeth, which is the biggest "Silmarillion" event in CoH is given a separate chapter and treatment in "The Silmarillion," and within the context of the wider work, is not really seen as a part of the story of Húrin so much as of Maedhros.

And after that? Well... Nargothrond falls, and Morgoth eventually loses his new prototype weapon, after having proved its effectiveness--and Glaurung will soon be replaced by Ancalagon and the winged dragons anyway, so perhaps it's best that he was put out of his misery by Túrin. It's only once Túrin is dead, and Húrin can then be released, that Morgoth starts getting what he's looking for: the approximate location of Gondolin, the other shoe falling for Thingol having taken the Silmaril.

My point is not that CoH--or "The Lay of Leithian," or the Gondolin/Eärendil saga, for that matter--is insignificant in and of itself, nor that "The Silmarillion" can go on without it. No story can go on as if some of its chapters, in which the plot is advanced, were not written. My point, however, is that the emphasis on what is more broadly "important" changes depending on whether one is following the story of the Silmarils in the chapter on Túrin, or whether one is following the tragic tale of the Children of Húrin from beginning to end. In the former, it is crucially important that Nargothrond fall and Húrin be broken to Morgoth's will. In the latter, the emphasis is on Túrin and Nienor, and their own, personal tragedy. Morwen is of very little consequence to "The Silmarillion" narrative--she is too far from the main events to really matter as the source of crucial action--but in CoH, she is at its very heart, and it could not be understood without her.

I have one last point before I end, and since my copies of the HoME are boxed away somewhere in my van, I cannot offer any proof of what I am about to say, so bear with the possible misremembering. However...

As far as my memory goes, the Fall of Gondolin, the Lay of Leithian, and Turin and the Dragon are the oldest components in the Book of Lost Tales, the first "Silmarillion." "The Book of Lost Tales," by itself, is a more compartmentalised account than the "Quenta Silmarillion," and the focus is much more on the individual tales than one the broader arc. What is more, we really only have these three tales in their later Lost Tales form, and not in the very germ of story-thought in which they were conceived. Knowing the source of "Beren and Tinúviel" in Tolkien's own marriage, and more strongly of "Turin and Glómund" in the Finnish Kallevala, it seems to me entirely possible that these three tales were NOT, in origin, conceived as part of a cohesive whole--possibly part of a related mythology, but that is several steps from the united tale of "The Silmarillion."

I think, if I am right here, that this original conception of these tales as independent, and less as part of the cycle, gives them a tenser relationship with the rest of "The Silmarillion" than, say, "The Account of the Sun and Moon." Tolkien continued to work on larger, "independent" accounts of these tales from the 1920s through the 1950s, the same period that saw the formation of "The Silmarillion" largely as we know it. This gives us the abortive tale "Of Tuor and his Coming to Gondolin," the text of CoH as we have it, and poetic accounts of both Túrin and Leithian.

In short--if I can be short--there is a back-and-forth between inclusion in "The Silmarillion" and their own stand-alone qualities, which goes back through their whole history of creation, and is, I think, quite deliberate on Tolkien's part. From this, I hardly think it is legitimate to either separate the tales totally from this context, or to attempt to examine them exclusively within this context. Depending on the situation, and the need or the desire, either or both approach is valid.

[Nerwen]

In short--if I can be short--there is a back-and-forth between inclusion in "The Silmarillion" and their own stand-alone qualities, which goes back through their whole history of creation, and is, I think, quite deliberate on Tolkien's part. From this, I hardly think it is legitimate to either separate the tales totally from this context, or to attempt to examine them exclusively within this context. Depending on the situation, and the need or the desire, either or both approach is valid.
Form, that's sort of what I've been trying to say, though you put it more clearly and elegantly than I could.

What I've been specifically arguing against is the claim that this particular tale is so radically different from the rest of Tolkien's work that it can only be properly understood out of context... even that it is somehow "wrong" to keep the rest in mind while reading it.

It is entirely unlike either the LOTR or the Sil. It brings to bear its own style, and thereby its own unique tone and atmosphere. How is this to be understood?
They all have their own unique tone and atmosphere. I'd guess this story seems so aberrant to you only because you're reading it out of context, and then thinking about how the rest of Legendarium looks without it. Er... does that make sense?

