What was Shelob, and more importantly, what was Ungoliant? [Archive]

Lord Gothmog

01-07-2008, 06:19 PM

An interesting idea with Tom Bombadil, but I always considered Ungoliant a Maia and nothing I saw this far opposes it. The Silmarillion says:
Originally Posted by Chapter 8; Of the Darkening of Valinor
The Eldar knew not whence she came; but some have said that in ages long before she descended from the darkness that lies about Arda, when Melkor first looked down in envy upon the Kingdom of Manwë, and that in the beginning she was one of those that he corrupted to his service.

"And that in the beginning she was one of those that he corrupted to his service" to me creates associations with the Maiar who were swayed by Melkor to join him. To me, this is clear enough. It is true she could have been otherwise, but everything speaks for that she was an Ainu. On what evidence do you base your opinon that she was not an Ainu?

And by the way, are you sure he was riding her? Did she not just accompany him?

Actually, there is absolutely nothing that 'speaks for that she was an Ainu', there is only one point that gives a hint that it is possible that she might be. The most important part of your quote is "but some have said". This is not a definitive statement. Actually it is Tolkien's way of 'side-stepping' the question. Either he had not made up his own mind, or he chose to leave it open.

Personally, I prefer Ungoliant to remain a mystery, a second and darker enigma.

And as for Shelob. When Ungoliant fled south after being whipped by the Balrogs, she found and mated with Spider-like creatures. Shelob was the Last of her Children.

Elmo

01-08-2008, 02:37 PM

That's a good point millord, aren't the Ainur supposed to be sterile or at least they were in the later legendarium? Edit: But Melian and Thingol... :confused:

Lord Gothmog

01-08-2008, 04:29 PM

In the later legendarium the Valar and Maiar did not mate and reproduce with each other. In fact the only certain exception to this is Melian. She is the only Ainu to have a child and this was with an Elf.

Melian did not simply incarnate a form similar to that of the Elves, she accually incarnated a form that was capable of having a child with an Elf. It may be that this exception was allowed by Illuvatar specificaly to allow something of the Divine Spirit of the Ainur into Men.

Eönwë

01-08-2008, 05:03 PM

So does that mean that possibly Gandalf could incarnate? He is made like a man, with all susceptibility, and weakness of the flesh. He might be able to reproduce. He had to live as a man, so he had everything that goes with it.

Just thinking, what if Saruman had kids. Urgh!:eek:

Bêthberry

01-09-2008, 07:52 AM

Interesting comparison with Tom and Goldberry. They are supposed to be a happily mated couple whereas S/U are rather rough with their partners.

Then again, spiders are a fear and nightmare from Tolkien's childhood. But when assimilated to the loathesome personification of unbridled female appetite . . . well, maybe that makes them a nightmare from Tolkien's adulthood (manhood not being quite the right word here.) ;)

Meriadoc1961

01-09-2008, 09:58 AM

I have always considered Ungoliant sort of the equivalent of Lilith in Jewish legend, a demon creature of darkness who took on her form as she allowed the evil to possess her.

Merry

Lord Gothmog

01-09-2008, 01:28 PM

So does that mean that possibly Gandalf could incarnate? He is made like a man, with all susceptibility, and weakness of the flesh. He might be able to reproduce. He had to live as a man, so he had everything that goes with it.
It is not impossible that the bodies of the Istari could well be capable of reproduction, though that seems to have been a very low priority to all of them.

obloquy

01-09-2008, 04:52 PM

There's no reason to doubt the ability of Ainur to reproduce while they inhabited physical bodies. In fact, full incarnation doesn't even seem to be requisite: we're told that reproduction was one of the activities that strengthened the bond between fea and hroa. The Valar may be a special case, but it seems more likely that they were merely prohibited by some axan than peculiarly incapable.

Here's more regarding ealar, incarnation, and some about Ungoliante in particular: Ëalar and Incarnation. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=5879)

Lalwendë

01-10-2008, 03:27 PM

there in Avathar, secret and unknown, Un- goliant had made her abode. The Eldar knew not whence she came; but some have said that in ages long before she descended from the darkness that lies about Arda, when Melkor first looked down in envy upon the Kingdom of Manwe, and that in the beginning she was one of those that he corrupted to his service. But she had disowned her Master, desiring to be mistress of her own lust, taking all things to herself to feed her emptiness; and she fled to the south, escaping the assaults of the Valar and the hunters of Orome, for their vigilance had ever been to the north, and the south was long unheeded. Thence she had crept towards the light of the Blessed Realm; for she hungered for light and hated it.

There's a crucial point - that she came to the world even before Melkor, and 'out of the darkness'. She certainly wasn't a creature created by him, and this also suggests she wasn't one of the Ainur either or what was she doing there before the others?

There is also a very strong argument that metaphorically she could be an equal and opposite or even a necessary complement to Eru. He is symbolised by Light and in Arda Light is symbolic of Life. Ungoliant on the other hand symbolises more than mere darkness, she is Un-light. Read the following:

Yet no song or tale could contain all the grief and terror that then befell. The Light failed; but the Darkness that followed was more than loss of light. In that hour was made a Darkness that seemed not lack but a thing with being of its own: for it was indeed made by malice out of Light, and it had power to pierce the eye, and to enter heart and mind, and strangle the very will.

What Ungoliant does is not merely consume the Light but replace it with Unlight. She achieves something which Melkor simply could not do, even with his power. He has to enlist her to do this for him, and she does, but then she deserts him once again to be 'mistress of her own lusts'. Doesn't this suggest Ungoliant has a terrible power even Melkor did not possess?

Now, something for The Might...more on Moru:

for here dwelt the primeval spirit Moru who even the Valar know not whence or when she came, and the folk of Earth have given her many names. Mayhap she was bred of mists and darkness on the confines of the Shadowy Seas, in the utter dark that came between the overthrow of the Lamps and the kindling of the Trees, but more like she has always been;

In the tale her origin is unknown, and though this element may be said to have remained in The Silmarillion..., by the device of 'Some have said...' a clear explanation is in fact given: she was a being from 'before the world', perverted by Melkor...The original idea of 'the primeval spirit Moru' is made explicit in an entry in the early word list of the Gnomish language, where the name Moru is defined as 'a name of the Primeval Night personified as Gwerlum or Gungliont'

I suppose the thorny question of whether Ungoliant came about before or after Eru created the Ainur could be answered by considering that which you decide depends upon whether you are content that Eru could create Ungoliant? Or does it 'suit' that maybe she comes from outside Eru's creation? ;)

William Cloud Hicklin

01-10-2008, 05:52 PM

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-10-2008, 06:12 PM

There's a crucial point - that she came to the world even before Melkor, and 'out of the darkness'. She certainly wasn't a creature created by him, and this also suggests she wasn't one of the Ainur either or what was she doing there before the others?
The problem is, what was she if Melkor "in the beginning (...) corrupted [her] to his service"; obviously whatever powers she had, he was able to get her to serve him (possibly in a similar way he did later when killing the Trees, which is somewhat strange service, nevertheless, she did what he wanted her to, though we know Melkor was a master of persuasion). But mainly, the point that she came before Melkor does not necessarily mean anything: the other Valar came before Melkor did, as far as I know, and there was no particular order in which Valar descended into Arda. So that's a thing I would not put much value to, and for this, she could still remain a perfectly plausible Ainu for me.

