Fantasy Morality

[tumhalad2]

I've copped a great deal of flack recently for continuing to forward particular views about The Children of Hurin with respect to the rest of Tolkien's legendarium.

In response, here's an article that really gets at the heart of what I'm saying. It raises similar points to my own, but it explains them in different terms and tends to go even further than I was willing to.

This part is particularly interesting:

When Tolkien is at his best, as he is in Children of Húrin and in parts of The Silmarillion, the fate of men (or elves, or dwarves) remains external from them, but this certainly isn’t the case in The Lord of the Rings, where moral agency shifts onto the individual, making him responsible when measuring himself against an external moral system, in this case Tolkien’s often maligned good and evil. Perhaps the genesis of that problem can be seen in Children of Húrin, in which a reader with some experience with philology wonders why such a cruel fate, usually the whim of fickle gods, can befall Túrin Turambar when Eru Ilúvatar is a benevolent creator.

In his discussion of "slave morality" vs. "noble morality" (please read the piece in order to learn what these terms refer to) I was particularly struck by this passage:

One could also accuse this worldview of what Nietzsche refers to as Amor fati, the love of fate, in which the individual comes to accept the suffering and loss he or she experiences as necessary. Where Túrin railed against his fate, Frodo, Aragon and co. seem to fall in line under some form of deontology, the journey to Mount Doom will be long and hard, but it has to be done and that is that.




On Moral Fantasy Fiction
(http://www.paul-charles-smith.com/?p=1148)

[Galadriel55]

This essay didn't make any sense to me. And from what did make sense, I highly disagree. I'm especially bothered by the words "When Tolkien is at his best, as he is in Children of Húrin and in parts of The Silmarillion..." - as if he's not good in LOTR, TH, the rest of The Sil, and others?!

Moreover, I don't see anything wrong with switching style. Tolkien's books describe all kinds of situations, so why not the other type as well?

"The fate of men (or elves, or dwarves) remains external from them, but this certainly isn’t the case in The Lord of the Rings, where moral agency shifts onto the individual, making him responsible when measuring himself against an external moral system, in this case Tolkien’s often maligned good and evil." The fate of men/elves/dwarves still remains external to them in LOTR; and in The Sil+COH they still have their 'moral responsibility'.

"Perhaps the genesis of that problem can be seen in Children of Húrin..." What problem? What genesis? It's saying that COH is spreading some awful thing in JRRT's books!:eek: I don't see a problem in COH, but I see one with the author.

"..., in which a reader with some experience with philology wonders why such a cruel fate, usually the whim of fickle gods, can befall Túrin Turambar when Eru Ilúvatar is a benevolent creator." Why doesn't the author actually read COH, then maybe he'll find out why. No, I'm serious! He talks as if COH is supposed to be a fairy-tale with a plot somewhat like Roverandom's (where a real dog is cursed by a wizard to become a toy, and he travels all over the world in order to find the wizard and ask him to change him back). COH is not a light-hearted children's bed-time story. And it's not 'gods', there is only one 'god' involved, and he isn't even a 'god' anymore.

PS: if LOTR is written with a certain style, it doesn't mean that everything has to be.

PPS: Also, I don't think that the style really changes. It's just two different situations, with 2 different characters, and 2 different tasks. The characters act differently, that's all. Are you saying that all characters have to act the same (eg all have to challenge fate, or vice versa)?

[Bêthberry]

When Tolkien is at his best, as he is in Children of Húrin and in parts of The Silmarillion, the fate of men (or elves, or dwarves) remains external from them, but this certainly isn’t the case in The Lord of the Rings, where moral agency shifts onto the individual, making him responsible when measuring himself against an external moral system, in this case Tolkien’s often maligned good and evil. Perhaps the genesis of that problem can be seen in Children of Húrin, in which a reader with some experience with philology wonders why such a cruel fate, usually the whim of fickle gods, can befall Túrin Turambar when Eru Ilúvatar is a benevolent creator.



I think this fellow needs to read Verlyn Fleiger's study of Tolkien, The Splintered Light. The fates of men, elves and dwarves differ. Sorry if you've already covered her work elsewhere, tumhalad2, but this fellow hasn't.

[Galadriel55]

Maybe by 'fate' the author isn't referring to the same thing as Tolkien calls 'fate'. I think the author means the destiny of each individual from these races.

Either way, though, the essay makes me think that the author didn't really read COH, or any other Tolkien books.

[Morthoron]

This essay didn't make any sense to me. And from what did make sense, I highly disagree. I'm especially bothered by the words "When Tolkien is at his best, as he is in Children of Húrin and in parts of The Silmarillion..." - as if he's not good in LOTR, TH, the rest of The Sil, and others?!

You're right, Galadriel. What we have here is a stuffed-shirt essayist using dollar words he purchased with an English lit. degree, propounding prolix platitudes that are not germane to Tolkien's corpus. Just another post-modernist wanting to afix his literary values to a book (in this case, LotR) and a mythos (Middle-earth) that he misunderstands completely. The gentleman, in his muddled mix of Nietzschean morality and Greek Hamartia, even fails to comprehend why The Lord of the Rings is Tolkien's greatest achievement, and seems utterly confused as to why the book is so influential (a bitter thought that obviously gives him constipation).

I suggest he should read the books a few more times, and then get back with us.

[Lalaith]

I thought some points of the essay quite interesting, in that the concepts of shame vs guilt culture are quite useful and illuminating when applied to the moralit of both Norse literature and of Tolkien's works. Particularly interesting when you get an author steeped in the essence of both cultures (vis a vis his interest in Norse epic and his own Catholic faith).

As for Nietzsche, I have never read anything he wrote himself, only what others have written about him, so I wouldn't like to comment of the validity of the slave/master morality question. However my general impression of Nietzsche is that his morality was very dodgy and elitist.

[Mnemosyne]

I don't buy the idea that Turin's "fate" is external to him at all: as many things go wrong that are the result of his own actions (the sack of Nargothrond, which is a direct result of Turin's more open style of confrontation) as the result of the curse acting through chance (Beleg's knife slipping as he cuts Turin's bonds). The same goes for the rebellious Noldor: it is not the Doom of Mandos which made the Silmarils burn Maedhros and Maglor, but the evil of their own deeds in getting them.

Indeed, part of the beauty of CoH is that you simply don't know how much of the horrible things that happen are due to the curse, and how much of them are due to Turin himself. If you say it's all one or all the other, the work loses its nuance and subtlety. I don't think that the morality in Silm-era works is necessarily incompatible with that in LotR: the only difference between the two eras is the extent to which the gods got involved in others' affairs.

[Galadriel55]

I didn't really understand either one of the ideas, but I can't help to disagree with how the author describes JRRT's books and his conclusions/statements about them. It sounds like the most he read was a brief sumary on the cover page of the books...

Edit: x'd with Mnemo

Mnemosyne, I agree with what you said. Just another point to prove that the author didn't read COH, or understand anything that he read in LOTR (if he read it)...

[Lalaith]

Perhaps the genesis of that problem can be seen in Children of Húrin..." What problem? What genesis? It's saying that COH is spreading some awful thing in JRRT's books! I don't see a problem in COH, but I see one with the author.



I think the author (of the article) is talking about a 'problem' in the moral/philosophical sense, not in the sense of being critical of Tolkien's work.

[Galadriel55]

I think the author (of the article) is talking about a 'problem' in the moral/philosophical sense, not in the sense of being critical of Tolkien's work.

I don't really understand how that would work. The way I understood the article was that the change of style is a problem, with COH as the center of it. This wouldn't make sense even if there really was a problem.

In this case the problem is 'Tolkien is being inconsistenet'. I don't see COH as an inconsistency, and I don't see any problem.

Sorry Lalaith, but I also don't see what you're saying either. Can you please elaborate?

[Lalaith]

The author talks about a 'shift' which he says he finds fascinating. I agree that the essay is complex - perhaps, as Morthoron argues, unnecessarily and pretentiously so. But I followed it pretty well as far as the Nietzsche stuff. Certainlly, the author clearly admires Tolkien, so I don't think that fans need to get defensive about it.
I think that the style and tone of Sil and CoH is different to LotR, particularly the Fellowship part of trilogy. This writer seems to prefer the tone of the Sil, that is his right.
Another thing - these are works of literature, not religious tracts, so to discuss conflict/shift/discrepancy within the books is to highlight what is interesting about them, and to praise the range and skill of the author - it is not to attack them. For example, I could write an essay about the shift in tone between the brutal/gothic opening and domestic/romantic ending of Wuthering Heights. This shift in tone makes WH in my opinion a more, not less, interesting novel.

[Mnemosyne]

I think that the style and tone of Sil and CoH is different to LotR, particularly the Fellowship part of trilogy. This writer seems to prefer the tone of the Sil, that is his right.
Another thing - these are works of literature, not religious tracts, so to discuss conflict/shift/discrepancy within the books is to highlight what is interesting about them, and to praise the range and skill of the author - it is not to attack them. For example, I could write an essay about the shift in tone between the brutal/gothic opening and domestic/romantic ending of Wuthering Heights. This shift in tone makes WH in my opinion a more, not less, interesting novel.

I agree--but I don't think it necessarily follows that, accompanying the stylistic shift, there's a philosophical one.

Or, if it is, I don't think that the philosophical one is the one that the essayist argues for. LotR to my mind is basically the Silm with hobbits. Seeing Middle-earth through their eyes rather than those of the tragically doomed elves gives the whole world and its passing into mundanity a completely different context--not necessarily a different morality.

[Galadriel55]

The author talks about a 'shift' which he says he finds fascinating.

But he calls it a problem.

Certainlly, the author clearly admires Tolkien, so I don't think that fans need to get defensive about it.

He might admire Tolkien, but he doesn't sound like he knows what he's speaking about.

I think that the style and tone of Sil and CoH is different to LotR, particularly the Fellowship part of trilogy. This writer seems to prefer the tone of the Sil, that is his right.

The tone is definitely different, but in my opinion the author doesn't prefer the tone of The Sil and COH, but calls it inconsistent.


I agree--but I don't think it necessarily follows that, accompanying the stylistic shift, there's a philosophical one.
Or, if it is, I don't think that the philosophical one is the one that the essayist argues for. LotR to my mind is basically the Silm with hobbits. Seeing Middle-earth through their eyes rather than those of the tragically doomed elves gives the whole world and its passing into mundanity a completely different context--not necessarily a different morality.

This makes more sense to me.

[Formendacil]

I don't buy the idea that Turin's "fate" is external to him at all: as many things go wrong that are the result of his own actions (the sack of Nargothrond, which is a direct result of Turin's more open style of confrontation) as the result of the curse acting through chance (Beleg's knife slipping as he cuts Turin's bonds). The same goes for the rebellious Noldor: it is not the Doom of Mandos which made the Silmarils burn Maedhros and Maglor, but the evil of their own deeds in getting them.

Indeed, part of the beauty of CoH is that you simply don't know how much of the horrible things that happen are due to the curse, and how much of them are due to Turin himself. If you say it's all one or all the other, the work loses its nuance and subtlety. I don't think that the morality in Silm-era works is necessarily incompatible with that in LotR: the only difference between the two eras is the extent to which the gods got involved in others' affairs.

On this note, if one gives any credence to the idea that there is a unity in Tolkien's work, I think the final pages of The Hobbit sheds some light on the idea. Doesn't Gandalf say to Bilbo something to the effect of "Surely you'd disbelieve the ancient prophecies just because you had a hand in bringing them about?"

One of the fascinating things about fate/prophecies/doom is the question of whether the one fated/doomed/prophecied is free to end up there or determined... and it's a philosophical question that has been much considered in the western tradition, at least since Christianity got involved with its dual offerings of free will and prophecy.

Obviously, there's a vast difference in mood and outcome between The Hobbit and The Children of Húrin, but I don't know if I'd go so far as to say they have two different takes on fate/prophecy. The difference, as I see it, is chiefly that Bilbo/Dale get a happy prophecy, while Túrin/Nienor/et al get a tragic doom. The philosophical question is whether, the outcomes having been foreseen, those involved had a choice in getting there or not.

[Inziladun]

Obviously, there's a vast difference in mood and outcome between The Hobbit and The Children of Húrin, but I don't know if I'd go so far as to say they have two different takes on fate/prophecy. The difference, as I see it, is chiefly that Bilbo/Dale get a happy prophecy, while Túrin/Nienor/et al get a tragic doom. The philosophical question is whether, the outcomes having been foreseen, those involved had a choice in getting there or not.

I think it's clear that individual choices have an effect on 'doom'.

Bilbo's "happy prophesy" was made possible by his own actions. What if Bilbo had decided to kill Gollum instead of showing him mercy? What if Bilbo had left the Dwarves to their fate when they were captured by the spiders, or imprisoned in the Elvenking's halls? Would that happy ending have come about?

As Mnemo said, contrast that with Túrin. If he had agreed to face Thingol's judgment in the death of Saeros, he would not have left Doriath, because Nellas would have been present to give the truth of the matter and Túrin would have been pardoned. If Túrin had stayed in Doriath, it is difficult to see how Morgoth's curse could have been fulfilled. Morwen and Nienor would have found him there, and the whole sorry outcome need not have happened.

Also, look at the difference between Boromir and Faramir. The former, through his own pride and desire for power, was easy prey for the Ring. His humbler and wiser brother saw the Ring for what it was, and effectively resisted its temptation.

Perhaps "fate" is merely the natural outcome of choices made, not predestined, but all the same known to the Children's creator.

[Bêthberry]

Perhaps "fate" is merely the natural outcome of choices made, not predestined, but all the same known to the Children's creator.


. . . the Ainur know much of what was, and is, and is to come, and few things are unseen by them. Yet some things there are that they cannot see, neither alone nor taking counsel together; for to none but himself has Iluvatar revealed all that he has in store, and in every age there come forth things that are new and have no foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past. And so it was that as this vision of the World was played before them, the Ainur saw that it contained things which they had not thought. And they saw with amazement the coming of the Children of Iluvatar, and the habitation that was prepared for them; and they perceived that they themselves in the labour of their music had been busy with the preparation of this dwellling, and yet knew not that it had any purppose beyond its own beauty. For the Children of Iluvatar were conceived by him alone; and they came with the third theme, and were not in the theme which Iluvatar propounded at the beginning. . . . Now the Children of Iluvatar are Elves and Men, the First-born and the Followers . . . .

The Children of Iluvatar come with the third music, but they are not part of the music.

Fleiger argues this means that the Children have free will. The Ainur are said to like the Children because of the very fact that they, unlike the Ainur themselves, are free.


Therefore the more did they [the Ainur] love them [the Children], being things other than themselves, strange and free, wherein they saw the mind if Iluvatar reflected anew. . .

So, what Mnemo said:


I don't buy the idea that Turin's "fate" is external to him at all: as many things go wrong that are the result of his own actions (the sack of Nargothrond, which is a direct result of Turin's more open style of confrontation) as the result of the curse acting through chance (Beleg's knife slipping as he cuts Turin's bonds). The same goes for the rebellious Noldor: it is not the Doom of Mandos which made the Silmarils burn Maedhros and Maglor, but the evil of their own deeds in getting them.

Indeed, part of the beauty of CoH is that you simply don't know how much of the horrible things that happen are due to the curse, and how much of them are due to Turin himself. If you say it's all one or all the other, the work loses its nuance and subtlety. I don't think that the morality in Silm-era works is necessarily incompatible with that in LotR: the only difference between the two eras is the extent to which the gods got involved in others' affairs.

Nietzsche is the philosopher known for the line "God is dead". (Whether that is an exact statement, I cannot recall, I'm simply remembering a generally known comment.) So it would be a bit strange to use him to analyse a text which fits into a mytholgoy of Iluvatar without discussing that possibility.

[Galin]

As an aside: as Bethberry noted, Verlyn Flieger does argue that the Children of God have free will, yet she seemingly argues this distinction as well: that Elves do not have Free Will in the same sense as Men -- that the decisions of the Elves don't alter external outcome (as they are bound to the Music)! She looks at Feanor's decision concerning the Silmarils and notes: 'I take the operation of free will in this instance to be along the lines of Feanor's in saying ya or nay to Yavanna -- an internal process not affecting events but deeply influencing the inner nature of individuals involved in those events.'

My brevity here does not intend to be unfair to her actual (and full) case in detail however, so I'll refer people to Tolkien Studies VI (in this volume Carl Hostetter also provides some previously unpublished text from JRRT that touches upon the matter).

Also I'm a bit hazy on whether or not she allows for exceptions to that rule (Galadriel when offered the Ring for example), but in any case: I disagree, as do others.

Tolkien once noted...

'According to the fable Elves and Men were the first of these intrusions, made indeed while the 'story' was still only a story and not 'realized'; they were not therefore in any sense conceived or made by the gods, the Valar, and were called the Eruhini or 'Children of God', and were for the Valar an incalculable element: that is they were rational creatures of free will in regard to God, of the same historical rank as the Valar, though of far smaller spiritual and intellectual power and status.'

JRRT, from letter 181, probably 1956

In Splintered Light (Splintered Light and Splintered Being, page 53) Verlyn Flieger explains:

'In a letter to a reviewer of The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien declared that both races were "rational creatures of free will in regard to God" (letters 236). The key may lie in the phrase "in regard to God", suggesting that in the sub-created world God, Eru, who proposed the theme but had the Ainur make the music, is himself beyond and above it. This implies a kind of Boethian concept in which the mind of God encompasses any design perceivable by any of his creatures and is explicit in such statements by Eru to the Ainur, as "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my respite" (Silm 17)

'(...) This seems to make it clear that in Tolkien's cosmology, which encompasses both fate and free will, the mind of the Prime Mover extends beyond the Creation to leave room for what to earthbound perceivers may appear as exceptions to the rule. (...)'

In 'The Music and the Task: Fate and Free Will in Middle-earth' (Tolkien Studies) Flieger writes:

The trouble lies not with free will, but with fate. Readers who assume (and most do) that characters in Tolkien's invented world are free to choose, find the opposing notion that they are predestined hard to accept. And the idea that both principles are concurrently at work (and apparently at odds) is a concept even harder to encompass. It is, nevertheless, a concept integral to a mythology whose overarching scheme is that fate, conceived as kind of divinely inspired and celestially orchestrated music, governs the created world -- with one exception. of all Middle-earth's sentient species, the race of Men (including Hobbits) is the only group given the "virtue" to "shape their lives" beyond the scope of this music. In contradistinction, the otherwise generally similar race of Elves, (both races being the Children of [the godhead] Iluvatar) is, together with the rest of Creation, ruled by fate.


As I say I must disagree that Elves only have Free Will in this internal sense, but as this is a longish aside...

:D

[Galadriel55]

Bilbo's "happy prophesy" was made possible by his own actions.

...

If Túrin had stayed in Doriath, it is difficult to see how Morgoth's curse could have been fulfilled. Morwen and Nienor would have found him there, and the whole sorry outcome need not have happened.

Turin's issue is more complicated than Bilbo's. I do agree that it's their choices that lead them towhere they are. However, in Turin's case, it's a curse, not a prophecy, and in Doriath, there is also the power of Melian. Morgoth says: "The shadow of my thought shall lie upon them [Hurin's family] wherever they go, and my hate shall pursue them to the ends of the world." This implies that Morgoth meddled with Turin's fate, not simply predicted it.

About Doriath. I noticed that whenever Morgoth and Melian have a "mental battle", Melian wins, like in this passage: "To her [Melian] often his thought reached out, and there was foiled." Maybe the Girdle would have shielded Turin from the curse as well, if he didn't bring it on himself.


Perhaps "fate" is merely the natural outcome of choices made, not predestined, but all the same known to the Children's creator.

I'd agree with that, but I think that you also have to take into account the possibility of someone making a 'wrong' choice. Maybe people just can't make 'wrong' choices? I mean, those that would go against fate (good/bad doesn't matter). They still think they choose, but really the choice was made for them (or made to fit them) beforehand.

I think we got a bit off topic with discussing 'fate', don't you? I blame it on all the jumbled up nonesense in the essay. ;)

[tumhalad2]

The "problem" the writer refers to is the disjunction between two moral systems, and the incompatability of Turin's life-story, which involves both his own bad choices and the whims of fate, and the universe of the Lord of the Rings, suffused with the presence of a supposedly benevolent creator god. If this god were truly all-knowing (omniscient), all loving (omnibenevolent) and "everywhere at once" (omnipresent) and all-powerful (omnipotent), then surely it follows logically that he would not allow suffering to occur.

This dilemma exists regardless of what Tolkien actually thought about fate and free will; it seems to me that he never really grappled with this issue with regards to his All-Father, Illuvatar. But he seems to have understood something of it at least implicity. Hence we have competing moral views in both LoTR and CoH, whatever their "intra-text" or "historical" associations. In CoH, Eru, as conceived in the Ainulindale, does not, or cannot, be said to exist. Were he omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, he would possess the capability and desire to save Turin because he is

1. everywhere at once,
2. has an infinitely good will , and so would under no circumstances allow suffering to occur,
3. would know at all times Turin's whereabout and actions and
4. has no restrictions on his power.

Given these premises, Illuvatar could not logically allow Turin to suffer. That he does so (assuming he exists in Turin's universe) suggests that Illuvatar lacks one of these qualities altogether, and so is not, in fact, an all powerful, all loving god (and is therefore markedly different to the traditionally conceived Christian god). Of course, there are still problems for LoTR because suffering occurs within the framework of that tale as well. But the problem is more obvious and far more immediately present in CoH.

All this presents an implicit critique of the Christian (or rather, the notion of an all powerful monotheistic) god, strange as that may be in Tolkien's work. Illuvatar simply cannot logically exist in Turin's universe, unless he lacks one of the "omni" characterstics described above. He can't really exist in the universe of LoTR either, but the issues there are somewhat different.

In LoTR, Tolkien makes a concious attempt to suggest a benevolent power is orchestrating certain events. Thus, we see a more defined system of morality that exists independant of human beings, who are expected to maintain certain moral standards according to this system. As the essayist writes, "...moral agency shifts onto the individual...". In CoH, Turin is still responsible, to some degree, for his actions, although he is not expected to suffer for the sake of some moral cause. In other words, the world of CoH is far more like our own, in that some suffering has precisely no moral value at all, and occurs regardless. We may say that this is all the "doing of Morgoth", but this still fails answer the question of why Turin would or even could suffer in a world that is nurtured by an all loving, all powerful and omnipresent god. Once again, we are forced to conclude that Illuvatar lacks one of these attributes, contrary to the suggestion of the texts, and is thus a far more limited god, perhaps more powerful that the Valar, but not infitely powerful. If he is infinitely powerful, then we must say that he is not infinitely loving, and is therefore imperfect. In other words, suffering is logically impossible in a world governed by a god who is both infinitely powerful and infinitely loving.

Morgoth's curse exists, to be sure, but as many have pointed out we are never fully aware of the extent to which it actually works, or indeed how it works. Some suffering just happens, because the world is innately cruel, or at least indifferent. That is the similarity that the essayist alludes to with regards to the Oedipus story: Oedipus is not morally responsible for the tragedy that befalls him, at least not fully. To have moral responsibility implies agency and knowledge, and Oedipus, as well as Turin, lack complete moral agency because they lack complete knowledge. How was Turin to know that Nellas would return to Thingol and speak on his behalf? Given the circumstances, one might contend that his actions were justified, and not rash at all.

Constrast this to the situation in LoTR. The characters' decisions take on a moral dimension. The suffering depicted LoTR takes on a moral dimension. That is why it lacks the element of tragedy. Frodo and Sam must suffer because they are doing the right thing, not merely because the world is harsh. Their suffering attains a kind of cosmological meaning, which in turn suggests their lives are guided by providential purpose and design. For all of Sauron's diabolical evil, this is still a much more comforting imaginary world than that which lacks this quality of providentiality.

Still, LoTR does not solve the dilemma described above. God in this world is apparently all loving; he has benevolent intentions and wishes for Sauron to lose his power. However, he is apparently not all powerful, for if this were the case he would logically intervene and destroy Sauron himself (indeed, Sauron would never have arisen in such a universe).