However, I think where I'm getting at is that CoH, in its novelistic form, seems to undermine this construction; it seems to make eucatastrophe gratuitous.
Weellll... if you wish to, I'd say you could argue this for the whole Quenta Silmarillion, at least to some extent. My reaction on reaching the end has never been, "Oh, well, at least the good guys won in the end! What a lovely story!" So much of it concerns sadness, loss and destruction, and Húrin and family are hardly the only characters whose lives end in despair (see Morth's examples). Not to mention that the final victory against Morgoth comes at tremendous cost.

What seems to be the sticking point for you, as far as I can work out, is this: (...)The wider Silmarillion too is repleat with much suffering, of course, but the Valar are nonetheless shown to be active participants in thought or deed. In the novel, the Children of Hurin, they are distant, amourphous and almost entirely unkown entities, especially to humans.

(...)unlike Feanor, he has not held personal recourse with the Valar.

Okay, so the rebelling Noldor have absolute personal certainty that the Valar exist. (Proof rather than faith, really.) However, as the rebels have explicitly put themselves beyond their help, and as, apart from Ulmo, the Valar seem to be pretty comfortable with this state of affairs (really, what do you mean, 'active'?), I'm not clear how much of a comfort it would be to them, or why they would have any more reason to believe things would turn out all right in the end.

Yes, the War of Wrath constitues a eucastraphe, an underserved episode of grace. But still, I'm uncomfortable with the notion that we should be complicit in it.
??? "Complicit"? Meaning...?

[tumhalad2]

Form

What I've been specifically arguing against is the claim that this particular tale is so radically different from the rest of Tolkien's work that it can only be properly understood out of context... even that it is somehow "wrong" to keep the rest in mind while reading it.


Okay, so the rebelling Noldor have absolute personal certainty that the Valar exist. (Proof rather than faith, really.) However, as the rebels have explicitly put themselves beyond their help, and as, apart from Ulmo, the Valar seem to be pretty comfortable with this state of affairs (really, what do you mean, 'active'?), I'm not clear how much of a comfort it would be to them, or why they would have any more reason to believe things would turn out all right in the end.


??? "Complicit"? Meaning...?

To take your points here in reverse order: The Children of Hurin is not about the Noldor at all, it is primarily about the struggles of humanity in a blighted world. The Noldor have reason to think the Valar will not intervene, yes, but the Men of CoH did not participate in the Kinslaying. Furthermore, they die and go where they know not whither: in other words, they don't have any answers. Yes, the book is set in Middle-earth; yes, there are elves. But once again, there is no guiding star, there is no "chance, if chance you call it", no providential assistance. It is therefore an atheistic world, in the sense that the gods are so absent as to remains practically redundant. How do Men cope in such a world? That is the question CoH seems to be asking, and we are never afforded a complete answer. LOTR is set in a qualitatively different place: divine assistance is available to the faithful, and to those who have been awarded a special part to play.

I am not claiming that CoH can only be understood "out of context". I'm arguing for a more nuanced understanding of the the context of Tolkien's work in the first place; a wider understanding that encompasses the very different worldview postulated in the Children of Hurin. I'm not saying CoH and LOTR are diametrically opposed, but as Davem has noted in the past, they contain starkly contrasting approaches to the canvass of Middle-earth.

In the Mieville thread, Puddleglum posted a quote from the Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth dialogue found in Morgoth's Ring:

There is the thing that men call "Hope", an expectation of good which has some foundation in what is known. Elves call this "Amdir" which signifies "looking up"

But there is another thing, which is founded deeper. "Estel" that is called by elves, meaning "Trust". If we (elves and men) are indeed the Eruhin, the Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves. This is the uttermost foundation of "Estel".

This seems to encapsulate the theology that underpins the Lord of the Rings. Although Eru is never explicitly mentioned, Gandalf is confident that there is some force working for good that drives events so that Frodo is meant to possess the ring. As Davem asked in the first post in this thread:


Is Garth right? Is this work a reflection of Tolkien the Somme veteran, while LotR, it could be argued, is the work of Tolkien the Catholic? LotR presents the orthodox Catholic view, that God is watching over us all, & that while there may be suffering & loss, in the end God will bring good out of evil, & that, in the end, 'All shall be well, & all shall be well, & all manner of thing shall be well'. CoH seems to present a vision of a world where God won't - where he doesn't actually care enough to bother

[Vultur]

I agree that the omission of any mention of Turin's return from Mandos (whether to slay Ancalagon at the War of Wrath or to slay Morgoth at the Dagor Dagorath) changes the feel of the story dramatically.