I suppose the thorny question of whether Ungoliant came about before or after Eru created the Ainur could be answered by considering that which you decide depends upon whether you are content that Eru could create Ungoliant? Or does it 'suit' that maybe she comes from outside Eru's creation? ;)

I think it's definitely overstretching to try to find any "besides Eru" thing in Ungoliant: the main problem would be in the words the One at the very beginning of Ainulindalë. Even Genesis is not that explicite in information, where Tolkien is strict (even in Eru's "name"). If we are not agreeing with the fact that she was an Ainu, I would say the best and balanced explanation would be by taking her "from where Tom Bombadil came", as it was suggested in the opening post. We have several things like that here: Tom Bombadil and also from the darker side these "Nameless things" underground - with the latter it is somewhat easier, because we don't know about their beginnings and with a little imagination they can be spawn of Morgoth or some other nonsense, nevertheless, they also do not fit the normal scheme and Gandalf refuses to speak about them (though, it is true he acts like that even in more "conventional" cases like Balrogs and Black Riders and other quite common everyday things). Whatever the case, I wanted to say that the "laws of the universe" do not seem to apply in the case of these characters or things (which, in fact, could even allow the "outside the One" possibility, but in the meaning that they don't have anything to do with the created universe itself and are "aliens" in the whole story, which could be applied very well in TB's case), but if we want to take Middle-Earth, resp. Arda, resp. the Void and everything around it as a consistent world (with inner consistence, and not a world from a story from the outside point of view), and we do not want to accept these characters as belonging to any of the known classes, we have to say, together with the Prof, that even in this world there are some mysteries and these are some of them. Which is not much of a help, definitely, but what can we do.

obloquy

01-10-2008, 07:05 PM

Mysterious as she is, there's no reason to assume that Ungoliante is anything other than an eala with unusually vast latent power.

Lalwendë

01-11-2008, 02:59 AM

An interesting rather Gnostic-Manichaean idea, but:

1 "First of all" Iluvatar made the Ainur, "who were with him before aught else was made"

2 In Tolkien's very monotheist worldview, there was nothing before Eru, and nothing which Eru did not create

3 Eru has no equal. By definition. Besides, would Eru have been driven off by a few Balrogs?

Tolkien's treatment of Melkor is characterized by a *heavy* emphasis that this is *not* a dualist universe: Melkor is constantly being reminded that he is a created being (which he hates, and which drives him mad). Ungoliant does seem to be some sort of darkness-elemental, and a deliberate enigma. Tolkien doesn't want us to know exactly what she was, and perhaps never worked it out for himself_ but then (as with Bombadil) he was aware that in the 'real' world there are always bits that don't seem to fit: total systematic consistency is a hallmark of the artificial.
Whatever the case, I wanted to say that the "laws of the universe" do not seem to apply in the case of these characters or things (which, in fact, could even allow the "outside the One" possibility, but in the meaning that they don't have anything to do with the created universe itself and are "aliens" in the whole story, which could be applied very well in TB's case), but if we want to take Middle-Earth, resp. Arda, resp. the Void and everything around it as a consistent world (with inner consistence, and not a world from a story from the outside point of view), and we do not want to accept these characters as belonging to any of the known classes, we have to say, together with the Prof, that even in this world there are some mysteries and these are some of them. Which is not much of a help, definitely, but what can we do.

And there's the rub.

Tolkien deliberately leaves her origins a mystery. If she comes from Eru then he made her what she is. If she does not, then where does she come from? Your guess is as good as mine ;) Whatever, it only deepens the mystery of the whole creation to have enigmas like Ungoliant and Tom wandering about. Tom is less difficult in that he is generally a good guy, Ungoliant is very difficult indeed as she's so shadowy, both literally and metaphorically.

Still, you cannot deny that there is something extremely powerful in the metaphorical contrast Tolkien sets up between Illuvatar/Light/Life and Ungoliant/Unlight/Death.

I don't have quite such a problem with accepting that there is the possibility that there is another existence besides the one Eru creates. We are told Eru is The One and is Omnipotent, and that is correct, but it might mean that he is Omnipotent within this creation. It does not mean there cannot be other creations, maybe created by Eru. Maybe not.

One thing you can say about characters such as Tom and Ungoliant is that there is someone above Eru. And that's Tolkien. He had the power to drop in these enigmatic characters, to create and destroy far more than Eru did. In answering the question "Well, who made Eru?" your answer is "Tolkien did". These enigmas are Authorial interventions made tangible. They certainly bring a large helping of irony into the work as their very existence calls into question the very cosmological structure Tolkien set up; he is the one who has the power to include or exclude them, they bring questions to his creation, but he still includes them. They also smell strongly of metafiction as they are stories within stories, characters which seem to exist outside this creation but which in reality can only be found within it...Tolkien the Postmodernist...

;)

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-11-2008, 05:15 AM

Still, you cannot deny that there is something extremely powerful in the metaphorical contrast Tolkien sets up between Illuvatar/Light/Life and Ungoliant/Unlight/Death.
Well, I must say this Unlight never made as large impact on me as it did on you, not sure whether it was because I already thought Ungoliant as Ainu or it was the other way around that it did not make large impact on me and therefore I had no problems with thinking about Ungoliant as about Ainu. Maybe it has also something to do with the fact that Ilúvatar is not that much of Light/Life for me, but Valar are Light for me (thinking of Varda now especially) and Morgoth is Darkness, in which case Ungoliant is Unlight, simply Un-Varda (vaguely speaking), and Ilúvatar is Death (more than anyone else) and also Life. So we have Ilúvatar Life/Death, Varda Light, Morgoth Darkness, Ungoliant Unlight. The last three seem as if they should have an "odd one out" among them, but seemingly they don't. Hm, so this is it.

One thing you can say about characters such as Tom and Ungoliant is that there is someone above Eru. And that's Tolkien.
Yes, but as you see, I touched this matter in my post above. We have two possible points of view: one, all these books are a story written by Tolkien, the world is created by him. Second, all these books are simply a recounting of a story, Tolkien is not the creator, but he recounts something that happened elsewhere. In that case, there is no Tolkien above Eru, but Eru is the One, the One that was before everything else was in that "long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" about which Tolkien is giving us his report. You understand me? If we look from the "inside" point of view, we cannot say there was any Tolkien. The answer to what Ungoliant was from the first point of view is easy and creates no problems. The second one seems not as easy (though I still believe she was simply an Ainu ;) ).

I don't have quite such a problem with accepting that there is the possibility that there is another existence besides the one Eru creates. We are told Eru is The One and is Omnipotent, and that is correct, but it might mean that he is Omnipotent within this creation. It does not mean there cannot be other creations, maybe created by Eru. Maybe not.
Well yes, but in case all we read about is Eru's creation, then there can be nothing outside it. The first thing that ever "happened" in this universe is that there was Eru (I must say the more I think about this first sentence the more the contrast with the first verse of Genesis appears in front of me - such short sentences and both about something totally different). Okay, let's look at it word after word. Just the first sentence provides quite enough material:

There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought, and they were with him before aught else was made.
There was Eru - no problem. There was someone called Eru. It is in no way different from the tales where we are told "there was Bilbo Baggins" or "there was a king and he had three daughters". Nevertheless,
the One - this is a thing that we cannot avoid. He was the One. There were no others, two, three, or seven, or whatever. Now Lal said that he might be One just in the terms of his creation and that there may be something outside his creation. I would call that quite a constrained move, but even then, we never hear anything about other creations or things that would interfere. That much is clear,
who in Arda is called Ilúvatar - he is called Ilúvatar, "all-father", in Arda - now this is an argumant that could go with what Lal said (that he is seen as all-father only in Arda, but maybe not elsewhere), but actually, this destroys the possibility to interpretate the words before "the One" as not having an universal legitimacy. Because if we take the words "who in Arda is called Ilúvatar" the way that he is all-father just from the view of the inhabitants of Arda, the words "the One" create a contrast, and we have: yes, there is someone who is called all-father in Arda, that is, he created all that is in Arda and from the point of view of its inhabitants he created everything. And what about outside Arda? Well outside Arda, he is THE ONE - that is, outside Arda, there is nothing besides him, and not just from the view of the Arda-inhabitants. The words "the One" do not have any "who in Arda is called the One" or "who in the Halls of Ilúvatar is called the One" with them. No, it is plain: he is the One, point.
and he made first the Ainur - now we hear what he made first, one can now start to think whether "first" is to be interpretated here as marking the object (he first made Ainur and then he made something else), or as emphasising the time (that there was nothing before he made Ainur). Whatever the case, this part (and then the holy ones part and what follows) does not concern our current topic that much, I believe, so let's move on;
and they were with him before aught else was made - definitely nothing else was made before. That actually means several things for us, like the fact that Ungoliant (or Tom), if they are not Ainur and if they are not outside Eru's creation, could not have been there earlier than the Ainur. Second, it is interesting whether (in case we allowed the possibility that there are other creations than Eru's) this could be interpretated the way that really nothing else, even things from other creations, were made before Eru made the Ainur. However, even this discovery would not have any relevance regarding the question whether there were such things outside Eru's creation. Nevertheless, mainly from the words "the One" and what follows and taking the context into account, I believe it is not relevant to assume that there were other things outside Eru's creation in the world from the inner point of view.

Thinlómien

01-11-2008, 11:23 AM

I've read through your argument and neither of you manages to convince me. If you ask me, Lal is imposing too much importance on Ungoliant (considering how small a part she played in the actual legends) while Legate is seeking to label her as an Ainu and neither seems right to me.

So, there has to be some other explanation. Unfortunately, I don't have it. :) However, I got this intriguing idea that has totally no support from the books. Could Ungoliant have been born of the Music of Ainur? Of Melkor's discord, or of something more planned? Or of the Dark that followed the Music?

~*~

Actually, now that I was eyeing my Finnish copy of the Sil, the translation suggests a new answer. The English passage goes: The Eldar knew not whence she came; but some have said that in ages long before she descended from the darkness that lies about Arda and the Finnish translator has translated the word "to descend" in the sense "to be born, be a descendant of somebody" (like "a descendant of Kings") not as "to come down". What if the translator got it correct here? What if Ungoliant was (for some unknown reason) born of the darkness that surrounded Arda?

If Ilúvatar was there first and created everything, he created that darkness as well? So Ungoliant would be a creation of his (in a way) but not his child in the same sense as Ainur or the actual Children of Ilúvatar. Actually, my theory sounds too good at this point. :p Please show me the loophole(s).

PS. Sorry for the messy structure and flip-floppiness of this post, but I often write and think the same time, not think first and write then. (Ask anyone who's played ww with me. ;)) I figured editing it all into a consistent post would be too much trouble, so I left it as it stands.

Elmo

01-11-2008, 11:42 AM

I thought Tolkien mentioned something like, the tree's fate was woven into all the tales of the Elder Days so she was quite important.

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-11-2008, 12:09 PM

Well it does not sound that bad, Lommy, and if I had to accept that Ungoliant is not an Ainu but had to find a definite answer to what she is in Eru's creation, I could go along similar lines as you do. So what if she is not outside Eru's creation, but outside the Music? That would fit very well with the idea of un-Light, as opposite to what goes through the Music. We know Eru placed his own devices inside the Music, yet no one said he could not have done? made? anything else. That could go somehow even with your idea of "being born from the Darkness", however we have to consider one thing that outside the Music (and Arda, subsequently) there was only the Void, which is not even Darkness, not even Un-Light, but it is nothing.

Taking into account that the Ainur were definitely the first thing to be created by Eru, Ungoliant, whatever she was, if she was not one of them, had to be created later. As for Melkor creating her in the Music, it is possible (maybe she in the Music she would have been some attempt to destroy the Light that went wrong and turned away even from him, however in that case again I would see it more logical that she was an Ainu), but the idea of her being something else outside the Music seems more plausible to me, if I had to choose.

Estelyn Telcontar

01-11-2008, 01:44 PM

Lommy, that is an intriguing idea! Perhaps those of us who are native English speakers missed the double possibilities of the word "to descend from"! It is even possible that Tolkien, with his wonderful sense of language, intended a double meaning there - both to be born from and to come down. At any rate the thought adds a fascinating facet to the discussion!

obloquy

01-11-2008, 01:55 PM

I don't get what's so difficult and intriguing about Ungoliante and Tom Bombadil. How is there any necessity for an explanation outside of what we know for sure?

If it is this The Eldar knew not whence she came; but some have said that in ages long before she descended from the darkness that lies about Arda that is causing problems, just remember that 1) the Atani had beliefs about their own origins that conflicted with other accounts, and possibly with actuality, so the fact that "some have said" something means very little, really; and 2) "the darkness that lies about Arda" is not outside of creation. This origin myth implies only that she entered Arda without receiving an official assignment from Iluvatar; therefore she was neither Vala nor Maia, and thus also not an Ainu. This does not mean that she was entirely unique in nature or even in circumstance, however.

As for Tom Bombadil, I see no reason for him to be anything more than a mysterious character within Tolkien's cosmos. Apart from Tolkien revealing his real-world origins (which necessitates no special conditions for his presence in M-e--after all, Bilbo could have been based on Tolkien's uncle), why is he such an anomaly? What makes his nature so irreconcilable with the rest of Middle-earth?

Now, Beorn I really have a problem with.

zxcvbn

01-11-2008, 04:40 PM

What's the problem? Beorn was a Man. Tolkien said so and that's it. Yes, he was a shapeshifter, so you can put him in the same category as the Druedain and the Dale-men(who could talk to birds); Men who had an exceptionally close connection to nature.

As for Ungoliant, I too had once thought that she was a Maia but after re-reading those lines I now think that she was one of the 'nature spirits' that already existed in Arda before the Valar entered it.

Lalwendë

01-13-2008, 04:17 PM

Now, building on what Legate and Lommy have said, you have to pose the question, if Eru was The One and was Omnipotent, then he must also have created the darkness from which Ungoliant may or may not have stemmed? So in whatever conclusion, Ungoliant was created by Eru.

That of course makes you think of Ye Olde Chicken And Egg Question. Eru must have made himself. Aaargh, I feel about 14 again and wondering what all this stuff about God was and how he could possibly have made himself! ;) Taoism...?

*shakes head*

Now, Illuvatar as Light and Ungoliant as Unlight - you only have to look at their names to see the poetic correspondence, Illuvatar is very similar to illuminate, no? But even laying that aside, we have the powerful idea of Eru as the Secret Fire which lies at the very heart of Arda. That to me is enough to forever link the character with Light and Life.

We still cannot rule out the chance that there are other existences than Arda, which may have been created by Eru. After all, not all the Ainur came down to Arda, and we have no concept of how many remained with him, nor do we know if he even needed any Ainur to build worlds. Eru could have created other existences outside the Ainur and the Music (that's a good idea, Legate!).

And now to this thorny matter:

Yes, but as you see, I touched this matter in my post above. We have two possible points of view: one, all these books are a story written by Tolkien, the world is created by him. Second, all these books are simply a recounting of a story, Tolkien is not the creator, but he recounts something that happened elsewhere. In that case, there is no Tolkien above Eru, but Eru is the One, the One that was before everything else was in that "long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" about which Tolkien is giving us his report. You understand me? If we look from the "inside" point of view, we cannot say there was any Tolkien. The answer to what Ungoliant was from the first point of view is easy and creates no problems. The second one seems not as easy (though I still believe she was simply an Ainu ).

Now of course Tolkien was the creator of Eru as he wouldn't have existed if Tolkien had not dreamed him up and committed him to paper. But is that too simple? If you completely give yourself up to the story then Tolkien was not the creator, he was merely telling it. Yet can we do that? Can we as modern readers with critical minds ever truly think that this has a separate existence to Tolkien? I feel the Four Horsemen of Critical Theory coming over the horizon there so I'm not going to think on that one any more tonight...