This is the "problem" alluded to by the essayist: "a reader...wonders why such a cruel fate, usually the whim of fickle gods, can befall Túrin Turambar when Eru Ilúvatar is a benevolent creator." In LoTR, a benevolent presence appears to act behind the scenes; in CoH no such force is ever alluded to. A universe with a benevolent god as its creator is a very different one to a universe without such a god, and this is the discrepancy the essayist is referring to. Tolkien imagines alternate cosmologies for his characters to traverse, essentially showing us one where morality is the responsibility of individuals because the universe is the product of a benevolent god. In this universe, individuals can be sure, even certain in some cases, about the 'correct' moral path. The other universe is one where suffering just happens, and might lack meaning or :smokin:ultimate purpose. Morality still exists, but individuals have less responsibility (not no responsibility) in this world because they have no final and absolute way of guaging right from wrong. They have responsibility insofar as they can discern the right path, but beyond that there is little certainty.

Morality thus becomes an epistemic issue: given that no one seems to have access to divine knowledge or guidance in Turin's world (and thus complete knowledge) all choices and actions are undertaken according to provisional standards. The right path may not be the most obvious one; indeed there may not be a right path in some instances, or there may be many. Turin is not guided by a benevolent god, and so is left with his own provisional experience to guide him through the world at large, an experience that is inadequate, ultimately, and leaves him stranded and dying. That is why the story is tragic: because Turin (and Nienor, and Morwen, and Hurin) are alone and lack the kind of moral certainties that Frodo has access to. Frodo has Gandalf, who tells him that it he was "meant to find the ring", and in some sense also meant to suffer for the sake of its destruction. Turin was never "meant" to do anything: his tragedy is being born into an indifferent world, set upon by a diabolical and monstrous evil and forsaken to face it alone.

[Inziladun]

The "problem" the writer refers to is the disjunction between two moral systems, and the incompatability of Turin's life-story, which involves both his own bad choices and the whims of fate, and the universe of the Lord of the Rings, suffused with the presence of a supposedly benevolent creator god. If this god were truly all-knowing (omniscient), all loving (omnibenevolent) and "everywhere at once" (omnipresent) and all-powerful (omnipotent), then surely it follows logically that he would not allow suffering to occur.

I want to avoid any direct discussion of real-world parallels, but I think that suffering, as joy, can occur as a result of free will. If one is to be rescued from the consequences of every bad decision, what's the point of attempting to do good? This may lead to the age-old question of why good things happen to bad people, but at least in Túrin's case I don't think that's a consideration. The man wasn't by nature evil, by any means, but his pride led him into some evil situations.

How was Turin to know that Nellas would return to Thingol and speak on his behalf? Given the circumstances, one might contend that his actions were justified, and not rash at all.

I wouldn't judge his actions there to be justified. Understandable, perhaps. Later though, Túrin is explicitly told by Beleg that he was ultimately not held responsible for the death of Saeros, and still his pride kept him from returning to Doriath, which would have made it much harder, at least, for Morgoth's curse to have come to fruition.

Morality thus becomes an epistemic issue: given that no one seems to have access to divine knowledge or guidance in Turin's world (and thus complete knowledge) all choices and actions are undertaken according to provisional standards.

Actually, there was such a person, and Túrin, unlike any other Man (except Beren), had the opportunity to benefit from her wisdom: Melian. And unlike the later situation in the Third Age with the Istari, it was likely generally known that Melian was of the 'divine' race.
The principal characters in LOTR do have Gandalf's wisdom to guide them, but they, by and large, did not know what Gandalf was, and thus were unaware that his advice was any more weighty than that given by others. They, of their own free will, chose to listen to him. It's notable too, I think, that at least one person in LOTR has Gandalf beside him, and still goes down to ruin as a result of his own actions: Denethor.

[Galadriel55]

First of all, I don't understand how the presense or absence of a god makes something (im)moral.

You say that Eru doesn't have one of the qualities you mentioned, because he didn't help Turin. But I think he does. He doesn't point his kids to the right path, but gives them a choice. (And that means more responsibility, in my opinion).

1. Eru knows what is hapening everywhere. You can say that he's literally everywhere, because all the substance of Arda came from him, and is kind of a part of him.

2. He created the world and gave it to his children to play with. He doesn't have to play with them to be a loving daddy (ie god). After he gave them the toy, he doesn't interfere in their game (well, yeah, once - he punished the naughty Numenorians). The children quarrel, make up, fight again, but that's how they learn! It's not like Eru doesn't cera about his children, he just doesn't interrupt their game: it's up to them to sort it out.

3. Remember the words said in the beginning of The Sil about how "bad things" make "good things" even more beautiful? That should answer some questions.

4. Eru doesn't tell his children how to play. That is their choice. He can always stop the game, but he doesn't.

5. I'd say that Eru also loves Melkor. However naughty that child is, he is still his child. So is Sauron. That doesn't mean that Eru approves of what they do.

(These points aren't in the same order as yours. And yes, I consider ainur to be children as well - in a way, they are the 'big ones'.:p)

You also say that Eru is unlike the God that Catholics believe in. Why? Because he allowed war, tragedy, loss, etc to happen? The "Christian God" allowed JRRT to fight in WW1, so why can't Eru allow wars to happen his world?

Moreover, it's wrong to say that Turin is totally on his own. Melian guided him, but he didn't listen. She was his Gandalf. Frodo could always say no to Gandalf. Bilbo did. Gandalf in a way enforced the choice on whoever it was. Melian left Turin free to choose, and didn't hinder him when he chose what she thought was wrong. That is the only difference.

PS: it seems to me that 'fate' in COH is not the same as 'Eru made it so'. You choose your own fate, even though it is already there. Eru knows about it, but he doesn't make it. You make it. The same is with LOTR!

EDIT: x'd with Zil. What he said make total sense (and I've repeated some of it :p)

[Morthoron]

The "problem" the writer refers to is the disjunction between two moral systems, and the incompatability of Turin's life-story, which involves both his own bad choices and the whims of fate, and the universe of the Lord of the Rings, suffused with the presence of a supposedly benevolent creator god. If this god were truly all-knowing (omniscient), all loving (omnibenevolent) and "everywhere at once" (omnipresent) and all-powerful (omnipotent), then surely it follows logically that he would not allow suffering to occur.

The "problem" as inferred by said writer is nonsense. Again, Tumhalad, you are taking events out of context in an effort to serve your ongoing proposition, merely rewording your theories in every post you make, but nevertheless ending with the same central thesis. One would think, by your lack of intertextuality, that suffering of an individual only occurs with Turin in CoH, and not throughout Tolkien's entire corpus. Your continuing attempts to divorce Turin's fate from his bad choices and attempting to make them separate issues does not take into account the overall plot and overarching theme of the story.

This dilemma exists regardless of what Tolkien actually thought about fate and free will; it seems to me that he never really grappled with this issue with regards to his All-Father, Illuvatar. But he seems to have understood something of it at least implicity. Hence we have competing moral views in both LoTR and CoH, whatever their "intra-text" or "historical" associations. In CoH, Eru, as conceived in the Ainulindale, does not, or cannot, be said to exist. Were he omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, he would possess the capability and desire to save Turin because he is

1. everywhere at once,
2. has an infinitely good will , and so would under no circumstances allow suffering to occur,
3. would know at all times Turin's whereabout and actions and
4. has no restrictions on his power.

Given these premises, Illuvatar could not logically allow Turin to suffer. That he does so (assuming he exists in Turin's universe) suggests that Illuvatar lacks one of these qualities altogether, and so is not, in fact, an all powerful, all loving god (and is therefore markedly different to the traditionally conceived Christian god). Of course, there are still problems for LoTR because suffering occurs within the framework of that tale as well. But the problem is more obvious and far more immediately present in CoH.

You are reading in a vacuum. How many Elves and Men suffered equal horrific fates in the First Age without the intervention of Eru? The answer is simple, but since you insist on ignoring "'intra-text' or 'historical' associations", it is never apparent to you, and you keep stumbling down the same blind path to an empty well.

Direct guardianship of Arda in the First Age is the sole dominion of the Valar; nowhere in the First Age does Eru interfere with their jurisdiction, whether implied or directly. Elves placed under the Doom of Mandos and those tribes of Men who followed the Noldor, suffer gravely. The plight of Arda is either heightened by the Valar's inaction, or relieved by their direct intercession -- not Eru. Hence, your entire proposition is flawed beyond recall, and should rightly be rejected out of hand. Eru does not become directly involved with matters on Middle-earth until the Valar surrender their jurisdiction to their creator, which is a momentous decision. Eru then destroys Numenor, but like Yahweh of the Old Testament, he allows Elendil and the Faithful to return to Middle-earth after the Great Flood.

In addition, Turin serves as the antithesis to Tuor, his cousin and direct contemporary (who is mentioned in CoH following a path in a different direction than the one Turin takes). Tuor listens and follows the dictates of the Valar (in this case, Ulmo) implicitly and never deviates from the role he has been given. Yet suffering on an epic scale occurs when Gondolin is destroyed because Turgon rejects Ulmo's direct intervention through Tuor. Yet Tuor's faithful service is rewarded, even if his divine message was rejected. Turin, on the other hand, rejects wise counsel (and in Melian's case, divine counsel) at several critical junctures during the exact same time period as Tuor, and he and his family suffer the direct consequences of his willful stubbornness and blind anger.

[Galadriel55]

tumhalad, I'll be totally honest here: you're trying to prove utter nonesense with even more nonesense. If you insist on believing that, it's your choice. I think there are enough arguments presented to you to make you see the flaws in your statements. I'm not going to waste my breath anymore trying to convince you.

One very applicable true thingy from a different thread:

I guess we can only agree to disagree.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

It seems to me that Eru Iluvatar in no way fails anyone when he doesn't directly intervene to prevent suffering. He gave people all the tools they need to make their own decisions, of their own free wills, when he created them. What people -- any people, be they Ainu, Elf, Human, Dwarf, Hobbit, etc. -- choose to do with their lives is part of their own personal reason for being, to live their lives and not have them lived for them by others, even by Eru. Some people choose to do wrong of such immense proportions, they influence and limit the choices of others, but at some point or another, everyone has a choice, to do or not to do, to be or not to be. If Eru stepped in every single time to make sure there was a "happy" outcome, then what would be the point of free will in the first place?

This essay to me reads like a manifesto from some of the Christian Fundamentalists with whom I'm acquainted, ones who believe that you can just give up free will and then everything you do from that point on is, of course, the result of the dictates of God and therefore not your fault. The absurd egotism of this attitude strikes me every single time these people shove it in my face; after all, if God wouldn't take away a bitter choice from his own son in the garden of Gethsemane, why would he do it for people who just want to be quit of the responsibility of making their own decisions and living with the consequences? This writer likes the seemingly "external" morality of the Sil and such because it appears to remove the personal responsibility aspect and shove everything onto Eru's plate. But that isn't an accurate interpretation, since the entire saga of the Silmarillion is a tale of personal choices, personal morals, and a supreme being who rarely, at most, directly interferes in the free choices of his creations.

Agh, sorry, this is a very hot button topic for me. It's this kind of thinking and this sort of "morality" that has resulted in monstrous abuse being passed on from generation to generation in my family. My belief is otherwise. To quote a recent so-called children's movie, "Destiny is not the path given to us, but the path we choose." I believe it's right.

All my two cents, and very much IMHO.

[tumhalad2]

The "problem" as inferred by said writer is nonsense. Again, Tumhalad, you are taking events out of context in an effort to serve your ongoing proposition, merely rewording your theories in every post you make, but nevertheless ending with the same central thesis. One would think, by your lack of intertextuality, that suffering of an individual only occurs with Turin in CoH, and not throughout Tolkien's entire corpus. Your continuing attempts to divorce Turin's fate from his bad choices and attempting to make them separate issues does not take into account the overall plot and overarching theme of the story.

You are reading in a vacuum. How many Elves and Men suffered equal horrific fates in the First Age without the intervention of Eru? The answer is simple, but since you insist on ignoring "'intra-text' or 'historical' associations", it is never apparent to you, and you keep stumbling down the same blind path to an empty well.

I'm not sure why you treat me like such a pariah, is it you prerogative to decide who belongs to the in group and the out group on these boards? You could be nicer.

How many Elves and Men suffer? I imagine many do, and that only makes my point more immediate. Without the intervention of Eru? That's the question I'm trying to tackle in my post. I don't think the essayist was writing nonsense. Why, indeed, would Tolkien write about a fictional world created by a god with contradictory and illogical qualities? He probably didn't actually recognise the Problem of Evil per se, as it is formalised logically, although it is obvious that the nature of evil itself is one of the primary themes of his works.

Suffering does occur in all Tolkien's works, but Turin's suffering is singled out and expanded upon in almost novelistic terms, hence it is an interesting case study. I don't agree with you that the writer is inferring "nonsense", and I don't think Tolkien's internal metaphysics supplies an answer to the problem of evil in his world.

With regards to Turin, Melian has been repeatedly mentioned as some kind of divine authority, and that the difference between her and Gandalf is that Frodo listened to Gandalf's advice whereas Turin rejects Melian's. True, she may be of "divine" stature, but she is not, and she does not claim to speak for, God. While Gandalf does not claim to speak for God explicitly, his words are just one example in LoTR where he (or the text) makes claims about the nature of fate. In LoTR, we are left with the sense that fate is orchestrated by unseen divine powers. There is a qualitative difference between this, and Turin receiving "wisdom" from Melian, or "advice" from Elven messengers, regardless of which Vala they claim to speak for.

The Valar are not omnipresent, omnipotent, nor indeed omnibenevolent, so their perspective, while powerful, is also provisional. Even were Turin to take the advice of the Valar, he would not have moral certainty of his life choices. We might say he would be better off had he chosen listen to the advice of Ulmo, for instance, but we cannot know for certain that his life would have turned out for the better. Frodo can be sure that the purpose of destroying the Ring is the correct one, and that his suffering thereby attains meaning. Events that take place within the LoTR have purpose, they are sanctioned. In CoH, the closest we come to this is the "advice" of the Valar; there is no sense that events are meaningfully orchestrated by unseen benevolent powers.

The Valar are characters in the fiction, powerful characters, to be sure, but temporally and spatially limited, just like the Elves and Men (though to a lesser degree).

[Galadriel55]

I thought I'm through with explanations, but it seems I'm not...:rolleyes:

The purpose of The Sil/COH: DEFEAT MORGOTH. Plain as that. In COH it expands to AVENGE ME AND MY FAMILY.

Turin has just as much 'right'/choice not to listen to Melian as Frodo has not to listen to Gandalf, and vise versa. The fact that the outcome of Melian's and Gandalf's advice is different doesn't make their roles totally different. Because what you said is that Melian cannot be qualified as a 'guide' (like Gandalf) because Turin didn't listen to her. Look, if a student doesn't follow a teacher's instructions, they're still student and teacher, aren't they?

It's true that Gandalf was sent with a mission, and Melian was just there. Well, it's just like being asked to work vs volunteering to work. The work remains the same.

You are saying that if a god is perfect, he would't allow suffering. But a perfect world isn't one where there is only happiness. It is a balanced world, where you can see the differences. You don't know what happiness is until you compare it with sorrow/suffering/etc.

Turin is just one person out of thousands that suffered in ME. He is sort of special, because his story is even more ironical and tragic than most others. But that doesn't ean that he's the only one suffering. The Narn describes the story in great detail, but Tolkien never singled Turin out the way you make it sound.

[Inziladun]

Suffering does occur in all Tolkien's works, but Turin's suffering is singled out and expanded upon in almost novelistic terms, hence it is an interesting case study. I don't agree with you that the writer is inferring "nonsense", and I don't think Tolkien's internal metaphysics supplies an answer to the problem of evil in his world.

From a standpoint "in-world", Túrin's story would likely have been so well remembered in later times for the unusual elements of Morgoth's curse, and the incest event.
Túrin was singled out for special torment by an incarnate evil power, and thus could be said to have had more of an unjust lot than many, but that didn't preclude avoiding the curse, or at least lessening its impact by embracing a bit of humility and wisdom.

The Valar are not omnipresent, omnipotent, nor indeed omnibenevolent, so their perspective, while powerful, is also provisional. Even were Turin to take the advice of the Valar, he would not have moral certainty of his life choices. We might say he would be better off had he chosen listen to the advice of Ulmo, for instance, but we cannot know for certain that his life would have turned out for the better.

True, the Valar are themselves created beings and are certainly capable of error. In the legendarium though, is there any instance of one of the Children coming to grief when they did obey personal advice from one of them? As has been noted, Tuor, of his own free will, decided to obey Ulmo and go to Gondolin.
Earlier in the First Age, Turgon listened to the words of Ulmo, founding Gondolin, and leaving behind in Vinyamar items later picked up by Tuor to use in his errand.
In LOTR, those who take to heart the words of Gandalf fare better than those who do not. Think of the differences between the fates of Aragorn and Denethor; Boromir and Faramir. All that isn't just a coincidence.

[Morthoron]

I'm not sure why you treat me like such a pariah, is it you prerogative to decide who belongs to the in group and the out group on these boards? You could be nicer.

I could be. Does that mean you will stop repeating yourself in post after post?

Suffering does occur in all Tolkien's works, but Turin's suffering is singled out and expanded upon in almost novelistic terms, hence it is an interesting case study. I don't agree with you that the writer is inferring "nonsense", and I don't think Tolkien's internal metaphysics supplies an answer to the problem of evil in his world.

Turin's story isn't necessarily "singled out", Tolkien simply did not have time to expand everything he wished to. He wrote the The Ley of Leithian in over 4000 lines of iambic tetrameter (which he didn't finish, only completing 13 of a planned 17 cantos), but that doesn't mean he wasn't interested in expanding other stories into poetic verse (The Lay of the Children of Hurin, with the same story elements as CoH, is another famously unfinished poem). Actually, he began rewriting the Lay of Leithian again after finishing LotR. To be honest, he never actually "finished" CoH either. He revised it several times, and it had to be compiled by C. Tolkien after his death from various manuscripts. Was it published in the manner JRR wished? That is completely up for conjecture.

With regards to Turin, Melian has been repeatedly mentioned as some kind of divine authority, and that the difference between her and Gandalf is that Frodo listened to Gandalf's advice whereas Turin rejects Melian's. True, she may be of "divine" stature, but she is not, and she does not claim to speak for, God. While Gandalf does not claim to speak for God explicitly, his words are just one example in LoTR where he (or the text) makes claims about the nature of fate. In LoTR, we are left with the sense that fate is orchestrated by unseen divine powers. There is a qualitative difference between this, and Turin receiving "wisdom" from Melian, or "advice" from Elven messengers, regardless of which Vala they claim to speak for.

If fate is divinely orchestrated in LotR, then the incredibly brave acts of Frodo and Sam are negated, the compassion Bilbo shows Gollum is unnecessary, and the work of Gandalf over a millenia was unneeded. What a useless book.

The Valar are not omnipresent, omnipotent, nor indeed omnibenevolent, so their perspective, while powerful, is also provisional.

WARNING: REPETITION ADVISORY!

Reread the Silmarillion as many times as you like. Eventually, you will discern that Eru does not take an active or implied part in the governance of Arda after its creation. The Valar, mistake-prone, annoyingly inactive and even criminally neglectful, have sole jurisdiction over Arda. It was their choice to capture Morgoth and hold him prisoner, it was their choice to ignore the near destruction of the Eldar and Edain after Morogth escaped and they banned the Noldor, and it was their choice to imprison Morgoth once and for all after Earendil arrived in Valinor wearing a Silmaril. Additionally, it was their unconscionable decision to ignore the escape of Sauron, which caused much of the agony of the 2nd and 3rd Age. If anyone, the Valar deserve full derision for their inept shepherding of Arda and all the suffering that occurred to Turin and nearly every other character in the books, not Eru. Had they done their jobs properly, we would not be having this discussion, nor would the books be written.

Only when Ar-Pharazon and the Numenoreans were on the shores of the Blessed Realm did the Valar surrended their governance to Eru, and it was only then that he finally interfered in the troubles of Arda. That's the story as written. I don't know how much clearer I can make it. The author of the essay didn't get it, and it seems you don't either. I can't explain it further.

[Galadriel55]

With regards to Turin, Melian has been repeatedly mentioned as some kind of divine authority, and that the difference between her and Gandalf is that Frodo listened to Gandalf's advice whereas Turin rejects Melian's. True, she may be of "divine" stature, but she is not, and she does not claim to speak for, God. While Gandalf does not claim to speak for God explicitly, his words are just one example in LoTR where he (or the text) makes claims about the nature of fate. In LoTR, we are left with the sense that fate is orchestrated by unseen divine powers. There is a qualitative difference between this, and Turin receiving "wisdom" from Melian, or "advice" from Elven messengers, regardless of which Vala they claim to speak for.

...

The Valar are characters in the fiction, powerful characters, to be sure, but temporally and spatially limited, just like the Elves and Men (though to a lesser degree).

If you see it that way, then you can't say that Gandalf speaks for god either, because he was sent to ME by the Valar, not by Eru.

Can someone please tell me, how does the presence of a god affect morality?

[Formendacil]

The Valar are not omnipresent, omnipotent, nor indeed omnibenevolent

.....

The Valar are characters in the fiction, powerful characters, to be sure, but temporally and spatially limited, just like the Elves and Men (though to a lesser degree).

I'd be careful... this cuts both ways: what's true of the Valar in terms of fallibility is true of Morgoth. And, for what it's worth, from the way it's presented, the Curse on the Children of Húrin is MORE dependent on Túrin's free agency than the Doom of the Noldor is on the free agency of the Elves.

[Bêthberry]

Pardon my delay in "asiding" to this aside, Galin. The thread has moved faster than RL allows me time.

As an aside: as Bethberry noted, Verlyn Flieger does argue that the Children of God have free will, yet she seemingly argues this distinction as well: that Elves do not have Free Will in the same sense as Men -- that the decisions of the Elves don't alter external outcome (as they are bound to the Music)! She looks at Feanor's decision concerning the Silmarils and notes: 'I take the operation of free will in this instance to be along the lines of Feanor's in saying ya or nay to Yavanna -- an internal process not affecting events but deeply influencing the inner nature of individuals involved in those events.'

My brevity here does not intend to be unfair to her actual (and full) case in detail however, so I'll refer people to Tolkien Studies VI (in this volume Carl Hostetter also provides some previously unpublished text from JRRT that touches upon the matter).

Also I'm a bit hazy on whether or not she allows for exceptions to that rule (Galadriel when offered the Ring for example), but in any case: I disagree, as do others.

Tolkien once noted...



In Splintered Light (Splintered Light and Splintered Being, page 53) Verlyn Flieger explains:



In 'The Music and the Task: Fate and Free Will in Middle-earth' (Tolkien Studies) Flieger writes:




As I say I must disagree that Elves only have Free Will in this internal sense, but as this is a longish aside...

:D

I must admit that I deliberately omitted Fleiger's idea about the elves, for several reasons. :eek:

First of all, I mentioned her mainly because I wanted to be clear that the distinction between coming with the music rather than being part of the music was not my own idea. I read it in her Splintered Light (revised edition)and felt she deserved the acknowledgement.

Secondly, I'm not completely satisfied I understand why she makes that distinction between elves and men, unless it is to bolster her claims about the nature of splintering and of Light in Tolkien's mythology.

As far as I can see, she bases her idea on this passage:


For it is said that after the departure of the Valar there was silence, and for an age Iluvatar sat alone in thought. Then he spoke and said: 'Behold I love the Earth, which shall be a mansion for the Quendi and the Atani! But the Quendi shall be the fairest of all earthly creatures, and they shall have and shall conceive and bring forth more beauty than all my Children; and they shall have the greater bliss in this world. But to the Atani I will give a new gift.' Therefore he willed that the hearts of Men should seek beyond the world and should find no rest therein; but they should have a virtue to shape 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 form and deed, completed, and the world fulfilled unto the last and smallest.

But Iluvatar knew that Men, being set amid the turmoils of th epowers of the world, would stray often, and would not use theirs gifts in harmony; and he said, 'These too in their time shall find that all that they do redounds at the end only to the glory of my work.'


In reading this passage as excluding the elves from freedom from the music, she appears to dismiss the earlier passage from The Silm I quoted where both of the Children have free will from the determination of the Music.

My guess is that she established her theory before HoMe was published and has not taken any of the new texts into account in her reading of this passage (in the revised edition). I could be wrong, though, as I have not followed her work and that of others in Tolkien Studies.

As you suggest, Fleiger doesn't, as far as I recall, discuss this difference between inner effect and outer events in the instance of Galadriel's gift of the Phial to Frodo.

This does not, I think, discount the existence of free will among men.