I'm not sure what other choice CT had, though, as Tolkien never settled on a final version of that bit. I think it was a matter of the original Turin story being incompatible with the universe of Arda as it developed, with Turin and Nienor becoming Valar, as the Doom of Men became a central element of the legendarium (as it wasn't in the Book of Lost Tales era, where 'Turin and Nienor become Valar and Turin kills Morgoth' came from) -- but Tolkien wasn't willing to discard the conception of his return in some form at least.

In a way, Tolkien thoroughly changed his views of the role of Men in relation to Elves in the final fate of Arda. In the early texts it's said that the fate of Men after the end of the world is not spoken of in the prophecies of Mandos "save of Turin only, and him it names among the Gods"; but later that is changed to it being said that Men will participate in the Second Music of the Ainur, and the fate of Elves is not spoken of. And then there is some discussion in Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth about Men healing Arda in the end.

Essentially, the role Turin was meant to play (as representative of Men in the end of Arda's evils) became both irrelevant and impossible with later developments in the legendarium. So I'm not sure there was really any better solution than to leave the matter entirely out of Children of Hurin -- though it does seem crucial to his story.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Gotta say I've never understood the point of view which holds that LOTR ends on a "hopeful note"...the Elves have departed Middle-earth and taken with them all that remains of the light of the Eldar, the power of the Rings to preserve and inspire is gone, the Dwarves are still dwindling, Gondor is restored but explicitly only for a time and as a lesser reminder of past glories, the Hobbits have retreated even further into their realm and into their hopless parochialism unable to appreciate even the heroes in their very midst, the Ents have no Entings...in short, the Age of Man has begun, which is our own age. Having fallen so fully for the enchantment of Middle-earth (which you would have had to have done to reach the end of LOTR at all) that is the most depressing part: that world is gone, replaced by our own, and in particular by the 20th century.

Sure individual characters have happy endings, but on the whole things look really bleak. Sauron is gone, but we know from history and precedence that something will be back to replace him, as he replaced Morgoth. And sure, it won't be as 'bad' but neither is there anything as 'good' left to confront him: Aragorn is the last of his kind; Arwen is the last of her kind; Frodo has left Middle-earth; Sam can no longer go adventuring; Merry and Pippin are old soldiers reliving their past glories for an increasingly amused progeny.

Sorry if I'm a bit of a downer. (Get it: Downer? :smokin:)

[Raynor]

Sauron is gone, but we know from history and precedence that something will be back to replace him, as he replaced Morgoth
Up until this moment, the world as it was known was at the risk of total enslavement to an evil of mythological proportions, or even total annihilation. You might say the sword of Damocles was removed from the world; surely that ought to improve the overall quality of life.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Up until this moment, the world as it was known was at the risk of total enslavement to an evil of mythological proportions, or even total annihilation. You might say the sword of Damocles was removed from the world; surely that ought to improve the overall quality of life.

Not sure Tolkien would've agreed with you on this one. More to the point, I'm not sure I can agree with you on this one: there are still enough nukes on the planet to obliterate all human life, what, 100 times over? Ecological destruction, climat change anyone? Tolkien never thought that there was any 'real' danger of a Sauron enslaving the world, but used Sauron to encapsulate what he saw as a very 'real' and human threat to the world. Those threats are still around and, if anything, even worse than when Tokien wrote LotR 60 years ago.

[Puddleglum]

Not sure Tolkien would've agreed with you on this one. More to the point, I'm not sure I can agree with you on this one: there are still enough nukes on the planet to obliterate all human life...
I think here you are mistaking what Tolkien was addressing in LOTR. Tolkien did not believe (nor was he trying to say) that the "Good Ending" was only possible when all evils were finally removed for good and all. In that case, fairy stories (as he used the term) would be impossible.

Instead he wrote ("The Last Debate", Return of the King)If the ring is destroyed, then Sauron will fall... and so a great evil will be removed.
Other evils may come... Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succor of those years wherein we are set,

uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till.

What weather they will have is not ours to rule.

Tolkien's story was essentially about (from the view of) Hobbits. The "Good Ending" of Tolkien's story was that, as Frodo said, "I Tried to save the Shire and IT HAS BEEN SAVED."

There was sadness mingled in, but that adds richness to the good that was gained. It is human nature to appreciate more that which costs more. Tolkien understood this and folded it into his story - from one end to the other. It makes the story MORE meaningful and full, not less.