Gwathagor

01-13-2008, 06:11 PM

I'm convinced by the suggestion that Ungoliant was a sort of anti-Bombadil incarnate-darkness evil-nature-spirit-in-spider-form. She's clearly not a Maia.

obloquy

01-13-2008, 09:37 PM

I'm convinced by the suggestion that Ungoliant was a sort of anti-Bombadil incarnate-darkness evil-nature-spirit-in-spider-form. She's clearly not a Maia.

"Spirits" are termed ealar by Tolkien. There's no need for all the mumbo-jumbo, as 1) Bombadil has nothing to do with Ungoliante, 2) there's no reason to assume that Ungoliante was incarnate. You're right that she's "clearly not a Maia," but for the sole reason that she was not in the official service of any Vala; otherwise, her nature as a "spirit"--an eala--was identical to that of the Valar and Maiar.

Gwathagor

01-13-2008, 09:55 PM

I see Ungoliant as an anti-Bombadil because like Bombadil, Ungoliant appears to not be a specifically created being, but rather an embodiment of forces of nature. Only she's evil.

obloquy

01-13-2008, 10:11 PM

Now, building on what Legate and Lommy have said, you have to pose the question, if Eru was The One and was Omnipotent, then he must also have created the darkness from which Ungoliant may or may not have stemmed?

Stemmed? You folks make her sound like a blossom from the Evil tree. "The darkness" was the empty space that "lies about Arda," like the darkness around our own Earth. There's absolutely no reason to make her into some peculiar manifestation of evil.

So in whatever conclusion, Ungoliant was created by Eru.

Yep. How is this even an observation worth making?

That of course makes you think of Ye Olde Chicken And Egg Question.

No it doesn't. How is this at all corollary?

Eru must have made himself.

Aaargh, I feel about 14 again and wondering what all this stuff about God was and how he could possibly have made himself! ;) Taoism...?

Why must he have done so? Any discussion of the origin of things requires the acceptance of something prime, whether it's a singularity, empty space (which, as a multi-dimensional canvas, is manifestly more complex than nothing) or a creative consciousness. Why the illogical meanderings of a 14-year-old mind have any bearing on this discussion, I do not know.

We still cannot rule out the chance that there are other existences than Arda, which may have been created by Eru. After all, not all the Ainur came down to Arda, and we have no concept of how many remained with him, nor do we know if he even needed any Ainur to build worlds. Eru could have created other existences outside the Ainur and the Music (that's a good idea, Legate!).

Of course we can. We can rule out the chance because Tolkien never even implied it. We don't have to, though. You're welcome (naturally--you don't need my permission) to imagine all kinds of fan fiction, but it really has nothing to do with Ungoliante.

Now of course Tolkien was the creator of Eru as he wouldn't have existed if Tolkien had not dreamed him up and committed him to paper. But is that too simple? If you completely give yourself up to the story then Tolkien was not the creator, he was merely telling it. Yet can we do that? Can we as modern readers with critical minds ever truly think that this has a separate existence to Tolkien? I BLAH BLAH PRETENSION BLAH BLAH so I'm not going to think on that one any more tonight...

Obviously you can. You just proposed (above) that we seriously consider the possibility that Iluvatar had other creative projects from which Ungoliante might have emigrated, despite the fact that Tolkien never indicated that he did, nor even entertained the possibility. In doing this you have removed Tolkien from the creative role, leaving only Iluvatar. You attribute to Iluvatar the power to create without Tolkien's guidance.

obloquy

01-13-2008, 10:15 PM

I see Ungoliant as an anti-Bombadil because like Bombadil, Ungoliant appears to not be a specifically created being, but rather an embodiment of forces of nature. Only she's evil.

Why do Bombadil and Ungoliante appear not to be created? Iluvatar existed before all else and thus brought all else into being.

Gwathagor

01-13-2008, 10:20 PM

As I see it, Ungoliant and Bombadil were created incidentally, as manifestations of natural forces.

obloquy

01-13-2008, 10:32 PM

As I see it, Ungoliant and Bombadil were created incidentally, as manifestations of natural forces.

And why do you see it that way? If it's just because you like the idea, fine. If not, could you please elaborate? Is there any evidence for the theory? Anything that might preclude the possibility that these two are creatures of a more substantiated nature?

Gwathagor

01-13-2008, 10:50 PM

I may choose to elaborate later, but I'm not going to waste my time arguing the point with you. Chances are your disagreement with my theory is just a difference in terms. :p

Lalwendë

01-14-2008, 04:02 AM

Stemmed? You folks make her sound like a blossom from the Evil tree. "The darkness" was the empty space that "lies about Arda," like the darkness around our own Earth. There's absolutely no reason to make her into some peculiar manifestation of evil.

I'll say it how I like thanks, but do read what has been posted instead of rushing ahead to 'make your point'. Where did I say the Void or the darkness was 'evil'? Where do I say Ungoliant is 'evil'? In fact I'm saying quite the opposite, that Eru created all these things if we take him as Omnipotent, and if Eru is the creator god of this place then he can't be 'evil' as we mere mortals understand it.

Obviously you can. You just proposed (above) that we seriously consider the possibility that Iluvatar had other creative projects from which Ungoliante might have emigrated, despite the fact that Tolkien never indicated that he did, nor even entertained the possibility. In doing this you have removed Tolkien from the creative role, leaving only Iluvatar. You attribute to Iluvatar the power to create without Tolkien's guidance.

Ha! In being so reductive you miss the essential irony inherent in Tolkien's conceit of this all being translated from existing texts. Of course we know in our superior position as the reader that Tolkien made this all up - but at the same time, an essential element to what he made up is that it isn't made up. Therefore in one sense, as Legate suggests, Eru does have the power to create without Tolkien's influence. These are the fuzzy edges which make Tolkien's work so attractive.

So as not to risk being called pretentious for bringing a little critical theory into this (there's a new one, it's usually me thinking others are pretentious...;)), it is highly relevant as Tolkien does not tell us outright where Ungoliant stemmed from, and he was also the one who gave us the other parts of our investigation, the omnipotent Eru, the metaphors of Light and Unlight, the existence of the Void, the creator conceit. All of those can be brought to bear on the fun of working out where Ungoliant might come from and what she is.

William Cloud Hicklin

01-14-2008, 07:16 AM

The Might

01-14-2008, 09:49 AM

Eönwë

01-14-2008, 01:03 PM

Eru cannot be light or dark, he is the creator. He created light and dark (and unlight), so how could he be one. I see the Secret fire as life, and a soul/spirit/etc. And anyway, Eru isn't pure good. Remember what he says about Melkor's deeds.
Yet is through him [Melko] and not by him; and he shall see, and all ye likewise, and even shall those beings, who must now dwell among his evil and endure through Melko misery and sorrw, terror and wickedness, declare in the end that it redoundeth only to my great glory, and doth but make the theme more worth the hearing, Life worth living, and the World so much the more wonderful and marvellous, that of all the deeds of Illúvatar it shall be called his mightiest and his loveliest
He cares about his design (the music, its intricacies and beauty), not just good and evil. He made them both (maybe the evil was unintentional, but it spawned of him).