In CoH, Eru, as conceived in the Ainulindale, does not, or cannot, be said to exist. Were he omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, he would possess the capability and desire to save Turin because he is
1. everywhere at once,
2. has an infinitely good will , and so would under no circumstances allow suffering to occur,
3. would know at all times Turin's whereabout and actions and
4. has no restrictions on his power.


As every parent who has successfully navigated the stormy shoals of their child's adolescence knows, sometimes you have to step aside and, in the true benevolence of acknowleding your child's freedom and adulthood, allow your child to make mistakes and thus suffer. For the benefit of allowing your child to reach maturity, you have to impose a restriction on your own benevolence. It is one of the most difficult lessons of parenting. And how much more this applies to adult children.

[tumhalad2]

I'd be careful... this cuts both ways: what's true of the Valar in terms of fallibility is true of Morgoth. And, for what it's worth, from the way it's presented, the Curse on the Children of Húrin is MORE dependent on Túrin's free agency than the Doom of the Noldor is on the free agency of the Elves.

True, Morgoth is just as (if not more, considering his rapid existential decline) fallible as the Valar. I also agree that the Curse is presented as being dependent on Turin's free agency as opposed to metaphysical designs (at least to some degree).

But the point is that Turin's free agency is limited by his lack moral certainty. He does exhibit pride, and repeatedly rejects the advice of friends and those wiser than himself, but we need to bare in mind that as far as Turin is concerned, the advice of others constitutes only marginally better courses of action than his own decisoin. We may fault Turin for rejecting good advice, but we cannot fault Turin for rejecting divine will. Nowhere in the text is it implied that providential forces are at work in Turin's universe, as they are in LoTR.

At this point I need to address another criticism. Given that we know Eru essentially grants the Valar power in Middle-earth, doesn't it follow that all this philosophical wrangling is just insubstantive talk? Well, no. It is true that Eru does give the Valar some kind of temporal authority, but we are never left thinking that he has cut himself off from the world entirely. As far as I understand it, Eru is the Christian god, and therefore must necessarily have certain attributes that the Christian god also possesses. If you argue that he does not possess these attributes, you are in fact admitting that Eru is necessarily imperfect and deistic, something that Tolkien seems not to have intended.

When I say that fate is "divinely orchestrated" I do not mean to discount the obvious free will exhibited by the characters in LoTR. "Fate" as a concept does not define people's individual actions; rather fate is far more obviously at work at a "macro" level. Thus, Bilbo was "meant" to find the ring. Although Bilbo's choices contributed, to some degree, to his being in Gollum's cave, readers are led to understand that his being there was not a coincidence.
"Fate" as understood through LoTR, possesses a benevolent teleological quality that works in tandem with characters' free will. The benevolent providential forces that undeniably suffuse the story in LoTR do not exist at the expense of free-will; they work, literally, in mysterious ways. But it is present.

I made the point that Gandalf is the first to mention that forces other than mere chance may be at work in the case of Frodo's possessing the ring. Given that I had also denied the completely divine authority of Melian and other "angelic" beings, it was pointed out that I can't have it both ways - I must accept that Gandalf also possesses provisional knowledge according to these standards. Indeed he does, but my point was not that Gandalf has a kind of one way cell phone connection to God. He is just the first to make mention of this theme, which is elaborated upon in throughout the novel. The reader is never left to doubt the presence of a benevolent will at work, countering the movements of Sauron in mysterious ways.

I'm not contesting Tolkien's metaphysical explanations; I'm arguing that they are not adequate to just explain away the philosophical issue of the Problem or Evil in Tolkien's works. I've tried to argue that CoH and LoTR present different "moral universes" largely because they present different implicit cosmologies: one in which Eru is effectively present and one in which he is explicitly absent.

Neither work is wholly atheistic or wholly providential; as many have pointed out, divine powers are explicitly present in CoH, and the providential presence is obvious in LoTR. But in each work the emphasis is different.

[Galadriel55]

But the point is that Turin's free agency is limited by his lack moral certainty. He does exhibit pride, and repeatedly rejects the advice of friends and those wiser than himself, but we need to bare in mind that as far as Turin is concerned, the advice of others constitutes only marginally better courses of action than his own decisoin. We may fault Turin for rejecting good advice, but we cannot fault Turin for rejecting divine will. Nowhere in the text is it implied that providential forces are at work in Turin's universe, as they are in LoTR.


Why not? What's the difference between that and the advice of wise people? He rejects advice because he is proud, stubborn, etc, but that doesn't mean that COH is immoral! It means that Turin's morals are not the same as we want them to be or expect them to be.


Given that we know Eru essentially grants the Valar power in Middle-earth, doesn't it follow that all this philosophical wrangling is just insubstantive talk? Well, no. It is true that Eru does give the Valar some kind of temporal authority, but we are never left thinking that he has cut himself off from the world entirely. As far as I understand it, Eru is the Christian god, and therefore must necessarily have certain attributes that the Christian god also possesses. If you argue that he does not possess these attributes, you are in fact admitting that Eru is necessarily imperfect and deistic, something that Tolkien seems not to have intended.


Since when is Eru a mirror image of a Christian God? Tolkien borrowed material from many mythologies and cultures. Eru could be just as well some other god (I don't know that much mythology to discuss this more).


But let's say he is the christian god. Did he abandod the world? No. Like Bethberry said, he didn't competely leave the whole thing to its own devices, but rather watched it without intervening. There is a big difference. He also assigned his underlings (ie Valar+Maiar) to control the situation, so that the whole world won't be destroyed. But they are 'divine humans', if you get my meaning, and also make mistakes. They, unlike Eru, don't know what is ultimately best. Just like the Christian God sends angels, prophets, leaders, etc to help the people when there is trouble.


"Fate" as understood through LoTR, possesses a benevolent teleological quality that works in tandem with characters' free will. The benevolent providential forces that undeniably suffuse the story in LoTR do not exist at the expense of free-will; they work, literally, in mysterious ways. But it is present.


You can also see fate in The Sil and COH. In COH, Turin with his own actions brings about the curse of Morgoth. In The Sil, we see how characters accidentally, but on their own free will destroy Nargothrong and Doriath, leaving Gondolin the last one standing (making a prophecy of fate coe true). Another example: Elwing flew from Doriath, Earendil flew from Gondolin, they met in Cirdan's Haven's, and together saved the world. I wouldn't call this a coincidence!


I made the point that Gandalf is the first to mention that forces other than mere chance may be at work in the case of Frodo's possessing the ring. Given that I had also denied the completely divine authority of Melian and other "angelic" beings, it was pointed out that I can't have it both ways - I must accept that Gandalf also possesses provisional knowledge according to these standards. Indeed he does, but my point was not that Gandalf has a kind of one way cell phone connection to God. He is just the first to make mention of this theme, which is elaborated upon in throughout the novel. The reader is never left to doubt the presence of a benevolent will at work, countering the movements of Sauron in mysterious ways.


Everyone in Beleriand knew that Melian is a Maia. Gandalf kept his true identity as Olorin secret. When Melian spoke, people knew they had a reason to listen, because she knows. Gandalf... well, people knew he's wise, but there are many wise people in ME. Being a wizard doesn't make a difference. He needs to explain that "greater powers are at work", something that those who elian would talk to would understand just by knowing who she is.


I'm not contesting Tolkien's metaphysical explanations; I'm arguing that they are not adequate to just explain away the philosophical issue of the Problem or Evil in Tolkien's works. I've tried to argue that CoH and LoTR present different "moral universes" largely because they present different implicit cosmologies: one in which Eru is effectively present and one in which he is explicitly absent.


You are saying that Eru=fate? I don't think so. Eru knows fate, but he doesn't make it.

[Galin]

My guess is that she established her theory before HoMe was published and has not taken any of the new texts into account in her reading of this passage (in the revised edition). I could be wrong, though, as I have not followed her work and that of others in Tolkien Studies.

That's what I might have wondered too Bethberry, but her essay was published only recently in Tolkien Studies VI and considers HME, text from PE 17, and even the new material from JRRT touching upon fate and free will -- published in the same volume by Carl Hostetter.

Anyway, the latest Tolkien Studies has a 'reaction' of sorts to Flieger's essay: 'Strange and Free' On Some Aspects of the Nature of Elves and Men Thomas Fornet-Ponse (Tolkien Studies VII).

I just finished reading this essay, and now must disagree with V. Flieger just a bit more than before :)

[Bêthberry]

That's what I might have wondered too Bethberry, but her essay was published only recently in Tolkien Studies VI and considers HME, text from PE 17, and even the new material from JRRT touching upon fate and free will -- published in the same volume by Carl Hostetter.

Anyway, the latest Tolkien Studies has a 'reaction' of sorts to Flieger's essay: 'Strange and Free' On Some Aspects of the Nature of Elves and Men Thomas Fornet-Ponse (Tolkien Studies VII).

I just finished reading this essay, and now must disagree with V. Flieger just a bit more than before :)

Thanks, Galin, for this--it's certainly something I'd like to read. I wish I could afford the $70 plus international shipping and tax for each volume of TS. I guess I'll just have to check it out of the local uni library.

[Eönwë]

The benevolent providential forces that undeniably suffuse the story in LoTR do not exist at the expense of free-will; they work, literally, in mysterious ways. But it is present.
Is it? Isn't everything we know about Arda from the point of view of the Hobbits ( and through the Elves, in the case of the Silm)?

[Morthoron]

But the point is that Turin's free agency is limited by his lack moral certainty. He does exhibit pride, and repeatedly rejects the advice of friends and those wiser than himself, but we need to bare in mind that as far as Turin is concerned, the advice of others constitutes only marginally better courses of action than his own decisoin. We may fault Turin for rejecting good advice, but we cannot fault Turin for rejecting divine will. Nowhere in the text is it implied that providential forces are at work in Turin's universe, as they are in LoTR.

You insist on mitigating the actual history of Middle-earth by narrowing your focus to "Turin's Universe", as if it exists independently of what else was occurring concurrently in Beleriand. There was, in fact, providential forces at work while Turin was alive. Tuor delivers a message to Turgon (who had already heard the call of Ulmo earlier in the 1st Age and did his bidding at that time). It was folly that Turgon loved too well the work of his hands, and his refusal to follow Ulmo's call led to a catastrophe that far outweighed what happened to Turin's family. So, your insistence on Turin being singled out by Morgoth is fundamentally incorrect, Morgoth had been searching for Gondolin for centuries. All his will was bent toward finding Gondolin and destroying it.

Turin, through Hurin, became entangled in the Doom of Mandos, which was a matter of fate, and a prophesy that the Noldor (and the Edain by association) were doomed by their own folly. Maedhros, who was also captured by Morgoth and hung by his wrist on Thangorodrim, can be seen as a precursor of Hurin's plight. In addition, Hurin was not the only captive Morgoth later freed to work his malice on his enemies. Many there were who were set free after torment and torture, only to be mistrusted and outcasts; however, we never get a fully developed story of their misery.

At this point I need to address another criticism. Given that we know Eru essentially grants the Valar power in Middle-earth, doesn't it follow that all this philosophical wrangling is just insubstantive talk? Well, no. It is true that Eru does give the Valar some kind of temporal authority, but we are never left thinking that he has cut himself off from the world entirely. As far as I understand it, Eru is the Christian god, and therefore must necessarily have certain attributes that the Christian god also possesses. If you argue that he does not possess these attributes, you are in fact admitting that Eru is necessarily imperfect and deistic, something that Tolkien seems not to have intended.

"we are never left thinking that he has cut himself off from the world entirely"? Really? Eru does not ever interfere with any of the Valar's decisions. None. He does not chastise them for their myriad mistakes. He does not overrule some of their more daft decisions. He allows untold suffering through an entire Age, as the Children of Iluvatar are slaughtered by Morgoth and his minions. If you have any specifics at all regarding Eru interfering at any time during the 1st Age, please produce it now, as I don't believe you will find it.

Eru only returns to Arda at the insistence of the Valar, who then surrendered their power to him. And what does he do? He kills every man, woman and child on Numenor. Eru is not necessarily the "Christian God" in a one-on-one quotient, particularly in his purposeful delegation of power to the Valar in the 1st Age. As I said, if you can offer any insight on Eru working his will in Arda in the 1st Age, then by all means produce it.

[tumhalad2]

You insist on mitigating the actual history of Middle-earth by narrowing your focus to "Turin's Universe", as if it exists independently of what else was occurring concurrently in Beleriand. There was, in fact, providential forces at work while Turin was alive. Tuor delivers a message to Turgon (who had already heard the call of Ulmo earlier in the 1st Age and did his bidding at that time).

By "Turin's Universe" or more properly "the moral universe of The Children of Hurin" I refer merely to the textual, as opposed to the "historical" moral context of the story.

It was folly that Turgon loved too well the work of his hands, and his refusal to follow Ulmo's call led to a catastrophe that far outweighed what happened to Turin's family. So, your insistence on Turin being singled out by Morgoth is fundamentally incorrect, Morgoth had been searching for Gondolin for centuries. All his will was bent toward finding Gondolin and destroying it.


I don't instist Turin is "singled out" by Morgoth, merely that Tolkien singled out Turin's saga for an extended novel-length treatment. As Christopher Tolkien's commentary makes clear, Tolkien devoted a great deal of his time to the Turin saga after he had finished TLoTR.

Turin, through Hurin, became entangled in the Doom of Mandos, which was a matter of fate, and a prophesy that the Noldor (and the Edain by association) were doomed by their own folly. Maedhros, who was also captured by Morgoth and hung by his wrist on Thangorodrim, can be seen as a precursor of Hurin's plight. In addition, Hurin was not the only captive Morgoth later freed to work his malice on his enemies. Many there were who were set free after torment and torture, only to be mistrusted and outcasts; however, we never get a fully developed story of their misery.

All true.


"we are never left thinking that he has cut himself off from the world entirely"? Really? Eru does not ever interfere with any of the Valar's decisions. None. He does not chastise them for their myriad mistakes. He does not overrule some of their more daft decisions.

So he is a deistic god?

He allows untold suffering through an entire Age as the Children of Iluvatar are slaughtered by Morgoth and his minions. If you have any specifics at all regarding Eru interfering at any time during the 1st Age, please produce it now, as I don't believe you will find it.

So he is not omnipotent? Or is he not omnibenevolent? Which is it? Logically, he cannot be both while allowing suffering to flourish.


Eru only returns to Arda at the insistence of the Valar,

So Eru's actions happen within time? Is he not omniscient, or does he only "return" after having been summoned by the Valar?

who then surrendered their power to him. And what does he do? He kills every man, woman and child on Numenor.

Well, he is definitely not omnibenevolent, in that case.

Eru is not necessarily the "Christian God" in a one-on-one quotient, particularly in his purposeful delegation of power to the Valar in the 1st Age.

No, perhaps you are right. What is the Christian God, anyway? Have you met him? ;) It is my understanding that Tolkien conceived of Eru as equivalent to Christian God, that was my point. Can somebody contradict me? Am I wrong about this? Did I misread Tolkien's letters?

My point was, assuming that Eru is in some sense codeterminate with the Christian God, what is Tolkien doing thinking up a story like CoH, which lacks any sense of omnibenevolence at work through fate.

Neither CoH nor LoTR conceive of "god" or "providence" in satisfactory ways that account for the logical and philosophical problem of Evil. (Arda would be pretty boring if they did, because there could logically be no suffering). But each text does approach the notion of "providence" differently, and I'm not talking about the contextual stories that sit together with Turin's story.

I understand that Tuor talks to Ulmo, or whatever, but I'm talking about how Tolkien actually writes the CoH itself. The story, it seems to me, deliberately evokes a sense of undirected fate. That is a very different proposition to Gandalf's "you were meant to have it...and that is an encouraging thought..."

Getting back to the original essay, it is clear from having had a look through the rest of the site that the author very much dislikes Tolkien generally. He lauds Michael Moorcock and seems to think that liking Tolkien constitues some kind of mental disability. He gives all the usual misunderstandings and makes Tolkien out to be some kind of freak. Having now read wider, I'm less inclined to give credence to his conception of Tolkien's work.

Still, the question of morality in fantasy is a delicate one, and fantasy seems to be a really ripe place to unpack and examine issues of philosophical import, like moral absolutism (or some version thereof) vs. moral relativism (which seems to be all the craze nowadays.

It is intersting to me that most "hip" fantasy today is all about the "grey" areas, or even a denial of the efficacy of moral thinking altogether. For what it's worth, I think most of these writers get Tolkien wrong from the start, and just assume his depiction of morality is binary and lacking in nuance. As Rosebury writes, Tolkien does display significant "moral courage" throughout his work, and he clearly differentiates between detrimental and ethical behaviours, but Tolkien himself noted that he is not "dealing with Absolute Evil."

Do you think the nihilism of much modern fantasy is actually shared by the people who like and read it? I have no problem with fantasy that depicts colliding worldviews (as in George RR Martin) but some fantasy seems to revel in the depiction of violence as though it is sanctioned because it is no longer fashionable (at least among readers of that type of fantasy, apparently) to discourse in terms of ethical standards.

[Mnemosyne]

tumhalad2, have you read the book of Job?

[tumhalad2]

tumhalad2, have you read the book of Job?

Yes, actually.

The "Poetic Dialogue" aspect of the Book of Job is very interesting. As Bart Ehrman writes "It cannot be overlooked that in the divine response from the whirlwind to Job's passionate and desperate plea for understanding, why he, an innocent man, is suffering so horribly, no answer is given. God does not explain why Job suffers." (God's Problem, 188)

Ehrman argues convincingly that there are many variant conceptions of suffering in the Bible, and that the Book of Job offers one: essentially, that there is no humanly convincing answer, and that we are deserving of no explanation from the Almighty. There are certain similarities between Job and CoH, the least of which is the sense of a cruel, hard world existing at the limits of our understanding.

[Mnemosyne]

Yes, actually.

Then I don't understand why you're suggesting that Tolkien's delving into the problem of bad stuff happening to good people, for no reason perceptible to those people, is somehow inconsistent with a (supposedly) Judeo-Christian-style god like Iluvatar, when we have a primary-world Scripture dealing with that exact problem.

More later, including a couple of very important metaphysical differences between Arda and the primary world as revealed in the Christian scriptures. I have to be off to work soon.

[tumhalad2]

Then I don't understand why you're suggesting that Tolkien's delving into the problem of bad stuff happening to good people, for no reason perceptible to those people, is somehow inconsistent with a (supposedly) Judeo-Christian-style god like Iluvatar, when we have a primary-world Scripture dealing with that exact problem.

The book of Job does not satisfy the Problem of Evil either; no biblical text does, and the ancients weren't really trying to respond to that problem anyway. They did want to find some ways to justify, or account for, suffering. Tolkien does the same; I'm not saying that Tolkien is being inconsistent, but that Eru, like the Judeo-Christian god, seems to act in certain ways that exacerbate the problem of evil and bring it to the forefront. Why suffering should exist in a world governed by an omnibenevolent god is not something that Job accounts for; indeed the very reason it does not is because it makes god into a kind of prideful Morgoth figure, or at leat a powerful but indifferent bureaucrat. The conception of God as omni- this and omni- that is one tradition (and certainly the mainstream one), but why that tradition should be true, and why, say, the God of Job should be false is beyond me.

If we do characterise Eru in terms of the God of Job, then the Problem of Evil does go away (we are no longer obliged to ascribe god maximally fantastic characteristics), but I see little evidence to suggest to me that Tolkien conceived of Eru in this way.

[Galadriel55]

For the gazilionth time, tumhalad, a christian God also allows suffering. Suffering that is brought upon the people by their own choices. If you want to compare the two, you must consider this.


But each text does approach the notion of "providence" differently, and I'm not talking about the contextual stories that sit together with Turin's story.

Yes, one text is told through the eyes of hobbits, and one through the eyes of elves, or suffering Edain.

The story, it seems to me, deliberately evokes a sense of undirected fate. That is a very different proposition to Gandalf's "you were meant to have it...and that is an encouraging thought..."


What do you mean by 'undirected'? That there was no power driving Turin to where he got? Please reread all the posts before this one. I remember myself and others addressing this issue many times.

[tumhalad2]

For the gazilionth time, tumhalad, a christian God also allows suffering. Suffering that is brought upon the people by their own choices. If you want to compare the two, you must consider this.

Wow, glad you have all the answers. The Problem of Evil is a question for the "real" god as well as Tolkien's "sub-created" one. And besides, there is no single view of the Christian god, so speculation as to what he does and does not allow is arbitrary. I'm assuming that Eru corresponds to the mainstream notion of the Christian god: one who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. If the "real" god does allow suffering, then he, too, lacks one of these qualities. So your "answer" does not actually negate anything I've said. Why the tone of annoyance? :rolleyes:

What do you mean by 'undirected'? That there was no power driving Turin to where he got? Please reread all the posts before this one. I remember myself and others addressing this issue many times.

I mean "undirected by providential aid/assistance/guidance". I see nowhere in your answers where you have refuted that contention: the Valar don't count, Melian doesn't count, Ulmo doesn't count. These actors are qualitatively different to the forces behind the scenes operating on the side of Good throughout LoTR.

[Mnemosyne]

Here's the thing, then: if the Christian Bible accepts multiple facets of theodicy, as part of the same moral universe (because all of these different books, even if they have different ideas on the matter, have since been interpreted as revelations of the same, unchanging person), how can you argue that Tolkien's Middle-earth, the texts of which are supposed to have been composed by different people, occupies different moral universes? If anything, it would seem that the apparent contradictions between the tragedy of CoH and the Eucatastrophe of Earendil, make Middle-earth more real than a bunch of books that offer the exact same interpretation of everything.

You simply cannot divorce CoH from the rest of its in-world cultural context, just because Christopher Tolkien decided to publish it separately: it was meant as a tale somewhat apart from the rest of the Sil, but coequal to Beren and Luthien, Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin, and the Voyage of Earendil. All of these were an inherited literary culture for anyone influenced by Elvish culture from the late First Age onward. Argue that it gives a different type of philosophy in Middle-earth if you wish, but to set it in a "moral universe" apart, to argue that reality itself somehow functions completely differently in this tale from any other because Turin's life sucks, throws the whole thing completely out of context. Middle-earth is intentionally philosophically diverse: the Athrabeth gives a completely different, Mannish explanation behind mortality, from the Elvish one, and there's an interesting bit on a group that deliberately turns back from the "Elvish" revelations specifically because there is still suffering in the world.

Finally, the key difference (even beyond the Valar) between the Judeo-Christian God and Eru, lies in the nature of creation itself. In Genesis, we get a world created perfect that was then marred by evil; in the Ainulindale we get evil sung into the very fabric of creation. Tolkien himself, when later reflecting on the way the Silm differs from LotR, referred to Beleriand as "Morgoth's Ring," that is, that Melkor invested so much of his own spirit into Beleriand itself that he was able to control reality--explaining a lot of the "bad luck" things that happen in CoH. This is also why, when the War of Wrath finally happened, Beleriand was sunk under the water--Morgoth had invested so much of his power in it that, in breaking his power, the land itself was broken. This seems to be an inherent part of the metaphysics of Arda, something that can't be fixed without redoing the whole Music (which is, of course, what eventually happens). The point is, this particular problem of evil is existent in the entire Silm-verse (not just CoH!), especially while Morgoth is still incarnate and thus able to work his will actively. Trying to get Eru to remove that instance without breaking the world is tantamount, in my mind, to trying to get him to make a rock so big he can't lift it. There are still logical limitations when an infinite being (and we really don't know whether Eru is infinite or not) operates on a finite scale.

[Galadriel55]

Wow, glad you have all the answers. The Problem of Evil is a question for the "real" god as well as Tolkien's "sub-created" one. And besides, there is no single view of the Christian god, so speculation as to what he does and does not allow is arbitrary. I'm assuming that Eru corresponds to the mainstream notion of the Christian god: one who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. If the "real" god does allow suffering, then he, too, lacks one of these qualities. So your "answer" does not actually negate anything I've said. Why the tone of annoyance? :rolleyes:


For one thing, because you simply ignored the statements. You said it, I argued, and you repeated it again over and over without paying attention.

You said that Eru is unlike the 'typical' christian God, because he lacks the qualities that God has. Now you say that the Christian God is not a proper God. So what are you trying to prove?

I don't want to turn this into a discussion about religion, but I think these two bits are important:
The Christian-Judean God: Gives punishment of suffering to those who choose to do wrong. Doesn't randomly make people suffer.