Recall what else Gandalf said at The Last Debate If Sauron regains the ring, his victory will be so complete that none can forsee the end of it while this world lasts.
That was the danger - a Tyrant worse than Hitler, Stalin, Genghis, Atilla Nero, and all the others rolled into one - a Tyrant who not only has demonic power, but one with immortal life. One who would stiull be holding us under his boots even today.

Remembering that the story is from the vantage of the Hobbits, Tolkien sums up the GOOD ENDING in Frodo's words to Sam in this way ("Grey Havens")You are my heir: all that I had and might have had I leave to you. You have Rose, and Elanor; and Frodo-lad will come, and Rosie-lass, and Merry, and Goldilocks, and Pippin... You will be Mayor as long as you want, and the most famous gardner in history;

You will read things out of the Red Book, and keep alive the memory of the age that is gone, so that people will remember the Great Danger and so love their beloved land all the more.

And that will keep you as busy and happy as anyone can be, as long as your part of the story goes on.
And with that sentence, Tolkien gives us HIS version of "and he lived happily ever after."

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Hey man, I'm not saying anything so daft as, "LotR doesn't have a happy ending" as it most palpably does. I'm just disputing the premise of the book review that begins this thread that "The Children of Hurin" is diametrically opposed to LotR along simplistic binary lines of "hoplessness" vs "hope" -- I just don't see LotR as ending "hopefully" in the sense that we are presented with a world that is now going to get better and better (which is, I think, the false sense of the book that the reviewer is working from) in opposition to CoH in which the reviewer sees a more 'realistic' view that the world will, at best, stay pretty much the same in terms of good and evil...which is what I see at the end of LotR. You are right, Sauron the super-baddie, the one who is as bad as all the worst human tyrants put together, he's gone. But soon, so too will Aragorn be gone (the epitome of all good humans), Galadriel, Elrond, Frodo, Bilbo, Gandalf are leaving too...so the superbad and the supergood are gone leaving just the bad and the good. The situation is the same, only diminished.

[Galadriel55]

LOTR didn't end good. It's not a waht you'd call a "happily ever after" story. I mean, I love the end, but the characters might not.
In Children of Hurin the ending is pure dramatic irony. It does fit the story very well, though. Turin's doom is anready planned out. The most interesting thing there is that everyone knows a little more about Turin than he knows about himself.

[tumhalad2]

Form, that's sort of what I've been trying to say, though you put it more clearly and elegantly than I could.

What I've been specifically arguing against is the claim that this particular tale is so radically different from the rest of Tolkien's work that it can only be properly understood out of context... even that it is somehow "wrong" to keep the rest in mind while reading it.

They all have their own unique tone and atmosphere. I'd guess this story seems so aberrant to you only because you're reading it out of context, and then thinking about how the rest of Legendarium looks without it. Er... does that make sense?



I do not conted CoH can only be read out of context, or that it is 'wrong' to do so. Of course all the works have their own unique tones, and no, I don't believe the story seems aberrant merely because I'm not reading it in context; I am, but even within the context of the larger 'legendarium', I find that it contrasts quite markedly, for the reasons I have outlined.

Please demonstrate to me, in some textual way, how exactly you think the metaphysics of CoH and LOTR are similar? Or are they similar only in terms of the "larger context"? I don't understand your point. How does the "larger context" make CoH consistent with LOTR, and why should it even be expected to do so? Is it because there really is suffering in both, but in the end good comes of it? Perhaps that is true of LOTR, but it is manifestly not of the story of Turin. No 'good' comes of it at all.

So, I want to be clear.

-CoH is part of a larger story arc.
-It can be read as part of this larger story arc. Of course:rolleyes:
-How does this diminish the metaphysical, aesthetic, tonal, and qualitative difference between it and LOTR, whether it is read as part of the Silmarillion or not? Specifically?

[Nerwen]

*sigh* Unfortunately, after the lapse of several months, I no longer have all the arguments posed on this thread at my fingertips, but I'll do my best.

I do not conted CoH can only be read out of context, or that it is 'wrong' to do so. Of course all the works have their own unique tones, and no, I don't believe the story seems aberrant merely because I'm not reading it in context; I am, but even within the context of the larger 'legendarium', I find that it contrasts quite markedly, for the reasons I have outlined.