The way I see it, Tom Bombadil and Ungoliant (or Ungwe Liante) are equals. Remember what he says to the barrow wight? When he banishes him to the darkness
Get out, you old Wight! Vanish in the sunlight!
Shrivel llike the cold mist, like the winds go wailing,
Out into the barren lands far beyond the mountains!
Come never here again! Leave your barrow empty!
Lost and forgotten be, darker than the darkness,
Where gates stand for ever shut, till the world is mended

Can you see this? He is banishing him out of Arda, to a place darker than the darkness. And he is opposed to this force, the barrow wight. Who is sort of drinking the hobbits's life (maybe connected to light, like in the Two Trees) (if I remember correctly. And is it hroa or ea I'm talking about here?) and Tom Bombadil sends him away. I think that Tom is the opposite of Ungoliant, who has a similar effect (she drinks the Two Trees' light and life), and Tom brings back light (he saves the hobbits in this case. And the fact that Tom is not affected by the ring, and has no power over it shows he is not a Maia, but also Shelob had a chance to take the ring but she didn't (but how would she have worn it). Tom is banishing the barrow away from him, into the Dark, so he must be in the Light. So he probably is the opposite counterpart.

So basically I think that. Ungoliant is Tom's opposite, and Eru is equal (neither good or bad, but giver and taker of life, more, creator of life).

But also, some questions. "All the deeds of Illúvatar"? are there more. And who is there to call this work "his mightiest and his loveliest". Surely not te Ainhu, because they ae his creations too, so they cannot judge themselves against another creation.

obloquy

01-14-2008, 01:10 PM

Well, perhaps this can be viewed "structurally"? Some propositions:

1) "All Ainur who entered Ea" does not equal "The Valar + Maiar." This is nowhere stated, though often assumed; Maiar I feel confident refers to those lesser Ainur who entered the service of the Valar. This does not include, e.g., the Balrogs, who apparently had already fallen beforehand. Contrast Sauron, who was expressly a Maia of Aule's retinue, and who only (openly) joined Melkor later on.

If there are other Ainur who were not designated either Maia or Vala (and even CT makes the assumption that the term represents one group with two parts in the Sil index), they were beings that are not referenced in the text--in other words, we have no explicit examples. You may not have meant to imply the contrary, but the Maiar are all those Ainur who served the Valar, not just the lesser ones. Balrogs are also expressly Maiar (See HoMe X, p. 411; also Umaiar: see HoMe X, p. 79), though the names of their prior masters are not given. And, in fact, the whole of the corpus appears to take for granted that "primeval spirit" and variants thereof refer either to a Vala or Maia. Melkor is said to have had many Maiar in his service, and the Balrogs are said to be the greatest of his servants, though they are lesser spirits than Sauron.

2) "Ealar" does not necessarily equal "Ainur." Eru it would seem to me was capable of creating sentient spirits within Ea, as opposed to the Ainur who were created before it. E.g. the 'spirits' sent to dwell in the forests and become Ents; or the very anomalous status of Dragons and Eagles.

Ealar does not equal Ainur in the sense that all ealar are not Ainur; yet all Ainur are ealar, so the distinction is not so great as to render two separate groups. The term is defined merely as a naturally discarnate being. I agree with the possibility that some ealar existed in Arda that were somewhat rogue, not adhering to the official roles given to the Valar and Maiar, simply because it seems plausible. However, HoMe X, p. 410 explicates that "only the Valar and Maiar are intelligences that can assume the forms of Arda at will."

The dragons are easily explained either as Maiar incarnated (fully) in shapes of Melkor's design, or shapes animated by Melkor but lacking a true fea. The eagles also provide little difficulty either as somewhat aloof Maiar (and there were plenty of other Maiar even less involved in the affairs of Middle-earth) or as trained beasts. The Ents are admittedly more anomalous, but, in any case, they are not ealar since they are naturally incarnate.

The Might

01-14-2008, 01:18 PM

I see quite a lot that speaks for Bombadil and Ungoliant being, if not truly opposed beings, at least of similar origin, but I do not see Eru in any way on the same level.
He has powers way beyond those of the other two. While Bombadil is Master in hiw own land, within the boundaries that he had set, Iluvatar is Master over all the creation.

A few quotes to support this thought:

"But Rúmil said: 'Ilúvatar was the first beginning, and beyond that no wisdom of the Valar or of Eldar or of Men can go.' 'Who was Ilúvatar?' asked Eriol. 'Was he of the Gods?' 'Nay,' said Rúmil, 'that he was not, for he made them. Ilúvatar is the Lord for Always who dwells beyond the world; who made it and is not of it nor in it, but loves it.' " ~ BoLT, Music of the Ainu

And also commenting on the "He is." part from FotR he says in a letter:

As for Tom Bombadil, I really do think you are being too serious, besides missing the point. [...] You rather remind me of a Protestant relation who to me objected to the (modern) Catholic habit of calling priests Father, because the name father belonged only to the First Person.

Pretty clear that Bombadil is not God and so in a way subordinated to Eru.

obloquy

01-14-2008, 02:05 PM

I'll say it how I like thanks, but do read what has been posted instead of rushing ahead to 'make your point'. Where did I say the Void or the darkness was 'evil'? Where do I say Ungoliant is 'evil'? In fact I'm saying quite the opposite, that Eru created all these things if we take him as Omnipotent, and if Eru is the creator god of this place then he can't be 'evil' as we mere mortals understand it.

By positioning Ungoliante in opposition to Iluvatar you appeared to be implying that she was the Bad to his Good. If you intend merely to define her without judgment as Unlight (stripping away also the judgment of Iluvatar as Good) then my disagreement is lessened, but I agree with Thinlo and Legate and believe that you accord her more importance than she is due.

It's not a bad point for discussion, however, since it creates an interesting trinity in Iluvatar, Melkor, and Ungoliante: Iluvatar and Ungoliante at opposite ends as Light and Unlight, and Melkor all over the middle, not as Darkness (sorry Legate), but rather as Nihil: creative power inverted. Still, I think that defining Melkor in this way creates an overlap with Ungoliante's status as Unlight and the exaggeration of her importance begins to show more clearly. Melkor is the Enemy, not Ungoliante, and I think that describing Ungoliante as "unlight" without judging her evil is glib: Light and Life go hand-in-hand, as you point out; so, then, do Unlight and Death. If Melkor was evil, it is because of his extinguishing of light and life, and therefore Ungoliante too must be evil as this is her sole purpose.

As for the point of Iluvatar, as creator, being the source of Melkor's theme and its "evil" manifestations, I have posted my thoughts elsewhere: 1 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=529510&postcount=54), 2 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=529571&postcount=56), 3 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=529582&postcount=61)

Ha! In being so reductive you miss the essential irony inherent in Tolkien's conceit of this all being translated from existing texts. Of course we know in our superior position as the reader that Tolkien made this all up - but at the same time, an essential element to what he made up is that it isn't made up. Therefore in one sense, as Legate suggests, Eru does have the power to create without Tolkien's influence. These are the fuzzy edges which make Tolkien's work so attractive.

No, I do not miss that at all. It has nothing to do with the question I was answering. You asked: Can we as modern readers with critical minds ever truly think that this has a separate existence to Tolkien? And I pointed out that you had just said:We still cannot rule out the chance that there are other existences than Arda, which may have been created by Eru.
Either we view Tolkien's world as a living thing, the histories of which Tolkien merely transmitted to us, leaving open all kinds of possibilities that he neglected to mention, such as the possibility that "there are other existences than Arda...created by Eru." Or we view it as a finite story, complete despite gaps in our knowledge because what we have is all that Tolkien wrote, in which case there is no possibility of "other existences than Arda..." because Tolkien never directly created them or even implied them.

Gwathagor

01-14-2008, 02:41 PM

As far as this "result of natural forces" theory is concerned I can see why you would reffer to Bombadil as such and as I stated above I can also well think of Ungoliant as another such result as well.
Indeed there is no clear proof for this, however, in absence of any other better thery for her origin I personally also share Gwathagor's opinion.

The proof is not very clear, I agree, but it is both a reasonable and functional theory. My primary reason for viewing Ungoliant as a manifestation of dark natural forces (anti-Bombadil) is the bit in the Silmarillion that describes her as being descended from the darkness that lay about Arda. It's not much, but it works.