IN ME: People suffer because of their own choices. (Specifically about Turin: his choices bring about Morgoth's curse - not Morgoth. He chooses to ignore wise advice, chooses to be proud and arrogant, etc)

Also, I think that Mnemy has a good point when she compares the differences of the creation of the world.


I mean "undirected by providential aid/assistance/guidance". I see nowhere in your answers where you have refuted that contention: the Valar don't count, Melian doesn't count, Ulmo doesn't count. These actors are qualitatively different to the forces behind the scenes operating on the side of Good throughout LoTR.

In LOTR the consequences also depend on the choice of the person. Gandalf said that "Frodo was meant to have the Ring". But did Frodo carry it because Gandalf told him to do it? No. It's because Frodo chose to follow what Gandalf said. Just like Turin chose not to follow what Melian said.

Frodo was "meant to have it" by fate, not Gandalf or Valar or whatever (and saying that, he finds out from Gandalf that he's meant to have it, but maybe not to carry it all the way.). It's the same fate that does wonders in The Sil and COH, both happy and sad. I mentioned already that Earendil and Elwing, refugees from different kingdoms, somehow just met up and saved the world. Another example is how the Silmarilli randomly ended up creating a balance between the sky, the water, and the ground/fire.

[tumhalad2]

For one thing, because you simply ignored the statements. You said it, I argued, and you repeated it again over and over without paying attention.

In your humble opinion. :o

You said that Eru is unlike the 'typical' christian God, because he lacks the qualities that God has. Now you say that the Christian God is not a proper God. So what are you trying to prove?

I said I'm assuming Eru has the characteristics of the mainstream view of the Christian god. Got it?

I have subsequently argued that there is no one version of the Christian god (how could there be), but that Eru pertains the most widely accepted general view of the Christian god, i.e, one with the omni-characteristics.

Why don't you read my posts more carefully: I did not say that "Eru is unlike the 'typical...god because the lacks the qualities that God has"

I argued that if we assume he has these characteristics, then it follows that he is subject to the same kinds of logical contradictions that the Christian god is.

I don't want to turn this into a discussion about religion, but I think these two bits are important:
The Christian-Judean God: Gives punishment of suffering to those who choose to do wrong. Doesn't randomly make people suffer.

That's one theological view. The Book of Job presents another wholly different one. How are you to know the "truth"? What's your methodology?


In LOTR the consequences also depend on the choice of the person. Gandalf said that "Frodo was meant to have the Ring". But did Frodo carry it because Gandalf told him to do it? No. It's because Frodo chose to follow what Gandalf said. Just like Turin chose not to follow what Melian said.

So what? I agree insofar as its relevant. I'm not talking about choices, I'm talking about providence!

Frodo was "meant to have it" by fate, not Gandalf or Valar or whatever (and saying that, he finds out from Gandalf that he's meant to have it, but maybe not to carry it all the way.). It's the same fate that does wonders in The Sil and COH, both happy and sad. I mentioned already that Earendil and Elwing, refugees from different kingdoms, somehow just met up and saved the world. Another example is how the Silmarilli randomly ended up creating a balance between the sky, the water, and the ground/fire.

I'm sorry, this is getting tiresome. What you say is all very interesting, but none of it really refutes what I say, and just brings up so many more questions than answers.

So - this "fate" is not actually benevolent?
I'm not talking about Earendil - perhaps he is spurred on by the same kind of benevolent providentiality in LoTR? So what? It's not there in CoH.
A balance? That's very poetic - hardly evidence of divine intervention.

A la Mnemosyne:

Some people (believers) interpret the Bible as though it is singly revalatory - but so what? I certainly don't. There are far too many contradictions and competing "moral universes" as you say. Just because some people interpret it that way doesn't mean I do, probably because for me the Bible represents the literature of an ancient people, not a divinely inspired set of scriptures. I can tolerate disunity within the Bible.

And likewise I agree: Middle-earth is made more real by its competing implicit cosmologies.

[Inziladun]

I said I'm assuming Eru has the characteristics of the mainstream view of the Christian god.

It is a logical assumption, given that Tolkien was a devout Catholic.

I argued that if we assume he has these characteristics, then it follows that he is subject to the same kinds of logical contradictions that the Christian god is.

First off (and I have no intention of debating the matter with you here), it is by no means a universally accepted conclusion that the Christian God exhibits "logical contradictions". That is your interpretation. You're entitled to it, but don't expect everyone to agree.

As far as Eru Ilúvatar is concerned, you've got a bee in your bonnet because you don't see Divine Providence holding Túrin's hand and pointing him in the right direction. Why? Is it the duty of the Creator to yank someone back every time they get close to the brink of disaster through their own doing? No. The One may give someone signs to guide him, but it is incumbent on the individual to recognize them, and to alter his behavior accordingly. That is free will.
I would argue also that Túrin did have experiences which should have turned him away from his path. What of the tremendous good fortune that Nellas happened to be watching when Saeros attacked him first? That "chance" happening completely cleared him of wrongdoing in Doriath. When he was told by Beleg he would be welcomed back there, he spurned the offer, saying

'I will not pass into Doriath, and make use of Thingol's leave and pardon.' CoH

That choice eventually led him to Nargothrond. Gelmir and Arminas were sent to Orodreth by Círdan to bear the warning of Ulmo there, telling them to shut the doors and stop drawing attention to themselves. Did Túrin listen?

'What does Círdan know of our wars, who dwell nigh to the Enemy? Let the mariner look to his ships!' CoH

Arminas explicitly rebuked Túrin, giving a very accurate judgement of him.

'But you, it seems, will take counsel with your own wisdom, or with your sword only; and you speak haughtily.' CoH

And what happened? Nargothrond was taken by Morgoth's forces, and all Túrin's pride was in vain. So Túrin never had any guidance, then? :rolleyes:

So - this "fate" is not actually benevolent?

"Fate" is only so when speaking of what the Creator already knows his Children are going to do. Having knowledge of their actions and not interfering in them is merely another allowance of their freedom to act, for good or evil. If you don't think that's fair, or right, again, you're entitled to your opinion.

Look, in LOTR Frodo and Company have Gandalf to advise them, but in the end it doesn't make a difference that he was a Maia. Those that he advised, with the possible exception of Aragorn, didn't know he had any "inside information". They used their own wisdom to make their decision to listen to him.
Also, Frodo wasn't "fated" to be the Ring-bearer: he was the chosen instrument for the task, but he still had the free will to refuse. That is made clear to him by Gandalf:

'And now', said the wizard, 'the decision lies with you.' LOTR The Shadow of the Past

And again by Elrond at his Council:

'But it is a heavy burden. So heavy that none could lay it on another. I do not lay it on you.' The Council of Elrond

If Frodo had refused the Ring, I feel certain "fate" would have been altered, and the One would have found another means to accomplish Sauron's defeat.

So you see, "fate" is only a constant in the context of our own actions. I don't believe Túrin was "fated" to have the life he did, just as Frodo was not inexorably locked into going to Mordor with the Ring. Choices are the genesis of "fate".

[Galadriel55]

Zil pretty much said it all.

About the "views" on God: it doesn't matter what we believe in. What Tolkien believed in is what you're really looking at, and we don't know for sure (although we can guess).

Also, you might see flaws in the "christian God", but other people might not. Tolkien may be one of the latter. Personally, I don't see how letting people make their own choices is a flaw. You learn from mistakes. God 'wants' us to learn.

[alatar]

Very interesting discussion. My three cents:

- Eru isn't the Christian God, as there is no Christ in ME. I think that that's significant, not me just being silly.

- People use the word 'god' like they know what they are talking about. Think about that we can see, via the Hubble telescope - galaxies smashing together! The universe is at least 13 billion light years across. Any god worth its salt is bigger than these. And yet we speak of omni---. Methink that our conceptions of god are merely 'human to some exponential power,' which is not even a jot or tittle compared to a real god.

- Assume you are Eru, up posting on the Barrow Downs about Turin. You - you - decide to begin typing. Your hands respond without you barely even considering them. The muscles within your hands are doing what they need to do to flex your fingers just so. The cells that make up these muscles are interacting with their neighbors to move each strand of muscle in the right way (and may I never see another myosin protein). The molecules within these cells (and there's quite a few) do the jobs that are their nature, whether metabolizing ATP or sending waste products out the cell membrane. These molecules aren't actually typing, and are not aware that they are typing, but without them, no words appear in your post.

Those molecules are made of atoms, and those are made up of sub-atomic particles with names that put the lie to the notion that scientists aren't funny. At this level, you don't even know 'where' or 'when' a particle is, and there's even the probability that particle is an anti-particle, or somewhere it should never be, or even moving backward in time.

Yet these words appear.

Eru, or god, might be like that, and his free will creations just a bunch of quarks, bosons and prideful humans. ;)

[Nerwen]

Zil pretty much said it all.

About the "views" on God: it doesn't matter what we believe in. What Tolkien believed in is what you're really looking at, and we don't know for sure (although we can guess).
Ye-es– but, in far as M-e "is" the real world, it's meant to be taking place in an (unspecified) pre-Christian era. This is quite an important point– however it applies to the entire Legendarium, not just CoH, and may explain why, for my money, there is remakably little direct intervention by Eru in any of the stories, barring of course the Akallabêth– which is arguably the real odd one out on tumhalad's terms.

On that note– look, I have tried to keep out of this latest round of tumhalad vs the world, but I'm just going to make a general comment here:

The basic problem, I think, tumhalad, is that your case rests on a set of assumptions (bolstered up with a few extra "rules" you've thrown in on the way) that apparently are so self-evident to you that you've never really felt any need to prove them. The result has been a rather depressing amount of circularity, both in the argument itself ("CoH is different in a metaphysical sense because its metaphysics are different"), and in the discussion, which just keeps looping back to the start. I mean, by this stage it's practically become a standard procedure: you make your assertion, other people dispute it, there's a bit of back-and-forth... and then you make the same assertion again.

I mean, look, of course you're entitled to your own views– but clearly you want to promote them to others as well. This is what, the third thread you've started on the same subject? The fourth? Okay, well, it should be clear now that, no matter how compelling you find your arguments, other people aren't "getting" them, and it doesn't seem they're going to "get" them in future. Isn't it about time you either agreed to disagree, or else tried a different tack?

If this sounds harsh, I'm sorry. It really is not my intention to pick on you this time.

EDIT:X'd with alatar.

[alatar]

Note that I'm not taking 'sides,' as no one is quite on my side...:D

[tumhalad2]

Very interesting discussion. My three cents:

- Eru isn't the Christian God, as there is no Christ in ME. I think that that's significant, not me just being silly.


Okay, but does he possess the attributes of the traditional Christian god or not? Is he omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent? If you say no, then how can we understand Eru? What kind of god is he, really?


- People use the word 'god' like they know what they are talking about. Think about that we can see, via the Hubble telescope - galaxies smashing together! The universe is at least 13 billion light years across. Any god worth its salt is bigger than these. And yet we speak of omni---. Methink that our conceptions of god are merely 'human to some exponential power,' which is not even a jot or tittle compared to a real god.


I have no idea what "god" may or may not be. Personally, I see no reason to believe in any supernatural claims. What I'm interested in is how Tolkien depicted Eru, given that he was a Catholic writer, and whether his depiction of Eru takes from the Xtian god as traditionally understood.

[alatar]

Okay, but does he possess the attributes of the traditional Christian god or not? Is he omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent? If you say no, then how can we understand Eru? What kind of god is he, really?
Maybe. I would say 'yes,' 'yes, and 'possibly,' as I'm not exactly sure whose benevolence we are discussing.

I have no idea what "god" may or may not be. Personally, I see no reason to believe in any supernatural claims. What I'm interested in is how Tolkien depicted Eru, given that he was a Catholic writer, and whether his depiction of Eru takes from the Xtian god as traditionally understood.Understood. What I think may be an issue is that two Christians, rubbing shoulders for 50 years in the same church may not have the same conception of god. We can take some good guesses about what the Professor thought, but I suspect even his writings, as even they *really* don't depict with a 100% certainty what was in his head - there's always some loss in the translation.

[tumhalad2]

Maybe. I would say 'yes,' 'yes, and 'possibly,' as I'm not exactly sure whose benevolence we are discussing.

The only reason for my raising this whole point about "god" was that the writer in the original essay asks the question of how Turin can suffer in a universe that supposedly governed by a benevolent god.

I have, along with the essay writer, assumed that Tolkien's Eru possesses characteristics that are ascribed to the Xtian god by most theologians today - that is, omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

I then argued that if this were the case, there are certain logical contradictions inherent in that conception that would apply to Eru. Philosophers like Victor Stenger (http://www.pointofinquiry.org/victor_stenger_god_the_failed_hypothesis/) have made similar arguments about this notion of god in our world. Another elucidation of it can be found here: The Omniscience of God (http://www.youtube.com/user/TheraminTrees)

So if Eru doesn't actually possess any or some of these attributes, (for example, he is not totally omnibenevolent) certain questions are raised about Tolkien's mythos, let alone Tolkien's personal beliefs.


Understood. What I think may be an issue is that two Christians, rubbing shoulders for 50 years in the same church may not have the same conception of god. We can take some good guesses about what the Professor thought, but I suspect even his writings, as even they *really* don't depict with a 100% certainty what was in his head - there's always some loss in the translation.

Oh I agree, but given that Tolkien himself claimed that Eru was the Xtian god
(in one of the letters, I'll have to find it) I'm just assuming that it was the theologically understood "philosophical" version.

[alatar]

The only reason for my raising this whole point about "god" was that the writer in the original essay asks the question of how Turin can suffer in a universe that supposedly governed by a benevolent god.

I have, along with the essay writer, assumed that Tolkien's Eru possesses characteristics that are ascribed to the Xtian god by most theologians today - that is, omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

Omnibenevolence - Eru "wishes well." ;) Eru created all, even the void. How more benevolent does it have to be? You (a being in ME) exist, and suffering is a part of the cost. To not suffer is to not exist.

Oh I agree, but given that Tolkien himself claimed that Eru was the Xtian god
(in one of the letters, I'll have to find it) I'm just assuming that it was the theologically understood "philosophical" version.You, me and Tolkien may all talk about the Christian God, and even agree about the definition, but again, we are pretending to know what we and each other are talking about.

But I know what you are saying.

Is your question about Turin just a 'Problem of Evil' for Christians?

Turin, to me, was a jerk, and deserved much of the pain he suffered. His family may not have deserved the suffering - especially his sister - but then again, neither did they deserve the benevolence of the elves.

[Galadriel55]

It's possible that Tolkien's perception of God wasn't "fair and just". He had to leave everything and go to war, just to see all his friends die there. If he created Eru to be a copy of his perception of God, Eru wouldn't be "fair and just" all the time either.

[Galadriel55]

Sorry about double-posting, but I have to say this:

Tumhalad, are you arguing about Turin or about the Christian god? Whatever Eru is, he's the same throughout the legendarium, but the perception of him might be different. If he is or isn't a copy of the Christian god doesn't really matter, does it? (I know I argued a lot about it too. What a waste of posts that was :D)

[skip spence]

You'd have to be pretty moronic (or ignorant) to suggest that God makes sure individual people get what they deserve (in this world or Middle Earth). In an after-life, who can tell, but in this world we know, lots of wonderful people suffer horrendously and die young while plenty of arseholes live long and prosperous lives.

There's nothing to suggest that JRR Tolkien was moronic or ignorant. However, his tales are very moral ones, and typically the main protagonists actually do get what they deserve in waking life. I also disagree that CoH really differs in this respect from LotR, although the providence seems to be more accentuated in the trilogy. As has been pointed out, Turin gets lots of opportunities to do Right, but he is full of pride - and/or not strong enough to resist Morgoth - and therefore makes the wrong decisions and subsequently pays for it. In contrast, Tuor, his cousin, makes the right decisions and gets the rewards.

As to why this is, I don't know, but it is interesting. There's little doubt in my mind that Tolkien's Eru is a close approximation of his conception of the Christian God. Exactly what that was, I don't know, but based of what I do know, this seems a fair enough assumption and conclusion:

I have, along with the essay writer, assumed that Tolkien's Eru possesses characteristics that are ascribed to the Xtian god by most theologians today - that is, omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

I then argued that if this were the case, there are certain logical contradictions inherent in that conception that would apply to Eru.
I don't know how far you can go with it though. The obvious problem here is that religious beliefs, in the real world, are ultimately based on faith, not rational logics, and believers can therefore disregard any logical discrepancies in the scriptures or practices by referring to god's omnipotence and our own shortcomings of perception. The answer to any query can be reduced to a curt and lazy "God wanted it that way, don't worry!"

As for 'the problem of Evil', this is one of the main themes of Tolkien's work, isn't it? Seems like the good professor has wrestled a lot in his mind with this, from his perspective, difficult problem, and he was no lazy thinker. Surely his thoughts went beyond his fictional universe and into the realm of his personal religious beliefs, and therefore his theological stuff is very interesting to read for an agnostic like myself.

[Morthoron]

The only reason for my raising this whole point about "god" was that the writer in the original essay asks the question of how Turin can suffer in a universe that supposedly governed by a benevolent god.

The "benevolent" Christian god allows suffering in the "real world", so you and your befuddled essay-friend are, in the usual circumlocutionary manner, barking up the wrong tree. If one follows Christian dogma, the "real world" is transitory, and only a waystation for a greater kingdom. Turin, and the mortal race as a whole, had a separate destiny after death that the Elves knew nothing about. So, if one were following the Christian dogma, then Turin suffering due to the choices he made via free will, is completely within the dictates of the Christian ethos -- or mythos, depending on your religiosity or lack thereof. So, by questioning the nature of Eru, are you not questioning the contradictory nature of the bible itself?

I have, along with the essay writer, assumed that Tolkien's Eru possesses characteristics that are ascribed to the Xtian god by most theologians today - that is, omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

There is no contrary indication that, like the god of the bible, Eru could exhibit "omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence" while allowing Turin to suffer for the choices he made out of his own free will.

I then argued that if this were the case, there are certain logical contradictions inherent in that conception that would apply to Eru.

Again, you don't believe in Christian dogma. That's fine, neither do I. What's your point?

So if Eru doesn't actually possess any or some of these attributes, (for example, he is not totally omnibenevolent) certain questions are raised about Tolkien's mythos, let alone Tolkien's personal beliefs.

Are there certain questions raised about Tolkien's mythos or his personal beliefs? I am sure, given your constant harping on the subject, that it is your life's dream to find such inconsistencies, but you continue to ignore the story in its entirety; therefore, the substance of your arguments are flawed. For instance, there is certainly a contradictory nature in Yahweh of the Old Testament, compared to the "new age" enlightened god of the New Testament, yet Christians as a whole accept the disparate nature of the old and new god. However, when reading the Silmarillion (and by extension the CoH, which is merely a lengthy extension of the Silm) one cannot help but see echoes of the antedeluvian Old Testament resonating throughout the series of interrelated tales. Interrelated and resonant but not an exact simile, in order to create a whole new mythos, not merely parroting the old.

But to question Tolkien's personal beliefs just because he created a separate mythos to lend credence to a fantasy world is absurd on the part of the essayist. Tolkien was a great synthesizer of real world mythos, whether it came from the Kalevala (and many of the major plot points of CoH are derived from this Finnish tale), the Völuspá, or the bible, for that matter. Does the Silmarillion have an inner consistency? Yes, I think very much so, and CoH, which is a part of the Silmarillion from a historical and literary standpoint, follows in the manner that Tolkien mapped out the 1st Age. In his letters, Tolkien states several times that Eru is "remote", both from Elves and Men, and even the Valar in the 1st Age, but that does not mean he is not omnipresent, merely that he has unfolded the "world that is" and allowed for the story to develop as it was conceived in the Ainulindalë.

Does it conflict with the ethos of LotR? No, I do not see any conflict. And that is where we disagree, even though you keep trotting out the same tired series of arguments over several threads. Repeating yourself does not enhance your points, it merely emphasizes that you have an agenda that is neither supported by reading Tolkien's corpus, nor is it accepted by most of the readers who have replied to you here or in the endless stream of like posts that you pile in ponderous mounds in an effort to buttress your precarious position.

[alatar]

What was Eru's message? Harmonize.

This, to me, translates into living in accord with others. We today in RL think the same, and have laws (whether God-given or society-evolved) that show us what 'good' conduct is.

You know, thou shalt not murder, steal, etc.

Why? Because as individuals, we are vulnerable. I think about this every time I'm sent somewhere alone where everyone speaks a foreign tongue. I spend days 'inside my own head,' and it isn't fun. Add to this, having one to watch one's back, help gathering food, maintaining shelter, raising a family, caring for the tribe.

Our survivability increases with numbers, but so does the possibility of conflict. And so some basic rules.

In the beginning, all were in harmony, then Melkor, and a few others like him, decided that his part was more important than the survival of the group. Sure, he might gain, but the group lost (and some even grew silent). Eru raised up other themes to counter this 'it's all about me-ism' of Melkor's. In the end, Melkor never finds the Imperishable Flame, as he's too self-centered, and ends in the Void. Those that follow Eru, live in accord, find something more at the end of the music.

Turin and Tuor: Turin, though never as selfish as Melkor, makes life all about himself, whereas Tuor follows another tune, and brings about a better day for many.

And in LotR, isn't not all about Frodo, or Aragorn, or Gandalf, but their selfless relationships with others (Sam, Faramir, Eomer, the Fellowship, etc).

Okay, so that was a little rambling. :rolleyes:

[Dakêsîntrah]

Excellent topic, Tumhalad!

I am a person who is profoundly interested in world mythology and comparative religion; I also happen to love Tolkien's Midgard - which, in my view is yet another myth adaptation of the real world. So I chanced upon your thread and devoured its contents. Some of you make good points; others, not so much.


First, let me start with my concept of myth, by my quoting an excerpt from modern day mytheographer, Allan Alford in his "Myth And Religion":

It is widely presumed that myth and religion are two different things. To the extent that religion involves a whole array of non-myth elements – a moral code, a faith in a supreme being, and an obedience to the Church – this is true. However, if we focus on the primary element in religion, namely the Supreme Being (or God), then religion and myth become synonymous. Indeed, the conclusion of life-long study of religion is that God is actually the personification of myth.

God – the personification of myth? The idea will sound weird to modern ears, and many people will think that I am denigrating the Supreme Being. After all, the word ‘myth’, in modern linguistics, is held to be synonymous with a fiction or a lie. But this is not my definition of myth. Far from it.

In fact, the word ‘myth’ derives from the ancient Greek word muthos, which meant simply an ‘utterance’ or a ‘traditional tale’. And these utterances, or traditional tales – usually concerning Gods and heroes – were generally considered to be true stories.

But in what sense can a myth be true?

For the past two centuries, mythologists have been fixated by the idea of historical truth. They have sought to understand ancient myths as poetic portrayals of events in human history. But this is a fundamental mistake.

Prior to Greek times, ancient civilisations had very little interest in history as we understand that term. Rather than seeing the past in terms of a linear history, they saw it as a repeating pattern of cycles – the day, the month, the year, the reign of the king, and the periods of the planets and stars. At the beginning of each of these cycles, the creation was renewed and time began again. As for human beings, their machinations served only to validate this great cosmic mystery play. As Mircea Eliade writes in 'The Myth of the Eternal Return':

[The past is but a prefiguration of the future. No event is irreversible and no transformation is final. In a certain sense, it is even possible to say that nothing new happens in the world, for everything is but the repetition of the same primordial archetypes; this repetition, by actualizing the mythical moment when the archetypal gesture was revealed, constantly maintains the world in the same auroral instant of the beginnings.]

History and historical truth were thus alien concepts to the ancient mind. For the ancient myth-makers, truth lay rather in the primordial cosmic drama in which the Universe had been created and brought to life. The only true story in town was the myth of the genesis of the earth, the heavens, and all living things. In short, the myth of creation.

All ancient civilisations had their creation myths. The stories in the Old Testament Book of Genesis are but a reflection of much older myths that were told in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia from at least 3000 BC. Indeed, the further back we go, the more dominant the creation myth becomes – to an extent that has yet to be fully apprehended by scholars.

Behind the creation myth lies the Supreme Being, who was worshipped by the ancients under a variety of names and guises. This Great God – or indeed Goddess – was the Creator of all things, and thus the cognate of Religion in the sense that He-She bound mankind back to its origins (the word ‘religion’ derives from the Latin religare ‘to bind back’).

Who, or what, was this Supreme Being? In what sense was He-She the Creator of the Universe and mankind?