Please demonstrate to me, in some textual way, how exactly you think the metaphysics of CoH and LOTR are similar? Or are they similar only in terms of the "larger context"? I don't understand your point. How does the "larger context" make CoH consistent with LOTR, and why should it even be expected to do so? Is it because there really is suffering in both, but in the end good comes of it? Perhaps that is true of LOTR, but it is manifestly not of the story of Turin. No 'good' comes of it at all.

So, I want to be clear.

-CoH is part of a larger story arc.
-It can be read as part of this larger story arc. Of course:rolleyes:
tumhalad, wasn't your position that it wasn't and it couldn't? I'm not clear why you feel it necessary to roll your eyes at this.

-How does this diminish the metaphysical, aesthetic, tonal, and qualitative difference between it and LOTR, whether it is read as part of the Silmarillion or not? Specifically?
tumhalad. I cannot be bothered re-reading this entire thread, but to the best of my recollection you, and davem, were arguing that CoH belonged outside the rest of Tolkien's creation, and ought to be read separately, not as part of the larger story– that it fact reading it in context would "cheapen" it. Therefore it would seem you thought it made a difference. Nice about-face.;)

Anyway, my purpose here was to argue that it is at least equally valid to read it as part of the whole. Furthermore, I was talking about the legendarium as a whole at that point, as I think we all were. If you can't understand my point about context... well, I'm at a loss, because it seems a very simple one to me.

[tumhalad2]

I will roll my eyes if I wish. Thanks.

Apparently I have not been clear enough. I argue that it can be read "out of context" or "in context". Clear?

I have never argued it belongs out of the rest of the creation. I argue it contrasts on many points with other aspects of it.

Perhaps we agree more than you think. Yes, it can be read in context. Whatever. I don't care, and I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in the story, and whether you read it in context or not, how it contrasts with LOTR in particular.

I have not about faced, nor have I contradicted my argument. If you think I really have, show me a quote.

[Nerwen]

Quotes? Okay, here you go.

I think CoH is cheapened if it is merely perceived as a part of a greater story

Originally Posted by tumhalad
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerwen
Which neatly settles the question of whether the author ever meant it to be a stand-alone work, doesn't it? Obviously, he didn't.
Obviously? I'm not entirely convinced about that.

We think we know better because we have the Silmarillion, which says that Eru created the world, etc, but once again I'm not certain CoH should be read through that prism.

Originally Posted by tumhalad
Now, I think there are better readings and worse readings, by no means are all "equal". In this case, to completely diss the novel's major thematic, emotive energy in favour of a kind of reading that at best seeks to mitigate or at worst ignore the utter defeat and nihilism of it is, I think, fatuous.

Good enough for you?

Incidentally, before you get angry– please recall that I stated repeatedly on your "CoH film" thread that I was not interested in starting up this debate again. I'm not– I got bored with it long ago. I replied to you only because you specifically, not to mention rather aggressively, demanded a reply. Now you've had it. Enough.

EDIT:X'd with tum's self-edit.

[tumhalad2]

Quotes? Okay, here you go.


Good enough for you?

Incidentally, before you get angry– please recall that I stated repeatedly on your "CoH film" thread that I was not interested in starting up this debate again. I'm not– I got bored with it long ago. I replied to you only because you specifically, not to mention rather aggressively, demanded a reply. Now you've had it. Enough.

EDIT:X'd with tum's self-edit.

Those quotes do not demonstrate that I argued in favour of exclusively reading CoH out of context of the legendarium. They merely show that I was interested the way different readings might yield certain outcomes.

[Nerwen]

tumhalad, please calm down. I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings– and yes, I'll admit I do quite enjoy baiting you.:D I don't really mean any harm by it, though. (However I am probably often the first to respond to your posts simply for time-zone reasons.)

Anyway, since other people may want to continue the topic, I suggest you delete those last two paragraphs before one of the mods closes the thread. They usually do when things get this heated.

~Nerwen, Internet Bully.;)

EDIT:X'd with tumhalad again.

[tumhalad2]

Okay, lets agree to get along then :)

It is evident we have different ideas about things, but that's okay. In future, and I am trying to be as friendly as possible here, please desist "baiting" me. I don't appreciate it, and I'm not sure why you do it. That way, I'm less liable to reply in turn, and our disagreements are less likely to end in me getting frustrated and annoyed at you.

Other than that, your ideas are always interesting and thought provoking :p

[Nerwen]

Okay, lets agree to get along then :)

It is evident we have different ideas about things, but that's okay. In future, and I am trying to be as friendly as possible here, please desist "baiting" me.
We-ell, I'll try...