Lalwendë

01-14-2008, 02:46 PM

By positioning Ungoliante in opposition to Iluvatar you appeared to be implying that she was the Bad to his Good. If you intend merely to define her without judgment as Unlight (stripping away also the judgment of Iluvatar as Good) then my disagreement is lessened, but I agree with Thinlo and Legate and believe that you accord her more importance than she is due.

It's not a bad point for discussion, however, since it creates an interesting trinity in Iluvatar, Melkor, and Ungoliante: Iluvatar and Ungoliante at opposite ends as Light and Unlight, and Melkor all over the middle, not as Darkness (sorry Legate), but rather as Nihil: creative power inverted. Still, I think that defining Melkor in this way creates an overlap with Ungoliante's status as Unlight and the exaggeration of her importance begins to show more clearly. Melkor is the Enemy, not Ungoliante, and I think that describing Ungoliante as "unlight" without judging her evil is glib: Light and Life go hand-in-hand, as you point out; so, then, do Unlight and Death. If Melkor was evil, it is because of his extinguishing of light and life, and therefore Ungoliante too must be evil as this is her sole purpose.

Now I also do not position Ungoliant as some kind of opposite to Eru in terms of Good/Evil. That's far too reductive and also I think simply wrong. In essence you are coming at it from the same approach as I don't think we can possibly say Eru=Good, certainly not in mere human terms. Why? Because if Eru is omnipotent then we must also accept that it was he who produced Melkor and hence what Melkor did has its roots in Eru...and if you look at what is said about Melkor's deeds, this is perfectly acceptable even to those who want to see Eru as 'perfect' as Melkor's deeds result in greater deeds which end up to the glory of Eru. Etc etc...I've been over that one many a time ;)

Ungoliant as Unlight and Eru as Light does not merely boil down to one being bad and one being good. Life itself in Tolkien's creation is tied up with a lot of 'darkness' in that Elves are doomed to be tied to the world as long as it lasts and Men must accept their doom in the form of Death. Ungoliant may or may not symbolise this fate, this counterpart to Light/Life, and not as a bad thing, but as a necessary thing. Where Melkor comes into this is that he tries to exploit that in his destructive aims, and note that Ungoliant in the end abandons him. It's important to note that Melkor seeks to corrupt and to create as well as destroy - whereas Ungoliant merely seeks to feed, not to make a mockery of Eru and the creation he and the rest of the Ainur conjoured up, even if it is Light which she finds so tasty.

Perhaps another idea to pursue may also be found in the law that every action has a reaction, and in Eru's use of Light to create life and existence he may also have created Unlight or negation. It may even be a necessary thing if he hopes one day to turn the Light off at Dagor Dagorath, which is referred to as the Unmaking of Arda if I recall correctly? Unmaking suggesting more than merely smashing it up into bits in a celestial temper but actually making it cease to exist entirely.

Either we view Tolkien's world as a living thing, the histories of which Tolkien merely transmitted to us, leaving open all kinds of possibilities that he neglected to mention, such as the possibility that "there are other existences than Arda...created by Eru." Or we view it as a finite story, complete despite gaps in our knowledge because what we have is all that Tolkien wrote, in which case there is no possibility of "other existences than Arda..." because Tolkien never directly created them or even implied them.

Seeking to apply theory to Tolkien's work is not mere clever-dickery in this case, it has a real application ;) The major conceit of the stories is that they have been translated from existing texts. In which case we have to ask who wrote them. Elves in the case of what we have in the Silmarillion? In which case haven't we got an Elves' view of things? Elves who admittedly had no concept of where Ungoliant may have come from and what her purpose was apart from ruining their Trees? What would their ability to imagine the purpose/nature of Ungoliant be?

Gwathagor

01-14-2008, 02:52 PM

I agree with obloquy that opposing Ungoliant as an Unlight to Eru's Light is essentially dualism, and not a good idea. :)

Lalwendë

01-14-2008, 03:04 PM

I agree with obloquy that opposing Ungoliant as an Unlight to Eru's Light is essentially dualism, and not a good idea. :)

In this theory, it isn't an opposition but a necessary part of a whole.

obloquy

01-14-2008, 05:10 PM

Seeking to apply theory to Tolkien's work is not mere clever-dickery in this case, it has a real application ;) The major conceit of the stories is that they have been translated from existing texts. In which case we have to ask who wrote them. Elves in the case of what we have in the Silmarillion? In which case haven't we got an Elves' view of things? Elves who admittedly had no concept of where Ungoliant may have come from and what her purpose was apart from ruining their Trees? What would their ability to imagine the purpose/nature of Ungoliant be?

The idea that the texts Tolkien translated contain inaccuracies--or, at least, demonstrate a subjective viewpoint, limited in knowledge and/or understanding--is a good one. So good, in fact, that I pointed it out many posts ago with reference to Ungoliante's origin myth. But I do not see how this is what you were referring to in the first place where, it appears to me, you asked a question which you had already demonstrated your own answer to. You asked, Can we separate the mythos from Tolkien as creator? while you had already admonished us not to forget certain possibilities of which Tolkien was unaware, or at least not himself the creator. I have no substantial disagreement with the portion quoted in this post; though I would say that the Eldar's understanding of Ungoliante ought to be considered pretty good, keeping in mind their relationship with the Ainur. Whether the knowledge of the wiser Eldar is what is recorded in Tolkien's work I do not know.

Gwathagor

01-14-2008, 05:41 PM

In this theory, it isn't an opposition but a necessary part of a whole.

But Eru is not part of the whole, for he created it.

Bêthberry

01-14-2008, 08:33 PM

But Eru is not part of the whole, for he created it.

You mean he's a TimBit? (gotta be Canuck to get this).

Gwathagor

01-14-2008, 09:06 PM

I get it, I get it. :) And I'm not even Canadian.

Lalwendë

01-15-2008, 02:28 PM

But Eru is not part of the whole, for he created it.

It depends. If it all came from him then he is naturally a part of it as it all reflects his essence.

The idea that the texts Tolkien translated contain inaccuracies--or, at least, demonstrate a subjective viewpoint, limited in knowledge and/or understanding--is a good one. So good, in fact, that I pointed it out many posts ago with reference to Ungoliante's origin myth. But I do not see how this is what you were referring to in the first place where, it appears to me, you asked a question which you had already demonstrated your own answer to. You asked, Can we separate the mythos from Tolkien as creator? while you had already admonished us not to forget certain possibilities of which Tolkien was unaware, or at least not himself the creator. I have no substantial disagreement with the portion quoted in this post; though I would say that the Eldar's understanding of Ungoliante ought to be considered pretty good, keeping in mind their relationship with the Ainur. Whether the knowledge of the wiser Eldar is what is recorded in Tolkien's work I do not know.

And there's the rub. How you perceive Ungoliant and whether you speculate on things about her that are not written down by Tolkien depends upon whether you take onboard the 'translator' conceit and accept that as in any translation there can be odd things which do not cross over well and which after further investigation lead you to surprising conclusions (as for example in translations of Biblical text from the original Hebrew). Or if you take this text as simply something Tolkien wrote and which baldly does not allow for such exploration.

You can do either really, to fit your argument and it would still be OK ;)

Gwathagor

01-15-2008, 03:25 PM

It depends. If it all came from him then he is naturally a part of it as it all reflects his essence.

Would you agree that it is better to say, instead, that it is all a part of Him, since it came from Him? I think it's an important distinction, in the same way that a genus is not part of a species.

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-15-2008, 03:32 PM

Would you agree that it is better to say, instead, that it is all a part of Him, since it came from Him? I think it's an important distinction, in the same way that a genus is not part of a species.
Not that I would agree with Lal about Eru, but even this formulation of yours is getting very close to something that is called pantheism, which I think is also not Eru's case. Obviously, Arda is not a "part of him".