Put out of your mind all those images of God as an Old Man with a beard. That’s just absurd. Consider instead the evidence from the world’s oldest civilisations – Egypt and Mesopotamia. Here, in the creation myths, the Great God, or Goddess, personifies the formative cosmos. He, or she, is identified with the death of the old cosmos; with the fall of the sky and the seeding of the earth; with the chaos of the primeval earth and waters; with the separation of the heavens from the earth; and with the new-born Sun, Moon, and stars. In short, the God and Goddess personify the entire myth of creation and the entire created Universe.

Here lies the key to the modern concept of God. As the Creator, God by definition becomes his creation. He becomes a Sun-god, a Moon-god, a star-god, a nature-god, a god of this river and that river, a god of this tribe and that tribe. But He is always much more than his visible manifestations, and he is mysteriously greater than the sum of his parts. His pure essence is thus said to be the Divine Soul, or Spirit, or Intelligence. In this aetheric and quintessential form, God stirred himself to life, created the Universe, filled it, and surrounded it. Thus He became immortal, invisible, omniscient, and omnipresent – visible and yet invisible, closer than we can possibly conceive, and yet further away than we can possibly imagine.

So, God is not a person. Rather, he is a personification. He personifies the ‘true’ story of the creation of the Universe. In this sense, God is the personification of myth.

Now, the ancients worshipped God under many different names and guises, since each region or city had its own local traditions. Thus in Egypt the Creator-God was known variously as Atum, Re, Khnum, Amun, Osiris, Horus, and Thoth, whilst in Mesopotamia He was known variously as Anu, Enlil, Enki, Utu, and Nannar. And for each God there was a corpus of myth which described how he had created the Universe. The same went for the Goddess too, who was known in Egypt as Hathor, Isis and Neit, and in Mesopotamia as Ninharsag, Mami and Inanna. This is only to mention the most popular names.

But behind this multiplicity there was only ever One God, One Goddess, and One Creation – by definition. The ancients knew this well, and would have much to say about the modern-day bickering between the devotees of Judaeo-Christianity and Islam.

Here lies the key to the future unity of all Gods and all religions.

God did not appear with the establishment of Judaism, nor with the establishment of Islam, nor with the earlier cults of Egypt and Mesopotamia. No, as the Creator of the Universe, God existed from the beginning of time, by definition.

By knowledge of this eternal, ever-unchanging axiom, the chasm between pagan religions and modern religions can be bridged, and the scattered ‘truths’ of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam can be reunited into the One Great Truth of the One Great God – a God who by definition cannot be the God of one tribe or the other but must be the God of all humanity.

This principle is straightforward enough, and many people intuitively will know it to be the truth.

The difficult part, though, is to resolve specific points of disagreement between the religions. For example, was Jesus Christ the Son of God, as Christianity maintains, or just another prophet, as Islam maintains?

To do this, there is only one way forward and it involves going backwards – into the past. If we can understand how religion evolved over the millennia, then we stand our best chance of reconciling the modern-day differences.

------------------------------------------------------

Tolkien's mythology adaptation stretches back even further into history than people usually give him credit for. In fact, his mythos comes from pre-history, when we can't even be sure the ancients had established a set world calendar that was permanent for many ages to come.

The best we can do is go back to ancient Sumeria and start from there. It is from the land of Abraham (the father of Tolkien's professed Catholic Christianity) that we find the original Elves, most especially. Herein we find,

~The Ring Lords~

From the earliest of Sumerian and Scythian times, over 5,000 years ago, the abiding symbol of wholeness, unity and eternity was the Ring. In those days, the kings-of-kings were also styled Ring Lords by virtue of their Rings of office which symbolised divinely inspired justice. They were golden circlets which, as time progressed, were often worn as head-bands - ultimately to become crowns.

As depicted in numerous reliefs, the Ring was a primary device of the Anunnage gods, who were recorded as having descended into ancient Sumer and were responsible for the establishment of municipal government and kingly practice. In view of this, it is of particular relevance that, when the author J.R.R. Tolkien was asked, in the 1960s, about the Middle-earth environment of his book trilogy The Lord of the Rings, he said that he perceived its setting to relate to about 4000 BC.

Tolkien was an Oxford professor of Anglo-Saxon language and, in this regard, the root of his popular tale was extracted directly from Saxon folklore. Indeed, the early Saxon god Wotan (Odin) was said to have ruled the Nine Worlds of the Rings - having the ninth (the One Ring) to govern eight others.

As the generations passed from those ancient times, the ideal of dynastic kingship spread through the Mediterranean lands into the Balkans, the Black Sea regions and Europe. But, in the course of this, the crucial essence of the old wisdom was diluted and this gave rise to dynasties that were not of the original kingly race. Instead, many were unrelated warrior chiefs who gained their thrones by might of the sword.

The oldest complete version of the Ring Cycle comes from the Norse mythology of the Volsunga Saga. Compiled from more than forty separate legends, this Icelandic tale relates to the god Odin, to the kingdom of the Nine Worlds and to a dark forest called Mirkwood - a name later repeated by Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings. It tells of how Prince Sigmund of the Volsung dynasty is the only warrior able to pull the great sword of Odin from a tree in which the god had driven it to its hilt - as replicated in the Arthurian story of the sword and the stone. Additionally, we learn of the water-dwarf Andarvi, whose magical One Ring of red-gold could weave great wealth and power for its master - precisely as depicted in all related Ring legends.

Contemporary with the Volsunga Saga was a similar tale which appeared in and around Burgundy in the 1200s: a German epic called The Nibelungenlied. In this account, which follows a similar path, the hero is called Siegfried and the tale is given a knightly gloss of the Gothic era, while unfortunately losing some of the pagan enchantment of the Northern legend.

In ancient Sumer, the Anunnage were said to have governed by way of a Grand Assembly of nine Councillors who sat at Nippur. The nine consisted of eight members (seven males and a female), who held the Rings of divine justice, along with their president, Anu, who held the One Ring to bind them all. This conforms precisely with the nine kingdoms of the Volsunga Saga, which cites Odin as the ultimate presidential Ring Lord.

In recent times there have been some astonishing archaeological discoveries which now prove that Sumerian was not the first written language as is commonly portrayed. Also that the Sumerian culture (generally held to be the earliest cradle of civilization) had an older origin in the Balkans, specifically in Transylvania and the Carpathian regions.

The earliest type of Mesopotamian writing, which preceded the strictly wedge-shaped Sumerian cuneiform, is known to be a little over 5,500 years old. It was found at Uruk in Sumer and at Jemdat Nasr, between Baghdad and Babylon, where the Oxford Assyriologist, Stephen Langdon, made numerous important discoveries in 1925. But, around thirty years ago a more significant find was subsequently made beneath the ancient village of Tartaria in Romania. Here were found clay tablets inscribed with a form of script which Carbon-14 dating and strata positioning have revealed to be more than 1,000 years older than the earliest Sumerian writings.

That was not the only surprise, however, for the Tartarian symbols were practically identical to those which emerged later in Mesopotamia. - and it was discovered that the very name of Ur (the capital of Sumer) came from the Scythian word Ur, meaning Lord. Not only that, but the name of Enki is clearly defined on one tablet in an identical form to that subsequently used in Sumer. Hence, it became very apparent that the Anunnage culture was far more widespread than had previously been thought.

Another significant discovery was made high in the Altai Mountains between Siberia and Mongolia. There, preserved by the severe cold since the distant BC years, was found a Scythian burial mound, where the bodies of ancient chieftains, together with their horses, clothing and possessions had all been remarkably preserved from decay.

These were the people who, in the Black Sea steppe lands, first domesticated the horse in about 4000 BC. Consequently, the extent of their travels through the centuries and their influence on the various indigenous cultures is most impressive. It ranges geographically from Hungary and Romania, north into the Russian steppes and Siberia, eastwards across the Ukraine and Anatolia (modern Turkey), south into Syria and Mesopotamia, and still further east into Mongolia, Tibet and the Chinese border country.

Digging first commenced at the Altai site in 1927, but it was not until 1947 that the richest mound containing six separate tombs was discovered and the various bodies found. They were preserved not only by the extreme cold of the region, but also by skilled embalming. There was hair on their heads, but their brains had been removed, along with other internal organs (just as in Egyptian mummification).

Some way south of the Altai site, in the northern foothills of the Himalayas, are the centres of Hami, Loulan and Churchen. It was close to these places, nestling in the Tarim Basin below Mongolia, to the north of Tibet, that a number of similar discoveries were made as recently as 1994. Unlike the intensely cold climate of the Altai Mountains, this lower region of the Central Asian desert is quite different, as a result of which the bodies were preserved in the perfectly dry air, coupled with moisture-absorbing salt beds and, again, expert mummification.

Dated at around 4,000 years old, these interred men, women and children have undermined all the established history teaching of the area, which previously stated that no one of their type arrived there until about 120 BC. But there they were from 2,000 years earlier at the time of Abraham, when Egyptian pharaohs such as Tutankhamun and Ramesses the Great were more than 500 years into the future. These mummies, although contemporary with the mummies of ancient Egypt, are actually far better preserved.

Like their Romanian counterparts, the Himalayan mummies are of impressive stock, with light skin, auburn hair and pale eyes. The leather and woollen clad men stood at least 6-feet, 6-inches and upwards, while even the women were over 6-feet tall. Undoubtedly, these forebears of the Gaelic High Kings were among the most formidable warriors of their time, and their use of finely woven tartan cloth serves as identifiable proof of the plaid designs which they eventually brought into Ireland and Scotland.

From the 1st century, the Ring Lord culture fell into decline when various Roman emperors decreed that the Messianic heirs (the descendants of Jesus and his family) should be hunted down and put to the sword. This fact was recorded by eminent chroniclers such as Hegesippus, Africanus and Eusebius. Then, once the Roman Church was operative from the 4th century, the sacred dynasty was forever damned by the bishops.

It was this formal damnation which led to such events as the Albigensian Crusade in 1209 and the subsequent Catholic Inquisitions - for these brutal assaults by the papal machine were specifically directed against the upholders and champions of the original concept of Grail kingship, as against the style of pseudo-monarchy which had been implemented by the Bishops of Rome.

In practical terms, Church kingship has prevailed from the 8th century and has continued, through the ages, to the present day. But the fact is that, under strict terms of sovereign practice, all such monarchies and their affiliated governments have been invalid.

Church kingship is precisely that with which we have become so familiar. It applies to all monarchs who achieve their regnal positions by way of Church coronation by the Pope or other Christian leader (in Britain, by the Archbishop of Canterbury). Previously, in terms of true kingship, there was no necessity for coronation because kingly and queenly inheritance were always regarded as being 'in the blood'.

The change was made possible by way of a text called the Donation of Constantine - a document which led to just about every social injustice that has since been experienced in the Christian world. When the Donation made its first appearance in 751, it was alleged to have been written by Emperor Constantine some 400 years earlier, although strangely never produced in the interim. It was even dated and carried his supposed signature. What the document proclaimed was that the Emperor's appointed Pope was Christ's personally elected representative on Earth. He had the power to 'create' kings as his subordinates since his palace ranked above all the palaces in the world.

The provisions of the Donation were enacted by the Vatican, whereupon the Merovingian Kings of the Grail bloodline in Gaul were deposed and a whole new puppet-dynasty was supplemented by way of a family of hitherto mayors. They were dubbed Carolingians and their only king of any significance was the legendary Charlemagne. By way of this strategy, the whole nature of monarchy changed from being an office of community guardianship to one of absolute rule and, by virtue of this monumental change, the long-standing code of princely service was forsaken as European kings became servants of the Church instead of being servants of the people.

The fact is, however, that over 500 years ago in the Renaissance era, proof emerged that the Donation was an outright forgery. Its New Testament references relate to the Latin Vulgate Bible - an edition translated and compiled by St. Jerome, who was not born until AD 340, some 26 years after Constantine supposedly signed the document! Apart from that, the language of the Donation, with its numerous anachronisms in form and content, is that of the 8th century and bears no relation to the writing style of Constantine's day. But the truly ridiculous aspect is that the Donation's overwhelming dictate, which cemented the Pope as the supreme spiritual and temporal head of Christendom, has prevailed regardless.

Victimized prior to the formal Church Inquisition in the Middle Ages were the Cathars of the Languedoc region in the South of France. The Cathars were fully conversant with the Ring Lord culture and, in accordance with tradition, referred to the Messianic bloodline as the Elven Race, venerating them as the Shining Ones.

In the language of old Provence, a female elf was an 'albi', and Albi was the name given to the main Cathar centre in Languedoc. This was in deference to the matrilinear heritage of the Grail dynasty, for the Cathars were supporters of the Albi-gens - the elven bloodline which had descended through the Grail queens such as Lilith, Miriam, Bathsheba and Mary Magdalene. It was for this reason that, when Simon de Montfort and the armies of Pope Innocent III decimated the region from 1209, it was called the Albigensian Crusade.

The concept of calling the original princely race the Shining Ones, while also defining them as 'elves', dates well back into ancient Bible times and can be traced into Mesopotamia and Palestine. The ancient word El, which was used to identify a god or lofty-one (as in El Elyon and El Shaddai) actually meant Shining in old Mesopotamian Sumer. To the north in Babylonia, the derivative Ellu meant Shining One, while in Saxony and Britain it became Elf.

The concept of fairies was born directly from the Ring Lord culture and, deriving from the Greek word 'phare', the term related to a Great House, from which also stemmed the designation 'pharaoh'. In the Gaelic world, certain royal families were said to carry the fairy blood - that is to say, the fate or destiny of the Grail bloodline and of humankind at large. Meanwhile, the elf-maidens of the Albi-gens were the designated guardians of the earth, starlight and forest. It is for these reasons that fairies and elves have so often been portrayed as shoemakers and lamplighters, for the fairy cobblers made the shoes which measured the steps of life, while the Shining Ones of the elven race were there to light the way.

In national terms (although fairies present a widespread image), they are particularly associated with Ireland, where they are epitomized by the ancient people of the Tuatha Dé Danann. This formidable king tribe was, nevertheless, mythologized by the Christian monks, who rewrote the majority of Irish history to suit their own Church's vested interest in Ireland.

From a base of the monastic texts, which arose onwards from medieval times, it is generally stated that the Tuatha Dé Danann were the supernatural tribe of the agricultural goddess Danaë of Argos, but their true name (rendered in its older form) was Tuadhe d'Anu - the people (or tribe) of Anu, the great sky god of the Anunnage.

Onwards from the year 751, the Church sought all possible measures to diminish the status of any royal strain emanating from the original Ring Lords so that the fraudulent Donation of Constantine could be brought into play. Henceforth, only the subjugative Church could determine who was a king, while the elves and fairies of the Albi-gens were manoeuvred from the forefront of history into a realm of apparent fantasy and legend.

Settling in Ireland from about 800 BC, the noble Tuadhe d'Anu hailed from the Central European lands of Scythia, which stretched from the Carpathian mountains and Transylvanian Alps, across to the Russian River Don. They were strictly known as the Royal Scyths and they were said to be the masters of a transcendent intellect called the Sidhé, which was known to the druids as the Web of the Wise.
1Share

As the Church rose to power, so the underground stream, which supported the Ring Lord culture, found strategic methods of preserving the traditions of the royal bloodline. In the course of this, the fairy tale concept was born - stories which were not unlike many of the parables inherent in the New Testament Gospels. They were likewise contrived 'for those with ears to hear', while others among the uninitiated would perceive them as no more than fanciful entertainment.

A focal message built into these fairy tales was an understanding of the importance of perpetuating the family line, regardless of the power of the bishops and the Church's puppet kings. The whole scenario was presented, time after time, as if it were a struggling nightmare, wherein the female (the elf-maiden who carried the essence of the strain) was out of reach of the prince, so that his torturous quest to find her was akin to the quest for the Holy Grail itself.

Consequently, many of the tales which emanated from this base were stories of lost brides and usurped kingship, based upon the Church's subjugation of the Grail bloodline. The fairy tale ideal was essentially geared to relate the truth of these persecutions. They were allegorical accounts of the predicament of the Messianic family, whose fairies and elves (having been manoeuvred from the mortal plane of orthodoxy and status quo) were confined to a contrived otherworldly existence.

They emerged as tales of valiant princes who were turned into frogs; of swan knights who roamed the wasteland, and of Grail princesses locked in towers, or put to sleep for hundreds of years. In the course of their persecution, the elf-maidens were pricked with bodkins, fed with poisoned apples, subjected to spells or condemned to servitude, while their champions swam great lakes, battled through thickets and scaled mighty towers to secure and protect the matrilinear heritage of the Albi-gens.

These romantic legends include such well-known stories as the Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Snow White and Rapunzel. In all cases, the underlying theme is the same, with the princess kept (through drugging, imprisonment or some form of restraint) out of reach of the prince, who has to find her and release her in order to preserve the dynasty and perpetuate the line.

It was during the period of France's Carolingian dynasty that the seeds of most of these popular stories were planted, and it is because of the inherent truths which lie behind the stories that we find them so naturally appealing. Some academics argue that fairy tales survive because they are often based upon a rags-to-riches doctrine, but this is not the case. They survive because deep within our psyche is an inherent, inbred awareness that the Grail (symbolised by the Lost Bride) has to be found if the wasteland is to return to fertility.

A primary feature of the traditional folklore related to the Ring and Grail quests is that it embodies a nominal terminology that was historically applicable to the Messianic dynasts. As cited, the terms fairy and elf each related to certain castes within the succession of the Shining Ones. But there were others - notably the pixies - who were of the utmost importance within the overall structure of the princely bloodline. Having the same Sidhé heritage as the historical elves and fairies, their familiar name derived from the description Pict-sidhé. In time, following their migration into Anjou, Ireland and the far North of Britain, they became better known, the Picts. They called their northern domain 'Caledonia' - the land of the Caille Daouine forest people.

The social structures of the Scythian Ring Lord were firmly centred upon designated seats of assembly which became known as Fairy Rings. These royal seats (from Scythia to Ireland) were known as Raths, which denoted round or circular constructions. On that account, the Round Table of Arthurian romance was designed to symbolize this concept. What is generally not recognized, however, is that (just like the Volsunga Saga and the Nibelungenlied) the Arthurian mythos is itself a very powerful Ring Cycle. The true legacy of the Round table lies not in the Table itself, but in the knights who sat at the table - for these noble emissaries represented the most important aspect of ancient lore by presenting themselves as a living, iron-clad Ring. In accordance with traditional Ring lore, the land fell into waste and chaos when the power of the Ring was usurped by virtue of Queen Guinevere being unfaithful to Arthur with Lancelot.

From around 1800 BC, the Kassites of Babylonia were predominant in the Rath culture. They gained their name from the word 'kassi', which meant 'place of wood' - the place in question being a sacred mound dwelling, variantly called a 'caddi'. By virtue of this, the Kassites were designated Wood Lords.

Following their time in Babylonia, they moved across Syria and Phoenicia into Europe and, eventually, to Britain where they established many great kingdoms within which the remnant of their name survived - the Welsh King Cadwallan, for example, and the earlier British King Casswallan, who reigned at about the time of Herod the Great. In each of these names the 'wallan' aspect is important since it was also the distinction of a Wood Lord - again with Mesopotamian roots. The original Wallans were called Yulannu, and it was from their ancient tradition that the winter solstice Yuletide festival derived before moving into Scandinavia.

Apart from the fairies, pixies and elves of history, there are others of the Shining Ones who are also said to inhabit the magical Land of Elphame; they are the sprites, goblins, gnomes and leprechauns.

The definition 'sprite' means no more nor less than a spirit person - one of the transcendental realm of the Sidhé. The original sprites were the ancient Scythian ghost warriors, who painted their bodies grey-blue to look like corpses when they entered the battlefield.

The 'goblin' description stems from the Germanic word kobelin, which denoted a mine-worker or one who worked underground. In the context of the Ring culture, goblins and gnomes were attendants of the Raths, wherein they were custodians of the wealth and wisdom of the ages, being essentially treasurers and archivists. It was their role as guardians of the treasures which led to their nominal distinction being used in association with banking, as in the Gnomes of Zurich. The word root is in the Greek equivalent of 'g-n-o', from which we derive gnosis (knowledge).

As for the 'leprechauns', they were the armoured horse troops of the Pict-sidhé. Their body armour was made from small overlapped plates of bronze, which tarnished to a greenish colour so they looked like lizards or dragons. In this regard, they were called 'lepra-corpan' (scaly body), a word corrupted in Ireland to leprechaun.

The Catholic Inquisition, although ostensibly set against heretics, managed to include all manner of groups and factions within this overall classification. Witchcraft was a common accusation, and into this particular net fell the gypsies. Any person with no fixed place of residence was regarded with suspicion because an itinerant lifestyle was perceived as a means by which to evade Church authority.

The main premise of Christianity was the promise of salvation as achieved through subservience to the bishops, aligned with the perpetuation of a serene afterlife in a heavenly environment. But how could the alternative notion of Hell be portrayed on Earth in a manner which would scare the life out of tentative believers or reluctant worshippers? Somehow Hell had to be given an earthly form, and what better than the notion of dead people who could not complete their dying because they were so hideously unclean - people who were, in fact, 'undead'. Such people, said the churchmen, had to roam the mortal world like lost souls with no dimension of life or death to call their own.

The concept was good enough in part, but it was really no more scary than the idea of ghosts with a physical form. Something else was needed; these beings had to become predators in order to make people fearful enough to lean wholly upon the Church for deliverance. So, what would all people, rich and poor alike, fear to lose the most if they were seeking salvation for their souls?

The answer to this question was found in the Bible - to be precise, in the Old Testament book of Leviticus, which states: "It is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul". It was therefore decided that the undead creatures would be said to prey upon people's blood, thereby divesting them of the route to atonement.

A problem to overcome in this regard was the fact that this Leviticus statement was part of a very ancient Hebrew law and had little or nothing to do with Christianity. But a way was soon found to cope with the anomaly when the Church ruled that every good Christian who partook of the Communion wine was figuratively drinking the blood of Christ. This divine blood then became a part of his or her own body and any creature which then extracted blood from such a person was reckoned to be stealing the blood of Christ!

These bloodthirsty revenants could only be repelled, it was decreed, by such devices as holy water and the crucifix. And so the Church introduced a truly fearsome creature into its subjugative mythology. They were classified as vampires - a word which derived from the old Scythian title for a kingly overlord of the Rath - a Lord of the Rings. [Ring(w)ra(i)ths.]

In summary it can be said that the ancient progenitors of our culture and spiritual heritage have never been positively featured in our academic teachings. Instead, their reality was quashed from the earliest days of Roman suppression as the literal diminution of their figures caused a parallel demolition of their history - to be portrayed as the fairies, elves, pixies and vampires of legend.

Notwithstanding this, the sovereign culture, from which derived all the so-called mythology that sits so comfortably within our collective memory comes from one place alone. It comes from a place and time which, to use J.R.R. Tolkien's definition, might just as well be called Middle-earth as by any other name. It comes from the long distant Realm of the Ring Lords.

[Dakêsîntrah]

Now, to continue with the topic at hand: Tumhalad contends that "God" (Eru, Tolkien's world) is an inconsistent god as he does not exercise clear omnipotent sovereignty in the Children of Hurin compared to the Creation narrative at the beginning of the Silmarillion.

That is a very good point.

It's always been a problem, Tumhalad, for orthodoxy to logically explain an omnipotent god of the Universe that also allows suffering and evil in the same token. I use the term 'omnipotence' to denote that which also includes omnipresence, omniscience, and the like, because, All-Power ought to encompass all of the said aspects.

The problem of Evil lies in an orthodox paradox; and it has perpetuated ever since Augustine of Hippo systematized it. It is perpetuated so much, that is has become an Evil in its own right. And that is the notion of Original Sin. One of the biggest frauds the Church endorses by coercion. Now, to that extension, you will find that "God" must be evil Himself by allowing evil, because He is the actual origin of such a thing. If someone wants to argue here, by exonerating God as the author of evil, then that person will have to logically find a origin that is not God in such a paradox that cannot exist without a Good, additionally conceding that Morality is not an umbrella notion transcendent by God as a non-active Idea before it is set out in real time to actually become a "sin" in the world.

Quite succinctly, then, Turin Turambar's higher standard to follow in Eru is still quite consistent in the Children of Hurin. If one sees 'God' as a cosmomythological cycle perpetuated by man, then Turin as part of that cycle of godhood, the races of Midgard are simply "gods" to themselves (as Midgard is the revelatory aspect of Eru). Tolkien quite understood this notion.