Anyway, what was the topic of the thread? *hint hint*

Gwathagor

01-15-2008, 03:39 PM

obloquy

01-15-2008, 04:21 PM

NO NO NO NO NO NO! Heaven forbid. Allow me to underline the fact that I am NOT, never have been, and never will be a Pantheist. I had in mind more the idea of a sustaining, imaginative, creative will and grace, rather than a "god is in the rocks" concept. I do see how my post could have been construed that way, though. I tread dangerous ground. :(

My point was that Ungoliant shouldn't be viewed as any kind of opposite to Eru, who is really much too big to be compared to anything.

Interestingly, Melkor is "in the rocks." And presumably so are the others who participated in creation, though none poured more of their vitality into physical things than Melkor.

You're correct about Iluvatar and Ungoliante: Ungoliante is part of creation, necessarily, because of what we know of Iluvatar, and Iluvatar is above and detached from creation. It seems unlikely that Iluvatar would have created his opposite, and it seems impossible that he could have created her with power commensurate with his own.

However, the idea that Ungoliante was a negative byproduct of the positive act of creation is pretty cute, though it would seem to deprive Iluvatar of absolute omnipotence by subjecting him to a law that, in a way, would regulate his creative energy; and, assuming that he did not institute the law, undermines his primacy as well. Also interesting is Lalwende's idea--if I understand her point--that Iluvatar is only omnipotent and eternal relative to his own creation--information which would be promulgated only on a need-to-know basis (and the Eldar do not need to know). He is Almighty in the eyes of the Ainur and all orders below them, even though he may have peers, some of whom (e.g. Ungoliante) might potentially interfere with his universe. Unfortunately, this kind of speculation does not produce much of value and, ultimately, leads only to dead ends.

Gwathagor

01-15-2008, 07:08 PM

Lalwendë

01-16-2008, 02:51 AM

Not a negative byproduct of a positive creation, but rather a negative byproduct of a warped positive creation. Creation in its original perfection couldn't have produced Ungoliant, but the discord that resulted from Melkor's rebellion could. And don't call it cute.

Hmmm, though wouldn't that mean that Ungoliant was in fact created by Melkor? Who could not create but only corrupt? She is clearly not a part of Melkor in any way, as not only does he make an attempt to enslave/enlist her, but she is able to leave him and instead be 'mistress of her own lusts'. That suggests to me she is at the very least a peer of Melkor as none of the beings he 'creates' (i.e. corrupts from other beings) seem to be able to do much more than lip service towards genuine independence.

Of course creation in its 'original perfection' did produce Melkor. So what does that say about the 'perfection' of creation? ;)

zxcvbn

01-16-2008, 06:42 AM

Hmmm, though wouldn't that mean that Ungoliant was in fact created by Melkor? Who could not create but only corrupt? She is clearly not a part of Melkor in any way, as not only does he make an attempt to enslave/enlist her, but she is able to leave him and instead be 'mistress of her own lusts'. That suggests to me she is at the very least a peer of Melkor as none of the beings he 'creates' (i.e. corrupts from other beings) seem to be able to do much more than lip service towards genuine independence.

Of course creation in its 'original perfection' did produce Melkor. So what does that say about the 'perfection' of creation? ;)

It shows that even the Creator ain't perfect. Or maybe that evil is meant to be a part of creation since the struggle between good and evil enhances its beauty.

As for Melkor not being able to create, I believe it says that he only lost that power sometime AFTER entering Arda, when his mindset had turned from simply misguided(trying to find the Flame Imperishable, so that he could equal Eru) to evil(wanting to be the supreme ruler and to enslave everything else). His malice had grown, so that he could only create 'in mockery of others'.

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-16-2008, 08:36 AM

She is clearly not a part of Melkor in any way, as not only does he make an attempt to enslave/enlist her, but she is able to leave him and instead be 'mistress of her own lusts'. That suggests to me she is at the very least a peer of Melkor as none of the beings he 'creates' (i.e. corrupts from other beings) seem to be able to do much more than lip service towards genuine independence.

Can I pop in and say that it would make very good sense on this matter if she were an Ainu? :) Like the Balrogs, who were originally flame spirits similar to Arien, but were persuaded by Morgoth to join him...

Just dropping a few thoughts as a refrain ;)

Gwathagor

01-16-2008, 09:32 AM

Hmmm, though wouldn't that mean that Ungoliant was in fact created by Melkor?

No, because Morgoth did not create the darkness. He only participated in the struggle that helped mess it up. So, Morgoth though would have been partially responsible for the existence of Ungoliant, she still wasn't his creature. Thus, he could not completely master her.

Groin Redbeard

01-22-2008, 02:31 PM

An interesting idea with Tom Bombadil, but I always considered Ungoliant a Maia and nothing I saw this far opposes it.

But then wouldn't that mean that her children, including Shelob, would be Maia. I'm not sure how that would work.

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-22-2008, 02:38 PM

But then wouldn't that mean that her children, including Shelob, would be Maia. I'm not sure how that would work.

Well, if we stayed with this assumption, what about Melian being Maia and her child being the most beautiful of the Elves? Similarly, Ungoliant as Maia could give birth to offspring of the nastiest of all spiders, which surely was true: not Maiar anymore, but also not "normal" spiders, but spiders of the size of a dog (in the degraded version of her grandchildren) or larger (Shelob).

Nerwen

01-23-2008, 02:50 AM

My take on this: the line "one of those whom he had corrupted to his service" strongly suggests Ungoliant is an Ainu (if not necessarily a Maia). I think you have to really strain to make it mean anything else.

However, I also believe that is a fairly late concept on Tolkien's part, and that in earlier versions his spider-monster was a being created of darkness or mist or whatever. This is just from memory, though.

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-23-2008, 05:11 AM

Nerwen

01-23-2008, 08:31 AM

Actually, now that I've found my copy of the Silm, the line is "one of those THAT he corrupted to his service". Not that this changes the sense.

Nerwen

01-23-2008, 08:45 AM

Can I pop in and say that it would make very good sense on this matter if she were an Ainu? :) Like the Balrogs, who were originally flame spirits similar to Arien, but were persuaded by Morgoth to join him...

This is a good parallel for another reason. Earlier, Balrogs were meant to be creations of Morgoth; Tolkien changed their origin to fit in with his later ideas. Same with Ungoliant.

Lalwendë

01-23-2008, 02:42 PM

It shows that even the Creator ain't perfect. Or maybe that evil is meant to be a part of creation since the struggle between good and evil enhances its beauty.
.

It depends on what you call 'perfect' and if that is a human concept. To explain that better, hopefully, Eru is beyond all that kind of thing, Eru simply 'is'. So Eru is light and darkness and he was capable of producing beings as different as Varda and Melkor, but good/evil do not come into it.

In many ways that would tie in very well indeed with Tolkien's own struggles to reconcile his own God who could on the one hand create everything but on the other could also set the boundary of Death. The latter sounds like a very bad thing but it is 'all part of God's plan' and all that. Just as Melkor and the possibility that Melkor might introduce discordancy by being given free will was all part of what Eru made.

mhagain

04-24-2014, 02:53 PM

Oh, Ungoliant's easy. Let's look at the evidence. Exhibit A, m'lud:

in ages long before she had descended from the darkness that lies about Arda, when Melkor first looked down in envy upon the light in the kingdom of Manwe

So we need to find the time "when Melkor first looked down in envy upon the light"; let's read the Silmarillion: Of the Beginning of Days. Exhibit B, m'lud:

...far off in the darkness he was filled with hatred, being jealous of the work of his peers, whom he desired to make subject to himself. Therefore he gathered to himself spirits out of the halls of Eä that he had perverted to his service, and he deemed himself strong. And seeing now his time he drew near again to Arda, and looked down upon it, and the beauty of the Earth in its Spring filled him the more with hate.

Note the wording. "Jealous" - "envy". "Looked down". That can't be an accident. And this was just at the time before Melkor assailed and destroyed the Lamps, so yes, he was looking down on the light too.

So that's when Ungoliant came into the world.

Now let's read Of the Darkening of Valinor:

But she had disowned her Master, desiring to be mistress of her own lust

So Ungoliant originally had a Master, but who was he? Let's read the same chapter in Morgoth's Ring, where there's a bit more dialog that CT diidn't use in the published Silmarillion:

Thrice fool: to leave me first...

OK, so her Master was Melkor, she came into the world when Melkor overthrew the Lamps, and that was the time when Melkor "gathered to himself spirits out of the halls of Eä that he had perverted to his service".

So that's what Ungoliant is: one of those spirits.

Inziladun

04-24-2014, 07:38 PM

OK, so her Master was Melkor, she came into the world when Melkor overthrew the Lamps, and that was the time when Melkor "gathered to himself spirits out of the halls of Eä that he had perverted to his service".

So that's what Ungoliant is: one of those spirits.

I agree on Ungoliant's origin. I think she was one of the Ainu who entered separately from the Valar. That independence carried over though and I wouldn't put her in the same class as the Balrogs and Sauron, "perverted" into becoming his servants. Ungoliant was more of a co-conspirator: acting in concert with Melkor temporarily, for her own gain. Serving him was not her intention.

tom the eldest

04-24-2014, 11:34 PM

Ungoliant probably one of the void creature.it came from the void,Maybe a side creation of eru.

mhagain

04-25-2014, 03:56 AM

I agree on Ungoliant's origin. I think she was one of the Ainu who entered separately from the Valar.

Maybe but probably not.

There are at least two other examples of the Valar summoning "spirits" during the early days; first Manwë:

But Manwë was the brother of Melkor in the mind of Ilúvatar, and he was the chief instrument of the second theme that Ilúvatar had raised up against the discord of Melkor; and he called unto himself many spirits both greater and less, and they came down into the fields of Arda and aided Manwë, lest Melkor should hinder the fulfilment of their labour for ever, and Earth should wither ere it flowered.

Then Yavanna:

When the Children awake, then the thought of Yavanna will awake also, and it will summon spirits from afar, and they will go among the kelvar and the olvar, and some will dwell therein, and be held in reverence, and their just anger shall be feared.

It doesn't seem too much of a stretch to say that Melkor has the same power, particularly in his early days when he was still strong.

Therefore he gathered to himself spirits out of the halls of Eä that he had perverted to his service...

As to what these spirits are, Tolkien doesn't say but I consider it doubtful that they're Ainur. The Ainur were created outside of (and before) Eä, whereas these seem to me to have been created within Eä and are part of it ("spirits out of the halls of Eä").

Inziladun

04-25-2014, 07:24 AM

As to what these spirits are, Tolkien doesn't say but I consider it doubtful that they're Ainur. The Ainur were created outside of (and before) Eä, whereas these seem to me to have been created within Eä and are part of it ("spirits out of the halls of Eä").

The spirits summoned by Manwë and Yavanna though seem to be lesser beings brought for service. Upon their arrival, they began to fulfill a specific purpose as ordered by the summoner. The same cannot be said for Ungoliant (or Tom Bombadil ;)).
That is why I see Ungoliant having a greater power with more independence of thought than the garden-variety Maia.

mhagain

04-25-2014, 07:43 AM

The spirits summoned by Manwë and Yavanna though seem to be lesser beings brought for service. Upon their arrival, they began to fulfill a specific purpose as ordered by the summoner. The same cannot be said for Ungoliant

I argue that it can.

I gave the quotes above, but I'll repeat them here too just to put them in context. First:

But she had disowned her Master, desiring to be mistress of her own lust

So when Ungoliant originally came, she wasn't an independent agent, she had a Master.

The obvious question is "who was that Master?" and we get the answer in Melkor's statement to her:

Thrice fool: to leave me first...

So to summarize the evidence:

Ungoliant came to Arda (and remembering that Arda is just a part of Ea) at the time as Melkor overthrew the Lamps. I consider this beyond doubt.
At this same time Melkor called spirits "that he had perverted to his service" from elsewhere in Ea. This is also beyond doubt as Tolkien explicitly wrote it.
Ungoliant had a Master who she subsequently left, and that Master was Melkor. This is also beyond doubt: Tolkien wrote it.So the reasonable conclusion is therefore: Ungoliant was one of those spirits.

Inziladun

04-25-2014, 02:31 PM

So to summarize the evidence:

Ungoliant came to Arda (and remembering that Arda is just a part of Ea) at the time as Melkor overthrew the Lamps. I consider this beyond doubt.
At this same time Melkor called spirits "that he had perverted to his service" from elsewhere in Ea. This is also beyond doubt as Tolkien explicitly wrote it.
Ungoliant had a Master who she subsequently left, and that Master was Melkor. This is also beyond doubt: Tolkien wrote it.So the reasonable conclusion is therefore: Ungoliant was one of those spirits.

It's really a small point of contention, as I agree with most of what you say. There is nowhere any definite proof though that Ungoliant's arrival in Arda was because of Morgoth: only that she did his bidding for a time. Even Sauron was not "called" by Melkor from the Void. With the quote you've given in full context:

And Melkor knew of all that was done, for even then he had secret friends and spies among the Maiar whom he had converted to his cause; and far off in the darkness he was filled with hatred....

Melkor did not summon those spirits from Outside: they were there in Eë already, and though their corruption was unknown to the Valar, their identities were not.

Ungoliant, however, was an unknown entity to them.

For though the Valar did not yet understand fully what had befallen, they perceived that Melkor had called upon some aid that came from beyond Arda. The Silmarilion Of the Flight of the Noldor

To me the evidence points to Ungoliant being a unique quantity where Melkor's servants were concerned. She was apparently more powerful, able to use her shadows to defeat and confound the Valar themselves, and also unknown to them. That is why I lean toward her being an Ainu who entered on her own, then allied herself with Melkor.

mhagain

04-26-2014, 09:21 AM

Melkor did not summon those spirits from Outside: they were there in Eë already, and though their corruption was unknown to the Valar, their identities were not.

Actually in the source texts these are two separate groups: group (1) was his spies in Aman who reported what had been done, group (2) was the spirits he then called to himself. The texts certainly don't give any cause to indicate that they were the same spirits in each group, and I'd encourage a re-read. If group (2) were called from elsewhere in Ea (i.e they weren't in Arda) it would be natural for the Valar to not know of them.

Did I give the impression that I was arguing that he summoned those spirits from outside of Ea? That's a mistaken impression: the texts are clear that he called them from within Ea; whether they were created within Ea or had previously arrived from outside is not stated however, and that seems to be the main crux.

It's also important to recognise the distinction between Arda and Ea. Arda is the solar system (with Imbar/Ambar/the Earth as it's central stage), Ea is all of creation. It's possible for something to be within Ea but outside of Arda (like the stars and other galaxies, for example) and Ungoliant is only stated to have been something beyond Arda.

Beyond that I'm inclined to go with whichever explanation requires the least amount of personal extrapolation, and that - to me - seems to be that Ungoliant was one of the spirits that Melkor called from within Ea. After all, if she had been an Ainu, it seems more, not less, likely that the Valar would have been previously aware of her: they were Ainur too, after all. On the other hand if she was a spirit created within Ea but outside of Arda, subsequently corrupted by Melkor, it matches with everything in the texts and creates fewer contradictions and doubts.