Turin "listens" to his sword, because it comes from the highest metal. Tolkien devotes quite a few words to Anglachel/Gurthang in his accounts of Túrin. The made characteristics we learn is that the weapon was made of iron that came from a fallen star. This material could cleave all iron ore from Middle-earth.

Star-Fire or the nectar of the gods has a prominent role in Ancient Near Eastern cosmomyth.

In strict terms, the original Star Fire was the lunar essence of the Goddess, but even in an everyday mundane environment, menstruum contains the most valuable endocrinal secretions, particularly those of the pineal and pituitary glands. The brain's pineal gland in particular was directly associated with the Tree of Life, for this tiny gland was said to secrete the very essence of active longevity, referred to as soma - or as the Greeks called it, ambrosia.

In mystic circles, the menstrual flow-er (she who flows) has long been the designated flower, and is represented as a lily or a lotus. Indeed, the definition 'flow-er' is the very root of the modern word flower. In ancient Sumer, the key females of the royal succession were all venerated as lilies, having such names as Lili, Luluwa, Lilith, Lilutu and Lillette.

In pictorial representation, the Messianic Dragon bore little relation to the winged, fire-breathing beast of later western mythology. It was, in essence, a large-jawed serpent with four legs - very much like a crocodile or a monitor. This was the sacred Messeh whose name was Draco. This sovereign beast was a divine emblem of the Egyptian pharaohs, a symbol of the Egyptian Therapeutate in Karnak and Qumrân, while also being the Bistea Neptunis sea-serpent of the descendant Merovingian Fisher Kings in Gaul.

In old Hebrew texts references to serpents are made by use of the word nahash (from the stem NHSH), but this does not relate to serpents in the way that we might perceive them as venomous snakes. It relates to serpents in their traditional capacity as bringers of wisdom and enlightenment - for the word nahash actually meant 'to decipher', or 'to find out'. Serpents, in one form or another, were always associated with wisdom and healing - with the Trees of Life and Knowledge being customarily identified with serpents. Indeed the insignia of many of today's medical associations is precisely this image of a serpent coiled around the Plant of Birth - a depiction shown in the reliefs of ancient Sumer to be Enki's own personal emblem.

Interestingly, though, another common emblem for medical relief organizations depicts two coiled serpents, spiralling around the winged caduceus of Hermes the magician. In these instances, the true symbolism of the Star Fire ritual is conveyed and this symbol can be traced back to the very origins of the alchemical mystery schools and gnostic institutions. The records explain that the central staff and entwined serpents represent the spinal cord and the sensory nervous system. The two uppermost wings signify the brain's lateral ventricular structures. Between these wings, above the spinal column, is shown the small central node of the pineal gland.

The combination of the central pineal and its lateral wings has long been referred to as the Swan and in Grail lore (as in some Yogic circles) the Swan is emblematic of the fully enlightened being. This is the ultimate realm of consciousness achieved by the medieval Knights of the Swan - as epitomized by such chivalric figures as Perceval and Lohengrin.

The pineal is a very small gland, shaped like a pine-cone. It is centrally situated within the brain, although outside the ventricles, and not forming a part of the brain-matter as such. About the size of a grain of corn, the gland was thought by the 17th-century French optical scientist, Renê Descartes, to be the seat of the soul - the point at which the mind and body are conjoined. The ancient Greeks considered likewise and, in the 4th century BC, Herophilus described the pineal as an organ which regulated the flow of thought.

In the days of ancient Sumer, the priests of Anu (the father of Enlil and Enki) perfected and elaborated a ramifying medical science of living substances with menstrual Star Fire being an essential source component. In the first instance, this was pure Anunnaki lunar essence called Gold of the Gods, and it was fed to the kings and queens of the Dragon succession. Later, however, in Egypt and Mediterranea, menstrual extracts were ritually collected from sacred virgin priestesses who were venerated as the Scarlet Women. Indeed, the very word 'ritual' stems from this practice, and from the word ritu (the redness), which defined the sacred ceremony.

Hormonal supplements are, of course, still used by today's organo-therapy establishment, but their inherent secretions (such as melatonin and serotonin) are obtained from the desiccated glands of dead animals and they lack the truly important elements which exist only in live human glandular manufacture.

In the fire symbolism of ancient alchemy, the colour red is synonymous with the metal gold. In some traditions (including the Indian tantras), red is also identified with black. Hence, the goddess Kali is said to be both red and black. The original heritage of Kali was, however, Sumerian, and she was said to be Kalimâth, the sister of Cain's wife Luluwa. Kali was a primary princess of the Dragon house and from her Star Fire association she became the goddess of time, seasons, periods and cycles.

In the early days, therefore, the metals of the alchemists were not common metals, but living essences, and the ancient mysteries were of a physical, not a metaphysical, nature. Indeed, the very word 'secret' has its origin in the hidden knowledge of glandular secretions. Truth was the ritu, from which stems not only ritual, but also the words rite, root and red. The ritu, it was said, reveals itself as physical matter in the form of the purest and most noble of all metals: gold, which was deemed to represent an ultimate truth.

Just as the word secret has its origin in the translation of an ancient word, so too do other related words have their similar bases. In ancient Egypt, the word amen was used to signify something hidden or concealed. The word occult meant very much the same: 'hidden from view' - and yet today we use amen to conclude prayers and hymns, while something occult is deemed sinister. In real terms, however, they both relate to the word secret, and all three words were, at one time or another, connected with the mystic science of endocrinal secretions.

Such 'Star-Fire' could only have come from the heavens, it is certain. And most likely we get the ancients insisting on a world in successive catastrophe. Intruding comet and cometary debris is evident in geological and dendrology. Yes, the sky was much different to the ancients and they most certainly made time-honored rituals according to fallen meteor or cometary debris.

Such a hidden tradition I am sure Tolkien invested time into; for the Anglo-Saxon tradition is the latest ancient world heir.

As known by world ritual, most meteorite that is venerated (example the Ka'aba in Mecca) is also made into fantastic weapons that not only had better strength and power, it also was a medium to communicate to the godhead (the bringer of knowledge), and the mechanism behind this cosmic energy- which is THE "supreme God" personified by cyclical world upheavals (Creations) that signified the passing of the Sun through various planet gateways, moreover creating successive Ages of Men and Elves.

Furthermore, Turin's sword is said to be black. This denotes a meteoric rock. For such objects, we have the name Kali which in English is 'coal' (denoting that which is black) stems also from this name via the intermediate word kol. In the Hebrew tradition, Bath-Kol (a Kali counterpart) was called the Daughter of the Voice, and the voice was said to originate during a female's puberty. Hence, the womb was associated with the enigmatic voice and Star Fire was said to be the oracular Word of the Womb. Is this alignment too coincidental to be true? It is the Voice from the Stone, which immediately applies to Turin's sword cut from the stone of a meteorite.

----------------------------------------------

Now, for someone's reference to Job:

The Problem of Evil cannot be applied here.

Why?

Satan is not evil.

"Satan" in ancient Hebrew simply means "judge," "opposer" or "accuser." God can be all of these things. However, he has agents of good that carry out his commands, as he is actually not "omnipresent" (an ad hoc claim perpetuated by orthodoxy). There is a hierarchy of being called e'lim or elohim in the ancient Hebrew and the "messengers are one of the lowest ranks. The Judges or Accusers stand in court judging the wicked. These are the satans. Concurrently, humans can also be called satans if they simply oppose. Peter is called satan by Jesus. He opposed him. In all of the Bible, there is no strong evidence to suggest any main antagonist called THE Satan. It's simply a title. And Lucifer is simply a title. It means Son of the Dawn, or Helel ben Shachar in Hebrew, as Isaiah puts it. It can be applied to any messenger who comes in the Name of the El.

I hope this may clear up some things, Tumhalad. These posts were for you.

Always be aware that people tend to disagree, not because they are "idiots" but because they already have an established presupposition.

Best Regards

[Mnemosyne]

Now, for someone's reference to Job:

I have a name, you know.

And I fail to see how the identity or good/evilness of Satan applies to Job in the context of bad stuff happening to good people.

I specifically did not bring up the "behind the scenes" parts of Job, or Satan at all, because Job the person did not have access to that side of the story. All that happened was that his life suddenly started going sour, even though he had done nothing wrong.

In fact, I didn't even apply Job to the "Problem of Evil"--that was tumhalad. I only wanted to highlight the context of a text accepted by Jews and Christians, in which suffering happens for no apparent reason, and suggesting that the fact that Jews and Christians alike have used it to grapple with the idea of suffering, without necessarily engendering a different "moral universe," would suggest that the same sort of reconciliation could and did happen in the fictional Middle-earth.

All of this is quite far, I think, from Tumhalad's original point, but I dislike being misrepresented. This, however, is spot-on:

Always be aware that people tend to disagree, not because they are "idiots" but because they already have an established presupposition.

For you and me both, Dakesintrah. Cheers.

[Bêthberry]

Wow, Dakêsîntrah, I think you've just set the record for longest post ever on the Barrow Downs.



First, let me start with my concept of myth, by my quoting an excerpt from modern day mytheographer, Allan Alford in his "Myth And Religion":

It is widely presumed that myth and religion are two different things. To the extent that religion involves a whole array of non-myth elements – a moral code, a faith in a supreme being, and an obedience to the Church – this is true. However, if we focus on the primary element in religion, namely the Supreme Being (or God), then religion and myth become synonymous. Indeed, the conclusion of life-long study of religion is that God is actually the personification of myth.

Just an aside here for accuracy's sake, but Buddhism is considered a religion yet it has no concept of God. Those troubled by the absence might tend to refer to it as a "spiritual philosophy" rather than religion, but that perspective tends to avoid the very interesting questions which Buddhism raises about divinity.


I have a name, you know.

Yes, you do, Mnemosyne, and a lovely and fascinating name it is. :)

[Inziladun]

Interesting stuff, Dakêsîntrah.

Just so it's clear, you may wish to cite the other sources of these quotes, in addition to the one you did note from the Alford essay.

This (http://www.graal.co.uk/ringlordslecture.php) and this (http://graal.co.uk/genesis_lecture_full_1.php).

It's always been a problem, Tumhalad, for orthodoxy to logically explain an omnipotent god of the Universe that also allows suffering and evil in the same token.

Once again, it isn't that suffering is "allowed". Many misfortunes, Túrin's certainly among them, were caused by, or at least were enhanced by individual exercise of free will.

As to the age-old argument of "why do good things happen to bad people", well, think of it this way. If life were all sunshine and roses, what meaning would faith have? It's quite easy to be reverent and good when things are going well; quite different when things are falling to bits around one.

Let's look at Tuor again. He was born an orphan, raised in the wild by fugitive Elves; a hard life. As a boy he was captured by the Easterlings and made a slave. He was able to escape after three years. He watched the signs and was led to Vinyamar. There, met by an incarnate Ulmo, he agreed to take up Ulmo's errand.

What ultimately set Tuor apart from his cousin was humbleness, and a realization that his own feelings and desires were not the basis on which all his decisions should be made. Tuor, like Frodo later, possessed the instinctive knowledge that there were things above him that he had to do, regardless of whether he himself would be rewarded or even would understand what was happening. Faith.

[Galadriel55]

Just a side note:

If "God" creates the world and all creatures in it so that the creatures can use their mind and free will, he has to give them an opportunity to make choices. If there is only good, there is no choice. If creatures cannot make their own decisions, what is the use of free will and mind? And if there's no mind or free will, it's as if the creatures are lumps of stone that cannot do anything on its own (hehe, like Aule's stone dwarves and what Eru said about them). It's like a puppet show. Doesn't the world lose all its beauty that way?

You need evil to create a difference, a choice.


Just imagined a really weird thing: this "God" sitting up there watching us discuss him and compare him to Eru! :eek::D

[Nerwen]

Now, to continue with the topic at hand: Tumhalad contends that "God" (Eru, Tolkien's world) is an inconsistent god as he does not exercise clear omnipotent sovereignty in the Children of Hurin compared to the Creation narrative at the beginning of the Silmarillion.

That is a very good point.

Firstly, while the conversation may have veered in this direction, tumhalad's original contention, and the one he has made in multiple threads, is actually that Children of Hurin presents a "moral universe" outside the rest of Tolkien's work, that it is in fact "athiestic", and that it is written as a "counterpoint" to the "providential" Lord of the Rings. Which is not the same thing– in fact, I should say the "contradiction" applies to the whole Legendarium. That has been my contention and that of various other people.

Secondly, you seem to have misunderstand Mnemo's point about the Book of Job– which I thought pretty clear myself but there you go– you're certainly quite right that people interpret things differently!

Thirdly, look, Dakêsîntrah– would you mind being a little more concise and on-topic in your comments in future, please?:Merisu: So much of what you've said here, though interesting in itself, is about as far OT as you could get. As just one example, while this–
Turin "listens" to his sword, because it comes from the highest metal. Tolkien devotes quite a few words to Anglachel/Gurthang in his accounts of Túrin. The made characteristics we learn is that the weapon was made of iron that came from a fallen star. This material could cleave all iron ore from Middle-earth.
may be somewhat relevant, I cannot for the life of me see why it needs to be backed up with this–

Star-Fire or the nectar of the gods has a prominent role in Ancient Near Eastern cosmomyth.

In strict terms, the original Star Fire was the lunar essence of the Goddess, but even in an everyday mundane environment, menstruum contains the most valuable endocrinal secretions, particularly those of the pineal and pituitary glands. The brain's pineal gland in particular was directly associated with the Tree of Life, for this tiny gland was said to secrete the very essence of active longevity, referred to as soma - or as the Greeks called it, ambrosia.

In mystic circles, the menstrual flow-er (she who flows) has long been the designated flower, and is represented as a lily or a lotus. Indeed, the definition 'flow-er' is the very root of the modern word flower. In ancient Sumer, the key females of the royal succession were all venerated as lilies, having such names as Lili, Luluwa, Lilith, Lilutu and Lillette.

I mean, I may be right out here, but it really looks to me as if you've simply posted an entire essay on "Echoes of Ancient Near Eastern Mythology in Tolkien's Work", or something like that, in the middle of a topic to which it's only marginally relevant, if at all. I really think this should be given its own thread, where we can actually discuss some of this without the risk of being savaged by arboreal rodents.

Perhaps we could start with the question of how it is that the Sumerians based their symbolism on a pun in a language that had yet to exist at the time?:D :Merisu:

I look forward to it!

[Dakêsîntrah]

My apologies, Mnemosyne, for disregarding your name. I think I had a moment of "fast" typing, wherein I glossed over the specific "who-said-what."

Now, the example of Job: I am simply stating that since your personified "Satan" is out of the equation, and therefore it is one of God's good guys judging Job, testing him ,if you will, then it may be even harder to put God in an exonerated stance. One is forced to come up with another workable hypothesis, notwithstanding taking in regard the Hebrew grammar.

No, when you think of 'God" in an anthropomorphic sense, this limits his All-Power, and the moment God either 1) gives up his "omnipresent" being for anthropomorphism or 2) temporarily withdraws at least one of his attributes, he ceases to be the "Supreme" ontological being. In the ancient world, function/relationship determined existence, not the modern structure/origins.

Therefore, Galadriel55, it must be insisted that we drop our modern preconceptions of structural creation. In all of the ancient texts, man did not necessarily describe "creation from nothing" thereby assuming universe origins. That was not what was important to them.

In the book of Genesis, it is not describing a creation ex nihilo. Why? The primordial waters of chaos already existed. It is not "water" in the literal sense, it is a metaphysical term for the Void; that which is Orderly Chaos, or that which has no boundaries. Once you ascribe physicality, we have boundaries, limits. How is it to describe God? It is rather better to be silent, implies Dionysius the Areopagite. For in Silence you cannot negate God by describing him as Love, Holy, Good, or any other attribute the human mind attributes in limited form. God is not Love, Holy or Good. He (even 'He' is negation) is Not That Which Is, a universal paradox; because the paradox is precisely the Mechanism by which Ages are Not Which Once Was.

I'm not sure why there is a need to hang on to the notion of 'free will.' As Eru, the One is that which is between the two extremes of chaos and order, then you are a product of His limitation, Which Is Not Limitation? Why? Because That Which Is Not Limitation is negation, the other cosmic balance. All things with limitation (physicality) dissolve into One. It's the cyclical process of Nature.

Inziladun, thank you for pointing out those references I forgot to cite! Still, it is good to cite your own articles you produce! However, it is indeed interesting stuff to engage in, isn't it ;) I was hoping it would prod someone to study further for the sources. It lets me know someone is active in pursuit of truth!

Now, respectively, I think you missed my point about "allowable suffering." Regardless of whether suffering is allowed or not, the point is maintained that had God let suffering perpetuate, or even much more so that he actually does not allow suffering, neither can withstand it, he is still the author of it. He is the author, the root of evil, for simply being the only uncreated One. Even if evil (suffering as the result in most cases) was inactive (that is, not fully consumated in real time) it was still conceived as a static thing of the Mechanism. Evil, I contend, is simply the gaping hole of primordial Chaos, that did indeed exist at each successive Creation catastrophe that brought about new Ages. Good can only really be defined as something which has limits or boundaries (see above for my explanation of physicality as boundaries) - indeed, "definition" is a bounded term. Something can only be defined by separating a physicality with another.


Bethberry, good question about the Buddhists. Buddhists ought not to be religionists. Buddhism was not established by Guatama as a religion but as a philosophy. In other words, ethical standards to live by. When religion comes in it is always pervaded by propaganda (propaganda, ironically was a term invented by the Church to spread about its dogma) which in itself is coerced in a fashionable manner by dogma. Therefore, your Buddhists that worship Buddha as a god are practicing coercive dogma, which is false. Not all Buddhists follow this, however, which is "good."

[Dakêsîntrah]

Nerwen,

I understand completely tumhalad's interpretation regarding a seemingly contradictory moral universe in COH in comparison to other Tolkien works. And in that, I am disagreeing with him, offering another solution that seems to be far more tenable. It is a working solution, so bear with me, or else I encourage you to bear yourself the time to look more in depth at what I have to say.

Again, my point, respectively, is to say that Tolkien is being entirely consistent in his Legendarium in addition to the COH, specifically, the story of Turin Turambar. It is certainly not "atheistic" when I point out the fact of meteoric objects made into temples or swords were actually mediums of contact with the gods. It negates the whole theory of Turin being isolated in his morality from Eru. Read again, and you may see the connection.

This is the praise I give Tolkien for writing this yet "hidden" ancient theme.

I think this thread provides key alignments with Morality. For Morality is that which umbrellas the whole theme of Creation (that is, Creation defined by catastrophic upheaval under an auroral sky). For instance, if you were to ask an Egyptian priestess to describe Ma'at, she would make it a laughing matter, for it ought to be obvious that Ma'at (law of Morality) is that of Isis, the Judge (satan) of Creation.

The bottom line is that my extended posts were designed to challenge your presuppositions, and then we can get to the meat of the matter.

[Nerwen]

Again, my point, respectively, is to say that Tolkien is being entirely consistent in his Legendarium in addition to the COH, specifically, the story of Turin Turambar. It is certainly not "atheistic" when I point out the fact of meteroic objects made into temples or swords were actually mediums of contact with the gods. It negates the whole theory of Turin being isolated in his morality from Eru. Read again, and you may see the connection.
My point is that you could easily have said this much more clearly in far fewer words, my friend– perhaps more as you did just now. (Besides, the fact that meteorites have often been considered sacred is not exactly news.) I must admit that I am also still confused about what exactly you're trying to say here– that Turin thought the sword spoke to him with the voice of Eru? Really?

In general, I cannot help feeling that your own "presuppositions" (perhaps about the ignorance and bias of everyone else?) have led you to misinterpret or disregard much of what has already been said.

[Nerwen]

I'm sorry if I sound overly-irritatated there, it's just that it is almost impossible to discern whatever points you are trying to make when they're so obscured by a fog of semi-random information. Whether you intend this or not, it really does end up looking like deliberate obfustication.

Okay?

[Dakêsîntrah]

Nerwen,

I concur. I certainly could have said this in fewer words. But unfortunately, many other people require more evidence. I am quite happy to expound upon long lines of text. ;)

Meteorites being sacred is not new, but that's not the point. It is the metaphysical principles that come from such rare phenomena (cosmic catastrophe) that encompasses Morality (that which exists by function/relation).

Respectively, if you would have noticed this occult theme of Tolkien, Turin's sword shall have seemed to drive a chasm between human subjective law by action and divine accommodated law.

Furthermore, who's to say Eru actually speaks anthromorphically? I contend he doesn't. In all other ancient Creation myths, there are narratives where a Creation god "speaks" as if the man was already present as a created (structural/origin theory) being. This is anachronistic if you fall into the mindset of anthropomorphism. Eru "speaks" as he is defined, yet unchanged by the successive cycle of Ages. They are not mere words (Tolkien's parallelism is undeniable). Eru enables his foremost Beings to sing "themes." This is not an anthropomorphic choir. This is a visual look into the Ages of Good (limitation) and the Ages of Evil (Chaos). Ages of Good are met with the growth of boundaries (Elves), while balanced by the destruction of Chaos (Melkor). Both are necessary for the balance of nature and the eventual subsumation of Eru, the One. As Eru says, anything Morgoth does he providentially aides Eru in keeping the balance.

[Morthoron]

Meteorites being sacred is not new, but that's not the point. It is the metaphysical principles that come from such rare phenomena (cosmic catastrophe) that encompasses Morality (that which exists by function/relation).

Respectively, if you would have noticed this occult theme of Tolkien, Turin's sword shall have seemed to drive a chasm between human subjective law by action and divine accommodated law.

The anthropomorphic blade has nothing to do with Eru. The sword speaks for two reasons:

1) It is a direct lift from the Kalevala, in which the anti-hero, Kullervo, having had an incestuous liasion with his sister (unknowingly of course, just as in CoH) commits suicide. But first he asks his magic blade (given to him by the Finnish thunder god Ukko) to do the deed for him:

Kullerwoinen, wicked wizard,
Grasps the handle of his broadsword,
Asks the blade this simple question:
"Tell me, O my blade of honor,
Dost thou wish to drink my life-blood,
Drink the blood of Kullerwoinen?"

Thus his trusty sword makes answer,
Well divining his intentions:
"Why should I not drink thy life-blood,
Blood of guilty Kullerwoinen,
Since I feast upon the worthy,
Drink the life-blood of the righteous?"

and 2) Unlike Kullervo's divinely wrought blade, Anglachel (Gurthang) was smithied by Eol the Dark Elf, who created a masterwork that was imbued with the artist's aura. Not unlike Feanor's Silmarils or Sauron's Ring, Anglachel had the semblance of life, an echo of the artisan who crafted it. Melian saw this at once when she noted to Beleg:

"There is malice in this sword. The dark heart of the smith still dwells in it. It will not love the hand it serves, neither will it abide with you long."

So, Tolkien borrowed the idea from the Kalevala, but removed the divine reference from the sword; although it is forged from meteoric metal, I see no direct inference that Tolkien wished to imply divinity in the blade. The blade was indeed magic, but unlike Kullervo's blade (bestowed by the god Ukko), it was wrought by Eol, who in Elvish subcreative fashion creates a weapon instilled with his own malevolence, pride and ill-will. That the sword could ascertain injustice might just as well be because Eol himself always felt ill-used or wronged.

[Bêthberry]

Bethberry, good question about the Buddhists. Buddhists ought not to be religionists. Buddhism was not established by Guatama as a religion but as a philosophy. In other words, ethical standards to live by.

Not so fast. Not sure that "religionists" is a fair term to use to decribe Buddhists, as they are likely less prone to being zealots than other practitioners of faith. However, there are some generally agreed upon distinctions that can be made between philosophy and religion which allow Buddhism fairly and justly to be called a religion.

Buddhism is based on revelation and faith, while generally philosophy is not, since it is based on rational and logical systemic search for knowledge. It is a way of thinking rather than a way of behaving, although ethics are studied philosophically. Is meditation a way of behaving or of thinking?

Also, religions have rituals and ceremonies for important events of the year and of life. These are both private and communal. (This is something generally regarded as absent in Tolkien's mythology, except for Faramir's men facing west.) Philosophers do not ritualistically cleanse their hands before reading Hegel or pray to Schopenhauer for enlightenment. Buddhism does have an extensive practice of rituals.




Therefore, your Buddhists that worship Buddha as a god are practicing coercive dogma, which is false. Not all Buddhists follow this, however, which is "good."

Note, I do not "own" any Buddhists, as they are people, not material objects. :p And I did not speak of any Buddhists who worship Buddha. (I said Buddhism raises interesting questions about divinity. ) In fact, I don't know of any Buddhists who worship Buddha as a god, so I have no idea where you got this point about "practicing coercive dogma." As a statement, it's unproven opinion.

[Nerwen]

Note, I do not "own" any Buddhists, as they are people, not material objects. :p And I did not speak of any Buddhists who worship Buddha. (I said Buddhism raises interesting questions about divinity. ) In fact, I don't know of any Buddhists who worship Buddha as a god, so I have no idea where you got this point about "practicing coercive dogma." As a statement, it's unproven opinion.
Also, why are these hypothetical Buddha-worshippers assumed to be using force to spread their doctrine?:confused: I mean, they might, of course, but I don't see why such a belief, however mistaken, must be automatically "coercive", any more than any other.

[Nerwen]

As for the meteorite business– I must concur with Morthoron: nowhere is there the least hint that Anglachel has, or is regarded as having, divine authority.

Dakêsîntrah, is it possible that you have fallen into the error of assuming that a symbol has the same meaning in all times and any context? Again, your general argument, as far as I can make out, *cough* presupposes ;) that Tolkien was deeply versed in what appears to be some form of hermetic tradition– and I can't help feeling there's a lack of evidence for this.

[Morthoron]

Dakêsîntrah, is it possible that you have fallen into the error of assuming that a symbol has the same meaning in all times and any context? Again, your general argument, as far as I can make out, *cough* presupposes ;) that Tolkien was deeply versed in what appears to be some form of hermetic tradition– and I can't help feeling there's a lack of evidence for this.

Like the original poster of this thread, I believe Dakêsîntrah has read far too much into the story we're discussing or, rather, wishes to subsume his (or her, I suppose) own prolix agenda into Tolkien's text. In any case, he lost me completely when he started talking about pineal glands and menstrual flow.

[Dakêsîntrah]

Bethberry, it's quite simply really. When religion is separated from myth, as it has been done by the Church over the centuries, it becomes propaganda; that which is pervaded by dogma. Dogma divides like a sword because it seeks to use political coercion to convert masses. Therefore, myth becomes "faith."

In prehistory, myth was not, nor ever was intended to be divided from ritual (that which is conceived by experience, ie, religion. It was merely a passion and resurrection play that mirrored the cyclical nature of the cosmos.

Morthoron, the Kalevala is quite fascinating indeed.

However, are you aware of how many parallels I can glean from other ancient texts regarding "life-blood?"

"Now when he [Diomedes] had pursued her [Aphrodite] through the dense throng and come on her, then great-hearted Tydeus` son thrust with his keen spear, and leapt on her and wounded the skin of her weak hand; straight through the ambrosial raiment that the Graces themselves had woven her pierced the dart into the flesh, above the springing of the palm. Then flowed the goddess`s immortal blood, such ichor as floweth in the blessed gods; for they eat no bread neither drink they gleaming wine, wherefore they are bloodless and are named immortals." - The Illiad Book V, Homer

Now, as much as we like to think with modern lenses that this description is anthropomorphic, it is not. Ichor is Homer's term for a blueish watery discharge. It flows from the gods, and is therefore the "life-blood" of the gods.

Life comes from immortality. You cannot have life as that which has a beginning in itself. There must be a priori that has always been; therefore, ichor ("life-blood") is a product of immortality. Notice the distinction between Homer's gods having "immortal blood" yet being "bloodless" like mortal men.

If the Kalevala wished to convey the blood of mortal men in the sense of anthropomorphism, then it would have easily resorted to "the blood of men" instead of "life-blood."

For instance, as in this case of Osiris:

Zagreus as Dionysos (Osiris) is known as the god of many names, most of which refer to his twofold character as the suffering mortal Zagreus, and the immortal or reborn god-man. Many titles also refer to him as the mystic savior. He is the All-potent, the Permanent, the Life-blood of the World, the majesty in the forest, in fruit, in the hum of the bee, in the flowing of the stream, etc., the earth in its changes -- the list runs on indefinitely, and is strikingly similar to the passage in which Krishna, the Hindu avatara, instructs Arjuna how he shall know him completely: "I am the taste in water, the light in the sun and moon," etc. (BG ch 7).

Notice how immortality relates explicitly to being "re-born." This is not anthropomorphism, but cosmo-myth. Being reborn signifies the endless cycle of Creation (catastrophe or chaos to renewal of limits).

Furthermore,

In the Finnish mythology of the Kalevala, a bee is the messenger between this world and higher realms. In Scandinavian mythology bees again play an important part with the world tree (Yggdrasil). Immortality is aligned with the will and the urge to enter into the solar life or the spirit. Dying and being reborn into the cosmos as divine energy is the ascension to immortality, and thus humans mirror the cosmic play of Creation; cyclical destruction and rebirth. And these events mark the successive Ages of Men and Elves.

Another principle is that of the ancient serpent (wisdom, bringer of gnosis) signifies spiritual immortality, wisdom, reimbodiment, or regeneration. In the triad of sun, moon, and serpent or cross, it denotes the manifested Logos, and hence is often said to be seven-headed. As such it is in conflict with the sun, and sometimes with the moon; but this conflict is merely the duality of contrary forces essential to cosmic stability. The Ouroboros signifies cyclical Creation by always consuming itself by the tail.

Moreover, we have in the Kalevala the fight between Ahti and the evil serpent. This "fight" is signifying the dual aspect of cyclical Creation; destruction and renewal. the serpent is two-poled as having a head and a tail, Rahu and Ketu in India, commonly described as being the moon's north and south poles, the moon thus being a triple symbol in which a unity conflicts with a duality.

The principle nature of destruction and renewal in the universe consists of what scientists know today as plasma. Plasma can be seen in its illumined, glowing state as watery blue and other varieties of colors, especially in auroral skies.

Planets and thus comets, along with meteors discharge their energy in conjunction with charged plasma particles in the sea that is outer space. When we have Diomedes puncturing Aphrodite and her "ichor" is discharged, we should be envisioning planetary or cometary catastrophe. The same thing can be said in the Finnish myth of the Kalevala. Each successive ancient culture continued and adapted their own version which was rooted in the same primeval events long before.

The Planetary Discharge Model can be studied in fuller detail here: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_solarsystem06.htm

The Exploding Planet Hypothesis Model can be studied in fuller detail here: http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp

We have the Norse wolf-god, Manegarm. He was known to chase the Moon every night, eat corpses and splatter the heavens with life-blood.

In the Egyptian Book of Going Forth By Day, we have in the Appendix of the papyrus of Nu, Sheet 14 the following:

"Horus is both the divine food and the sacrifice. He made haste to gather together [the members of] of his father. Horus is his deliverer. Horus is his deliverer. Horus hath sprung from the essence of his divine father and from his decay."

In Near Eastern mythology, the "divine food" is identical with the "nectar of the gods," that is, the life sustenance or "blood" of the gods. Therefore, it is no coincidence that initiates in ritual drink the "blood of Christ" or "the blood of the gods." The blood is the nourishment (food) because it sustains life.

Where does this material come from? It is space material, sample also having been collected off meteoric debris.
http://irisia.com/ormajiandminerals.html

For more information on this "divine food" or "life-blood," check out the following site:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_4.htm

Yes indeed, meteoric weapons of might and "magic" - temple of ritual and metaphysic cosmic passion and renewal plays have root in this mysterious substance, which was insisted as the medium or gateway between man and the cosmos.

A sword may "speak" to Turin, not in the anthropomorphic sense, but, as an extension of his flaming spirit (Curufinwë), it is the innate "conscience" - just as your conscience does not "speak" to you anthropomorphically, it is that sense of instinct which is godlike, because everything subsists into the One, as the balance between Chaos and Order, boundary and limitlessness. The Creation narrative of the Ages. Therefore, Eru does "speak" to Turin via the divine energy within the blade. The blade is a product of the "theme" - the divine energy that sustains the cyclical balance - a product of chaos, the meteorite, providentially shaped by Eöl, the Dark.

[Galadriel55]

A sword may "speak" to Turin, not in the anthropomorphic sense, but, as an extension of his flaming spirit (Curufinwë)

Errr... what does Curufinwe have to do with anything? You seem to confuse Feanor and Turin. Feanor is the Spirit of Fire. If you're referring to the spirit of the sword, I'd say it's black (like Eol), not flaming.

[Morthoron]

Morthoron, the Kalevala is quite fascinating indeed.

However, are you aware of how many parallels I can glean from other ancient texts regarding "life-blood?"

Now when...and et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseam...

A sword may "speak" to Turin, not in the anthropomorphic sense, but, as an extension of his flaming spirit (Curufinwë), it is the innate "conscience" - just as your conscience does not "speak" to you anthropomorphically, it is that sense of instinct which is godlike, because everything subsists into the One, as the balance between Chaos and Order, boundary and limitlessness. The Creation narrative of the Ages. Therefore, Eru does "speak" to Turin via the divine energy within the blade. The blade is a product of the "theme" - the divine energy that sustains the cyclical balance - a product of chaos, the meteorite, providentially shaped by Eöl, the Dark.

Occam's razor, Dakêsîntrah, Occam's razor. Rather than bludgeon us with reams of addled arcana and mythopoeic minutiae, Tolkien, as a linguist, would tell you in the most basic terms that "life-blood" is an anglicized translation of a kenning transcribed by Lönnrot while it was sung (usually in duet with the singers alternating verses). The measured beats of the singing was enhanced in the Kalevala by it distinct alliteration and occasional kennings, separate but not unlike the Skaldic tradition. For instance, the Sampo, the mill that miraculously grinds out wealth, has a kenning "kirjokansi" (that is, "bright-covered" or "multi-colored").

In the case of his own text, Tolkien removes the kenning, and once again he rains on your hypothetical parade:

"Hail Gurthang! No lord or loyalty dost thou know, save the hand that wieldeth thee. From no blood wilt thou shrink. Wilt thou therefore take Túrin Turambar, wilt thou slay me swiftly?"

And from the blade rang a cold voice in answer: "Yes, I will drink thy blood gladly, that so I may forget the blood of Beleg my master, and the blood of Brandir slain unjustly. I will slay thee swiftly."

To think that Eru (or whatever Mother Goddess nonsensical addenda you wish to extrapolate) would say "I will drink thy blood gladly" is preposterous, and Turin rightly denotes the bloodthirsty nature of Gurthang, which was said to sing as it slew its victims. There is no divinity in the action, nor in the faithlessness of the sword -- a faithlessness emphasized several times in the story.

P.S. Besides, as Tolkien was an ardent Catholic, and since this whole long-winded and indulgent thread hinges on his religious beliefs in one way or another, then God (or his literary pseudo-counterpart, Eru), would not condone a suicide and certainly not facilitate the act through a weapon of sin. Even in a fantasy, it makes no sense.

[alatar]

Who, or what, was this Supreme Being? In what sense was He-She the Creator of the Universe and mankind?

Put out of your mind all those images of God as an Old Man with a beard. That’s just absurd. Consider instead the evidence from the world’s oldest civilisations – Egypt and Mesopotamia. Here, in the creation myths, the Great God, or Goddess, personifies the formative cosmos. He, or she, is identified with the death of the old cosmos; with the fall of the sky and the seeding of the earth; with the chaos of the primeval earth and waters; with the separation of the heavens from the earth; and with the new-born Sun, Moon, and stars. In short, the God and Goddess personify the entire myth of creation and the entire created Universe.
I would disagree.

It is thought, and I don't have my source (H. G. Wells?) that God is simply the tribe's Alpha Male and Alpha Female glorified. If we are walking back gods into prehistory, we may see that each small tribe of humans has a leader, selected for strength etc, who keeps the tribe surviving (poor leaders' tribes are eaten, and so do not live on to write history). As our hominids become more sentient, they began to remember, and tell stories of leaders deeds, both past and present. These stories of course are stretched, and over time (who even has a calendar?) become the basis of god's doings.

Clever leaders perpetuate mysticism, as it makes holding power much easier. And when one tribe meets another, this god belief can give an advantage to one tribe over the other. And so on.

In contrast, in Tolkien's world characters can look back as things were actually better in the past. Their ancestors were stronger, smarter, better. Cults could appear to worship these ancestors. A character that stays around too long, like Sauron who should have exited the stage in the Second Age, are thought to be gods by the Third Age inhabitants.

So I don't think that creation plays much of a part, except as one more thing to add to 'our' leader's resume.

[Bêthberry]

Bethberry, it's quite simply really. When religion is separated from myth, as it has been done by the Church over the centuries, it becomes propaganda; that which is pervaded by dogma. Dogma divides like a sword because it seeks to use political coercion to convert masses. Therefore, myth becomes "faith."

Leaving aside for now that word "Therefore", which I do not believe logically follows from the previous sentences nor leads to its own clause . . . .

I beg your pardon? How on earth (or Middle-earth) does this relate to my point? What relationship has "the Church" had to Buddhism?

I think I need to reiterate our discussion so far:

I responded to your post #62 in which you (apparently) quoted (no quotation marks) from Allan Alford to the effect that "the primary element in religion" [is] the Supreme Being (or God)".

I pointed out that this might not be the case, as Buddhism, which is widely regarded as a religion, has no supreme being. (If we can't agree on first principles, then there's little chance for understanding.)

You denied it was a religion, and called it an ethical philosophy and you accused some Buddhists of worshipping Buddha and ascribed to them the act of "practicing coercive dogma" as a result of this practice. I pointed out that this statement is incorrect: Buddhists do not worship the Buddha, and so they cannot have this coercive practice.

You have replied that this coercive practice comes from the Church, by which I assume you mean the Holy Roman and Catholic Church. But when has "the Church" ever had any leading or commanding role in the development of Buddhism? What's the connection? You're pulling things out of the air and yoking them together when they have no logical or historical relationship with each other.

My initial point was to suggest that not all your facts are agreed upon. That is, you make authoritative statements that in fact are not true and have not been proven true. They are truely not as authoritative as you assume them to be.

Your entire theory is like this: illogically linking ideas, making deductions that are untenable, making flying leaps of comparisons, and I might add not using words correctly. (In addition to the "therefore" I mentioned above, in post #63 you claim that "modern linguistics" defines myth assynonymous with lies, but this is incorrect: Linguistics deals with grammar, morphology, phonology. It is the discipline of lexicology that studies the specific practical meaning of words. )


In prehistory, myth was not, nor ever was intended to be divided from ritual (that which is conceived by experience, ie, religion. It was merely a passion and resurrection play that mirrored the cyclical nature of the cosmos.

I have no clue what the first sentence here means. (Haven't you just tried to argue that religion is propaganda, and so therefore not "conceived by experience"?) Nor how it relates to my point that religions use rituals whereas philosophies do not.

This aside about the nature of religion does not relate closely to the topic of this thread nor to the more topical point which Morth and Nerwen make, but it seems emblematic to me of the difficulty in accepting your claims.

[Nerwen]

However, are you aware of how many parallels I can glean from other ancient texts regarding "life-blood?" etc.
Look, I'm afraid you're doing it again. "Let me list every possible symbolic, mythological and pseudo-scientific conjectural association with such-and-such that I know of," is all very well as an exercise, but it's largely irrelevant when it comes to making a point in an argument. It is not enough to state that someone, somewhere, has linked meteoric iron with the life-blood of the gods, or whatever it is you're getting at here– what you need to show is a.) that Tolkien was making this association and b.) that he intended by this to show that Turin's sword spoke with the "voice" (actual or not, as you please) of Eru.

After six posts and over 9,000 words (literally, not just as an internet meme), you have not done this.

EDIT:X'd with Alatar and Bêthberry.

[Dakêsîntrah]

Galadriel55,

I am sorry if I have confused you about putting Curufinwë in the parentheses. Spirit of Fire is a titular name; I was applying this metaphorically to Turin's personality.

Morthoron,

Occam's Razor? You do know the principle lacks divine fiat in the realm of scientific endeavor, right?
Believe me, I have considered starting from a succinct hypothesis and afterwards, theory, but there's this thing about working your way down from a sand-house roof.

Sand-house rooves collapse easily, but everyone likes to gather at the flat-top roof for tea parties and basking in the sun!

Everyone is reluctant to leave the sand-clad roof and join the couple new neighbors who sit in their stone-house with a stone floor foundation.

For the sake of Morthoron and most mainstream scholarship's obsession with Occam's Razor, the 14th century man of simplicity - I have used a parable.

Those who quit sipping tea on the sand-house may find a stone-house, but they must first leave the sand-house to get there. It takes quite a lot to come down from your presuppositions.

But those with a comprehensive theory must present comprehensive evidence. I believe I have done this so far. Now, the threads must get thinner and thinner as I round out my workable theory.

And of course its nice to know that "life-blood" is an anglicized translation of a kenning transcribed by Lönnrot while it was sung..."

But somehow you seem to miss the far more ancient texts which already mention "life-blood" - The Sumerian, Akkadian, and Egyptian texts all predate Tolkien's Norsemen, and your pal alatar's implied bias of Scandinavian supremacy:

"In contrast, in Tolkien's world characters can look back as things were actually better in the past. Their ancestors were stronger, smarter, better."

Yes, as time passed, humans progressed in knowledge; but with knowledge came more opportunity for corruption.

"Tolkien removes the kenning, and once again he rains on your hypothetical parade:"

Really? Seemingly throughout all my "addled arcana and mythopoeic minutiae" you have missed my explanation of the occultic ritual of drinking blood. Your quotes of Gurthang support my hypothesis in this instance quite well.
There are tons of ancient texts and depictions of victims who are massacred as the main centre of ritual sacrifice. Shall I present them to you? Here I must tend to resist the complex of evidence and give you simple. Hmm, I never did tend to like Hobbits as simple-folk. Totally oblivious to ruin and rebirth. It's a good thing Frodo learned to "just leave" for the "Undying Lands," that of complex immortality...

Nevertheless, the blade of Turin corresponds quite well, I think, as a divine medium of sacrifice, that made of meteorite, just as altars/temples of sacrifice were made of the same substance in some cases.

And again, Morthoron, you fancy to have Eru speaking anthropomorphically. The "speaking" is the functional/relational action of the sword that defines it; therefore, it "speaks." It has a spirit of its own. And "spirit" ought to be justly defined as that which is simply action defined by function/relation. And who might be the sword relating to in which it is thoroughly defined? Turin Turambar.

Gurthang is in many ways, the object of the tribal deities who consumate or manifest the Name of Eru, the Hidden One in physical locality; and blood sacrifices to them mirror the cosmic interplay that is Eru.

Tolkien was aware of the distinction between the Biblical Hidden YHWH and the manifest tribal god El Elyon.

Bethberry, if you make the claim that something isn't logical, please be logical and offer supplementary evidence for it. If we wish to talk about grammar, then so be it. But Morthoron would like you to apply Occam's Razor first, please.

The "Church" example was intended to be a separate illustration from Buddhism. But tell me, what do you have in Buddhism that are the near equivalent of "churches?" (Without going back to the Anglo-Saxon etymology of "God" and "church").

"(If we can't agree on first principles, then there's little chance for understanding.)"

That's a logical fallacy. Why? Because your presuppositions are the root cause of your first, or second principles, and so on.

"Buddhists do not worship the Buddha, and so they cannot have this coercive practice."

As I have said before, "faith" is only a byproduct of religion when dogma seeps through. So, who do Buddhists put their "faith" in?

Let me see if your can counter the paradox of faith and reason.

"...in post #63 you claim that "modern linguistics" defines myth assynonymous with lies, but this is incorrect..."

Incorrect assumption. I was referring to modern field of linguistics studying the grammar, morphology and phonology in ancient myth texts with the aim of discerning meaning and consistency between historical text and archaeomythology.

Furthermore, cosmomythology rarely involved practical pursuits in meaning.

"I have no clue what the first sentence here means."

I'm trying to help you.

"Haven't you just tried to argue that religion is propaganda?"

You are confused again. I am not bashing religion; only when it is filtered through coercive "faith" systems. True religio-myth is based upon experience via reason.

"...use rituals whereas philosophies do not."

You must have missed the etymology of the word "ritual." Philosophies are founded upon reason based on experience.

Nerwen,

It is hard for one to really talk to someone who: claims someone is spouting out "pseudo-scientific conjectural association" - when in fact the one with this hasty conclusion, I dare say, has barely ventured into thoroughly testing the claims. Your reply is too soon, judging by this standard.

"...what you need to show is a.) that Tolkien was making this association..."

Do you honestly even care why 1) Tolkien even dared to associate Gurthang with meteorite? And 2) the multiple associations with blood sacrifice to the blade? I would suggest doing an extensive study of ancient near eastern cosmic ritual with fallen meteorite. Hey, and you even have the Islamic Ka'aba Meccans to speak about their "Black Stone"!

Best Regards

[alatar]

and your pal alatar's implied bias of Scandinavian supremacy:
Huh? And I didn't even know Morthoron was in reality Pallando. ;)

"In contrast, in Tolkien's world characters can look back as things were actually better in the past. Their ancestors were stronger, smarter, better."Yes, as time passed, humans progressed in knowledge; but with knowledge came more opportunity for corruption. Sure. My point is that when you are moving back into prehistory, please do not forget to consider anthropology and biology.

There are tons of ancient texts and depictions of victims who are massacred as the main centre of ritual sacrifice. Shall I present them to you? Here I must tend to resist the complex of evidence and give you simple. Hmm, I never did tend to like Hobbits as simple-folk. Totally oblivious to ruin and rebirth. It's a good thing Frodo learned to "just leave" for the "Undying Lands," that of complex immortality...Also note that some instances of 'blood sacrifices' are one tribe slandering another.

[Morthoron]

Occam's razor snips the gristle...


[....Snip....]Really? Seemingly throughout all my "addled arcana and mythopoeic minutiae" you have missed my explanation of the occultic ritual of drinking blood. Your quotes of Gurthang support my hypothesis in this instance quite well.

I don't believe I "missed the explanation"; rather, I ignored the superfluity and got to the point. You implied it was Eru's voice speaking through the divine metal of the blade. I proved quite conclusively how that could not be the case. And in a much more succinct manner.

[...snip...]And again, Morthoron, you fancy to have Eru speaking anthropomorphically. The "speaking" is the functional/relational action of the sword that defines it; therefore, it "speaks." It has a spirit of its own. And "spirit" ought to be justly defined as that which is simply action defined by function/relation. And who might be the sword relating to in which it is thoroughly defined? Turin Turambar.

Ummm...no, Dak, I don't "fancy to have Eru speaking anthropomorphically" -- as a matter of fact, I don't believe Eru spoke at all. The Elves of that time could imbue their spirit into an item, and so could a Maia such as Sauron; hence, the Silmarils and the One Ring had a semblance of life (not actual life), just as Anglachel/Gurthang had in its cold blade the spirit of Eol, dark and full of malice. Melian sees that right off. She doesn't say "Hey, that's Eru's benevolent aura eminating from that ebon blade". No, Melian the Maia, who would certainly know Eru on an interpersonal level, says explicitly:

"There is malice in this sword. The dark heart of the smith still dwells in it. It will not love the hand it serves, neither will it abide with you long."

No Eru. No divinely wrought blade. Tolkien removes such inferences from the Kalevala altogether. Tolkien certainly wouldn't condone suicide, an act of desperation and a mortal sin in Catholicism, and he certainly wouldn't have Eru acting as the instrument of suicide.

All the rest of your lengthy exposition is mere conjecture on your part. Unless you can quote Tolkien directly in that regard, it remains "addled arcana and mythopoeic minutiae".

Bethberry, if you make the claim that something isn't logical, please be logical and offer supplementary evidence for it. If we wish to talk about grammar, then so be it. But Morthoron would like you to apply Occam's Razor first, please.

Simplicity, particularly in a forum discussion, is divine, Dak. When one starts meandering down lengthy corridors of obscure research and starts typing thesis papers for a cultural anthropology class, one loses the reader and the gist of the entire discussion.

[Nerwen]

Galadriel55,

I am sorry if I have confused you about putting Curufinwë in the parentheses. Spirit of Fire is a titular name; I was applying this metaphorically to Turin's personality.
F.Y.I.,"Curufinwë" does not mean "Spirit of Fire" at all. It is Fëanor's other name: "Curu (skill, skilful) + Finwë (his father's name).

Nerwen,

It is hard for one to really talk to someone who: claims someone is spouting out "pseudo-scientific conjectural association" - when in fact the one with this hasty conclusion, I dare say, has barely ventured into thoroughly testing the claims. Your reply is too soon, judging by this standard.
By "pseudoscientific" I refer to what is to be found at the other end of those links you provided. If you object to the expression, I will change it to "quasi-scientific". That stuff is very, ah, let us say, alternative. Not to mention quite un-testable, at least in the case of the neo-Velikovskyan astronomy links. To be fair, I suppose it might be at least theoretically possible– although the evidence has certainly eluded mainstream science– to prove that the ancient Egyptians were really nuclear physicists. It might also be possible to test some of the claims made for "Etherium", "Aulterra", and the other interesting collections of pills in jars that are being sold at the end of your third link (although it seems the FDA has not seen fit to do so as yet).

Do you honestly even care why 1) Tolkien even dared to associate Gurthang with meteorite? And 2) the multiple associations with blood sacrifice to the blade? I would suggest doing an extensive study of ancient near eastern cosmic ritual with fallen meteorite. Hey, and you even have the Islamic Ka'aba Meccans to speak about their "Black Stone"!

And I would suggest you provide reasonable proof that J.R.R. Tolkien, the author of the text in question, intended these associations– including your latest with the Ka'aba, of all things! I have asked you for this several times now. Unless you can do this, no piece of folklore you invoke can logically support your claim in any way whatever.

Look, Dak, as with tumhalad before you, you're just saying the same thing over and over– while– wilfully or not I couldn't say– misinterpreting or just plain ignoring the points made by others. It is getting more than a little tiresome, and I am at a loss as to what you're trying to accomplish.

[Bêthberry]

Simplicity, particularly in a forum discussion, is divine

Morth, you don't suppose that Occam's razor is doing any sacrificial blood-letting, do you? Dare one suggest that the razor might be of meteorite origin? ;)



My point is that when you are moving back into prehistory, please do not forget to consider anthropology and biology.

Yes, and please do not make claims about religion and mythology that are Euro-centric.


I would suggest you provide reasonable proof that J.R.R. Tolkien, the author of the text in question, intended these associations

That's probably an erroneous presupposition getting in the way of first principles, Nerwen. This Cryptic Aura has been warned about hers and so she's going off to meditate upon them. ;)



But tell me, what do you have in Buddhism that are the near equivalent of "churches?" (Without going back to the Anglo-Saxon etymology of "God" and "church").

I don't have anything in Buddhism as I've never contributed to any of its texts or oral traditions.

You know folks, I hesitate to say this, but this thread looks like it is turning into another canonical discussion. :eek:

[Morthoron]

You know folks, I hesitate to say this, but this thread looks like it is turning into another canonical discussion. :eek:

Not so much canon as cannon, as in fodder. ;)

[Mnemosyne]

'There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

~Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

[Morthoron]

'There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

~Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
-- Inigo Montoya

[leapofberen]

My God, people...I think Tolkien would appreciate this discussion about as much as he appreciated hippies making LOTR into something other then what he originally intended. Granted, Tolkien's work is intellectual, but it is not intellectualism.

One of the biggest tragedies is approaching his works or ending his works in something other than the faerie that birthed it. We all appreciate the in depth discussion (I certainly love the finer points of Tolkien) but some of this is insane. His works were meant to be left somewhat open ended. Tolkien himself said,

"A precise account, with drawings and other aids, of Dwarvish smith-practices, Hobbit-pottery, Numerorean medicine and philosophy, and so on would interfere with the narrative [of the Lord of the Rings], or swell the Appendices. So too, would complete grammars and lexical collection of the languages. Any attempt at bogus 'completeness' would reduce the thing to a 'model', a kind of imaginary dolls house of pseudo-history. Much hidden and unexhibited work is needed to give the nomenclature a 'feel' of verisimilitude..."

There was a never a sequel to the Return of the King or a detailed look into life in the Uttermost West after the Third Age (and only some glimpses in his other works) for good reason: the minute you try to define (or intellectualize too much) eternity, you lose it. Tolkien stayed just on the borders (or beyond for short amounts of time) of faerie or heaven or The West or whatever else you want to call it, because he understood this. It is in the midst of the struggles of life in Middle Earth that we hear rumor of the Light in the West, the Undying Lands, or we encounter briefly those who have dwelt in the Light, that stir our heart for greater and eternal things. Eternity is in our hearts, but we cannot comprehend it. That is the desire that Tolkien awakens in us. The pain of loss, the greatest joys, the deepest longings. His stories are littered with characters that embody these, and we CANNOT trade that in for intellectualism...although it is hard after so many years of being a Tolkien fan and longing for Middle Earth and the West myself...the heart must always remain central in Tolkien, even if it is painful and at other times, joyful beyond words. Intellectualizing is not a substitute. We quickly lose the spirit that Tolkien imparted in his writings. The simplicity of Tolkien is his genius, the ability to cut straight to our hearts.

[blantyr]

"A precise account, with drawings and other aids, of Dwarvish smith-practices, Hobbit-pottery, Numerorean medicine and philosophy, and so on would interfere with the narrative [of the Lord of the Rings], or swell the Appendices. So too, would complete grammars and lexical collection of the languages. Any attempt at bogus 'completeness' would reduce the thing to a 'model', a kind of imaginary dolls house of pseudo-history. Much hidden and unexhibited work is needed to give the nomenclature a 'feel' of verisimilitude..."

I'll second what Leap says above, as well as the quote.

I'd add, though, that different people find enjoyment in different aspects of Tolkien's works. There are a fair number of people posting here who approach things from an intellectual perspective. Me, I'm a role player. In attempting to live in Tolkien's world, I have to fill in the gaps somewhat, but don't any of the filling in seriously.

I'd like to chase the feel, values and culture of a given Tolkien nation, knowing that each culture is different, and different people will have different interpretations. I've worked with others who appreciate realistic interpretations of periods weapons and armor. There are seemingly some who care a lot about getting hair and eye color right.

I'm a bit dubious about taking stuff unpublished in Tolkien's lifetime seriously when it conflicts with or reduces the feel of the published works. His vision for his reality was constantly changing, yet some embrace the unpublished work as canonical.

I'd be dubious about declaring any interpretation as correct, or thinking adversarial debate constructive in finding a best and final canon answer. "Much hidden and unexhibited work is needed to give the nomenclature a 'feel' of verisimilitude." If so, perhaps the hidden and unexhibited was supposed to remain hidden and unexhibited.

I'm tempted to suggest the idea expressed by another famous fictional wizard. 'Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.' That takes it to far. Tolkien shouldn't stay entirely behind the curtain. Still, some of the fantasy is done with smoke and mirrors. There is supposed to be smoke and mirrors. Precisely locating the placement of the smoke bombs and mirror placement helps how? Dragging the wizard out from behind the curtain might not be entirely optimal.

Of course, I do it too, spelling out in too much detail why I'll embrace this interpretation of magic or that extrapolation of elven culture. I just don't try to claim mine are the only possible interpretations.

[Pitchwife]

First of all, welcome to the Downs, leapofberen! Enjoy being dead!

My God, people...I think Tolkien would appreciate this discussion about as much as he appreciated hippies making LOTR into something other then what he originally intended.
Maybe... but I think he would have appreciated the spirited and well-argued defense of his work against esoteric crackpottery made by some of my colleagues here. (And I'm sure he would have been positively delighted at seeing Morth, of all people, stress his catholicism!:p:))

Eternity is in our hearts, but we cannot comprehend it. That is the desire that Tolkien awakens in us. The pain of loss, the greatest joys, the deepest longings. [...] .the heart must always remain central in Tolkien, even if it is painful and at other times, joyful beyond words. Intellectualizing is not a substitute.
Agreed in so far as I'd say that if Tolkien's work didn't move our hearts, all discussion of it would be an idle (if possibly still amusing) exercise - which, by the way, is true of all great works of art IMO. On the other hand, I don't see why, being so moved, we shouldn't apply our intellect (which is not the same as intellectualism) to discussing how and why it moves us.


I'd add, though, that different people find enjoyment in different aspects of Tolkien's works. [...]
I'd be dubious about declaring any interpretation as correct, or thinking adversarial debate constructive in finding a best and final canon answer.
[...]
Of course, I do it too, spelling out in too much detail why I'll embrace this interpretation of magic or that extrapolation of elven culture. I just don't try to claim mine are the only possible interpretations.
I don't think anybody else here was seriously making that claim. That's the beauty of Tolkien's work world - it appeals to so many people on so many levels, whether they be roleplayers or textual scholars, linguists, theologians or fan-fiction writers or whatsoever. Yet, without you thinking you're right and trying to convince me I'm wrong, what's the point of having a discussion and a forum for it? That's not saying we'll ever arrive at a 'best and final canon answer' - thank Eru, Middle-earth is big enough for all of us to be wrong.;)

[Nerwen]

blantyr and leapofberen both–

The thing is, that when a person has made definite claims regarding the "true meaning" of a writer's work, I think it quite reasonable that others may wish to challenge those claims, and point out the lack of evidence for them. In this case, the claims are in my opinion far-fetched indeed, and seem to me to have more to do with the poster's own intense preoccupation with some sort of quasi-Gnostic mysticism.

Is Dak free to hold those views? Of course. Are you two free to hold whatever opinions you may hold? Of course. But when a person states a point of view or a belief over and over and over, I consider it a fair assumption that that person does in fact wish to promote it. He should, anyway, be prepared to accept that others may put up counter-arguments. If A is free to state an opinion, B is free to do so also, even if that opinion is in conflict with A's. (To do Dak justice, I don't think– though I may have missed it– that, when things started to go against him, he fell back on claiming that he was just saying what he thought, not trying to push his views on anyone else etc., etc.)

Also– what Pitch said. It's a discussion forum, all right? You two may not approve of the practice of critiquing and analysing books (or films, or paintings) altogether and feel that it's a form of "breaking a thing to find out what it is". Well and good. But you must admit it is a fairly widespread one, yes?

[Morthoron]

One of the biggest tragedies is approaching his works or ending his works in something other than the faerie that birthed it. We all appreciate the in depth discussion (I certainly love the finer points of Tolkien) but some of this is insane. His works were meant to be left somewhat open ended. Tolkien himself said,

"A precise account, with drawings and other aids, of Dwarvish smith-practices, Hobbit-pottery, Numerorean medicine and philosophy, and so on would interfere with the narrative [of the Lord of the Rings], or swell the Appendices. So too, would complete grammars and lexical collection of the languages. Any attempt at bogus 'completeness' would reduce the thing to a 'model', a kind of imaginary dolls house of pseudo-history. Much hidden and unexhibited work is needed to give the nomenclature a 'feel' of verisimilitude..."

One thing I've learned in all my years of debating Tolkien cosmology, esthetics, chronology, etc. is never trust a Tolkien comment or take it out of context, because he is often contradictory. Take the Tolkien quote you used above. For an author who supposedly claimed that "Much hidden and unexhibited work is needed to give the nomenclature a 'feel' of verisimilitude" certainly didn't follow his own proviso.

Most authors write a book and move on; Tolkien, however, left enough written background material so that his son, Christopher, could edit and publish The Silmarillion, The Unfinished Tales, the twelve-volume History of Middle-earth and The Children of Húrin. Add to that The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien and various other supplementary publications, and it is quite evident that Tolkien did not blithely rely on "smoke and mirrors" when creating his universe; on the contrary, he expanded, tinkered and continued revising his work until the end of his life. The depth and breadth of his singular, obsessive work leads me to one conclusion: had Tolkien lived another decade, we'd have several other volumes of Elvish minutiae to delve into.

[Nerwen]

Also, leap, I see that in your other posts you have in fact put forward "canon"-based analytical arguments, and have gone so far as to cite HoME in support of them. A double standard, surely?

[leapofberen]

@ Pitchwife: I like the way you think. Very well balanced. I enjoy the creative discussions.

@ Nerwen: You sound mad. :( Of course, what I post is only what I think. I just love to explore the different aspects of Tolkien with others, and if you felt I was trying to proselytize, please forgive me. As it is a forum, I didn't think of reiterating my position of "I think" and "I feel." My natural take in creative discussions is to build on what each says and see where it takes us, not to hurt feelings or offend. Although it happens, regrettably. I think I found one post especially frustrating, which set me off. Yes, I can see that I used some "definite" language. Oops... I am sorry if you were offended or otherwise. It was not my intent to make claims that others feel are intrusive or "definite." Of course, that doesn't mean we don't/can't feel differently...and feel strongly. I appreciate what you said, and I can see where you see that it might seem I am trying to "promote" my own way of thinking. Probably my word choice, my bad. Nonetheless, it seems that most of us on here have "intense preoccupations" anyhow, judging by a lot of the posts. That isn't a bad thing necessarily, in any case.

blantyr and leapofberen both–

The thing is, that when a person has made definite claims regarding the "true meaning" of a writer's work, I think it quite reasonable that others may wish to challenge those claims, and point out the lack of evidence for them. In this case, the claims are in my opinion far-fetched indeed, and seem to me to have more to do with the poster's own intense preoccupation with some sort of quasi-Gnostic mysticism.

Is Dak free to hold those views? Of course. Are you two free to hold whatever opinions you may hold? Of course. But when a person states a point of view or a belief over and over and over, I consider it a fair assumption that that person does in fact wish to promote it. He should, anyway, be prepared to accept that others may put up counter-arguments. If A is free to state an opinion, B is free to do so also, even if that opinion is in conflict with A's

I haven't countered or stated anything over and over yet, only expressed how I felt once in this particular thread (and how I thought Tolkien might feel too...whoops.) And of course you are free to challenge if you wish, I don't think I stated otherwise. Totally prepared. Gnosticism can be such a broad thing with many different schools of thought...not sure what you are getting at there. And I don't like breaking things...but its all good. Also, please explain the double standard...I am not sure if I understand what you are getting at...would like to know though. You can message me if you feel its more personal and drifts too much from the thread. I don't want the thread to turn into something other than it was intended. Thanks for your feedback, I enjoy being around so many people who are passionate and knowledgeable about Tolkien and his works.

@ Morthoron: I can't say I disagree with anything you said here. I too wish Tolkien had lived another decade (or two) and put out much more material. I am aware that Tolkien was quite obsessive and often, contradictory. What a great man.


I remember reaching the end of Tolkien's most prominent works, particularly The Hobbit, LOTR and the Silmarillion, and feeling so sad that it was over. But they changed my life. My only recourse was to eventually go back and start over and read it with fresh eyes and heart again. The simplicity (the heart) of Tolkien is what kept things alive and real for me, and I think that is what I am getting at in my initial post...though I understand how others might have interpreted what I said for worse. It is ALWAYS sad (and happy) for me at the end of his stories. Like The Return when Tolkien writes,
"And he sang to them, now in the elven-tongue, now in the speech of the West, until their hearts, wounded with sweet words, overflowed, and their joy was like swords, and they passed in though out to regions where pain and delight flow together and tears are the very wine of blessedness."
The Field of Cormallen scene. That's it right there. So for me no amount of debating or dissecting does the trick...just going back again and again...that is just me though, at the moment. Tolkien was a master of Faerie story, and I just feel it needs to be...handled with care, "lest the gates should be shut, and the keys be lost." That's just me. Though I LOVE the debate and dissecting too.

I think that is what I was getting at in my initial post. To me, Middle Earth was, and is real. I think it is for all of us, in our hearts. Yet I am still holding out within the design that it really is tangible.

Ok, so that was my heart to heart in what could be a hostile situation...*sigh*oh well. thanks for your feedbacks, I appreciate it.

[Nerwen]

leapofberen– My comments about "stating things over and over" and about "quasi-gnostic mysticism" refer to Dakêsîntrah, not to you, in case that was the source of your confusion.

If not, well, I thought I was being straightforward, but here it is another way. You jumped into this thread and started attacking us in what I can only call a pretty darned hostile fashion for arguing with Dakêsîntrah's interpretation of Tolkien's work, and especially for asking him to provide evidence for his remarkable claims. This is because, for you, this is "intellectualising" and destroys the book's illusion of reality. I mean, what can I say? Yes, leap we like to discuss books in our book discussion forum. Further, we like to discuss them as books, that is, as works of fiction. Again, this is a pretty normal thing to do, and I think you were quite out of line getting angry about it.

And of course you are free to challenge if you wish, I don't think I stated otherwise.
Ahem. Maybe I'm totally out, leap, but it seems to me the entirety of your first post was you expressing your anger and contempt at the analytical, evidence-based style of debating used by myself and others.

By the way, I said you had a double-standard because I see you have yourself argued in this way on another thread. That's a minor point however.

[Nerwen]

It occurs to me that we are perhaps both missing something. leap and blantyr, how much of this thread did you read before you posted? Do you have any idea what we were arguing about?

[blantyr]

It occurs to me that we are perhaps both missing something. leap and blantyr, how much of this thread did you read before you posted? Do you have any idea what we were arguing about?

I had been skimming it. I have my own personal views on the subject. A creator might be judged by his creation. A judgmental god might well be judged according to the same standard that he judges others by. If a god, through inaction, allows gross evil to continue, some of the responsibility for that evil belongs to the god.

I might even extrapolate such thoughts into The Lord of the Rings. I see divine influence as well as the free will of the 'children' effecting the story. To me it is proper that powers make it at least possible for the children to find a good resolution.

But I also see a basic difference between the morality and values of the First and Second Age stories, unpublished in Tolkien's lifetime, and TH and LotR. The former works seem coupled with the old medieval epic tragic traditions, which hold that the greed and pride of the great leads to disaster for everybody. (One might not be able to criticize the nobility, but one could make up stories about heroes and gods which show one's opinion of bad lords.) TH and LotR are far more Christian in portraying benevolent if hidden divine assistance guiding history and preventing the worst tragedies.

I was and remain dubious about applying study of First and Second age divinity and morality to the Third Age. The basic themes of the works are different. In order to help my own suspension of disbelief, I'd like to think that everyone immortal learned from their mistakes in the First and Second Ages, that they operated with different goals, rules and methods in the Third Age. Instead of sending armies or wielding great magics to reshape the world, they'd send five wizards with instructions to be subtle. Magic and intervention became must less blatant. The divine powers and the wisest of the Wise were capable of making mistakes, recognizing mistakes, learning and growing.

(Which is in good part why Goldie walked away from Al. Goldie is a minstrel who knows all the old songs. Prolonging conflict out of a sense of pride just isn't a good idea.)

All of the above opinions, I think, are viable, but I'm not going to attempt to prove that my way of looking at things is the same as Tolkien's, or that my interpretation of the story is more plausible than many others. Myth and legend might properly be like that, and be treated like that.

Anyway, I'm far more a fan of TH and LotR than the First and Second Age writings. I have an emotional and perhaps irrational dislike for the academic perspective that holds the First and Second Age stuff as canon, as cleanly trumping interpretation of the Third Age stuff. As the strict Old Testament God of laws and judgement morphed into the more loving and forgiving God of the New, I see Tolkien's divinities as learning, growing and changing too.

[Nerwen]

blantyr–

No, I mean did you understand that in the latter part of this thread we have been arguing, not about the original subject, but about Dakêsîntrah's
claims regarding the supposed esoteric symbolism of... um... anything and everything? I ask, because neither of you sounds as if you do.

[Nerwen]

I have an emotional and perhaps irrational dislike for the academic perspective that holds the First and Second Age stuff as canon, as cleanly trumping interpretation of the Third Age stuff.

And who exactly do you think has been putting forward this position?

[blantyr]

And who exactly do you think has been putting forward this position?

I have spent a good deal of time on the Fourth Turning web site, a forum that discusses a modern theory of cyclical history. (Little to do with Dakêsîntrah's ancient cyclical perspective. These cycles last about four score and seven years.) I learned there to discuss ideas rather than name names. I'd be pleased to discuss ideas, but am not inclined to call people out, to turn things personal and partisan.

blantyr–

No, I mean did you understand that in the latter part of this thread we have been arguing, not about the original subject, but about Dakêsîntrah's
claims regarding the supposed esoteric symbolism of... um... anything and everything? I ask, because neither of you sounds as if you do.

No, I sort of glazed out with his first two long posts. He went on too much of a tangent for me. I guess it was enough of a tangent that the academic perspective would have to dominate.

I can see something of a cyclical pattern in Tolkien if I squint and tilt my head sideways. The Fourth Turning cycle theory suggests a major crisis every four score and seven years. Tolkien has a crisis at the end of each Age. Both might be viewed better as a spiral than a circle, as at the end of each crisis the culture has gown and adjusted. Rather than return to where one once was one ends up standing on the shoulders of the giants that navigated the crisis. Toynbee in A Study of History presents another cyclical perspective, of civilizations that rise and fall. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations works on a similar scale.

But these are historical rather than mythic cycles. None of them apply very well to Tolkien. Way tangential.

[Formendacil]

I learned there to discuss ideas rather than name names. I'd be pleased to discuss ideas, but am not inclined to call people out, to turn things personal and partisan.

As a matter of polite discourse, it is always a good thing to avoid ad hominem attacks, and simply focus on the topic at hand--but if you're going to jump into an argument (or discussion, if "argument" sounds divisive rather than logical to you), it helps to know what ideas you're debating against... and the whole thread is a matter of public record. While it's laudable to avoid saying "Downer X is a blithering idiot" and "Downer Y is clearly an idiot," there is nothing wrong at all with saying "Downer A, Downer B, and Downer C all seem to be arguing from an intellectualist perspective--insert quotations here--and I think they're missing the boat with regards to the proper spirit of Tolkien--insert quotation from Tolkien here."

Debate works on the ability to refer to the person you are debating--not as an object of attack, but as the one who is articulating the argument you arguing against. If you don't think that you can charitably tell whose posts we ought to be keeping in mind when reading your arguments, it's very difficult to have any sort of precise idea what it is you're putting forward, since what you put forward is directly tied to what you're putting it against.

[Pitchwife]

@ Pitchwife: I like the way you think. Very well balanced.
...and apt to get me suspected in Werewolf for being wishy-washy.:D

@ Nerwen: You sound mad. :(
No she doesn't - she's the voice of reason itself, only a little bit grumpy at times.

You jumped into this thread and started attacking us in what I can only call a pretty darned hostile fashion for arguing with Dakêsîntrah's interpretation of Tolkien's work, and especially for asking him to provide evidence for his remarkable claims.
Actually, I don't see all that anger and hostility in leap's post - s/he was critical of the previous discussion, to be sure, but didn't make a hostile impression on me. I may of course not have gotten some nuances of language, not being a native speaker etc.

leap and blantyr, if you're interested in a discussion of the pros and cons of what I think you call intellectualizing, you might like to have a look at this thread. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=15701)

[Mithalwen]

Actually, Pitch, I think to start a post - particularly your first ever post on a message board with "My God, people..." followed by an attack on posters you don't know and a reprimand that they are going against what the Professor would have appreciated, is hostile and frankly when I read it I assumed the poster was a troll.

Apart from saying stuff that just don't bear scrutiny (Tolkien did start a sequel to ROTK and those aren't the reasons he abandoned it - he simply thought it would be depressing and not worth doing) there was the diktat on how the work should be taken and describing not doing it the poster's way as one of the "biggest tragedies".... :rolleyes:

Tolkien is very far from a simplistic writer - the more I read him the more I aprreciate the depth and complexity of his work, the care given to give characters an ideolect appropriate to their history.

[Pitchwife]

OK, Mith, if you put it that way, I see what you mean - but if leap behaved like a troll, s/he was being an independently thinking and articulate Olog with strong feelings about Tolkien that I don't fully agree with but can sort of sympathize with, and the ability to express them, and I don't see why there shouldn't be room for a few such specimens in this large zoo of excentric personalities, even if they don't arrive fully house-trained. To be honest, I rather liked leap's first post - which doesn't mean I have to agree with each and every statement therein.

But maybe, since I wasn't involved in the original discussion (although I followed it with interest), I should shut up now and not get even further off topic than we already are.

[Mithalwen]

Pitch, I think we are a "broad church", and we have many articulate, independent thinkers and surely we all care passionately about Tolkien else we wouldn't be here. :D If we were a bunch of sheep we possibly wouldn't have minded being told the error of our ways....:cool: but I'm done before the Skwerls arrive.

[Morthoron]

Anyway, I'm far more a fan of TH and LotR than the First and Second Age writings. I have an emotional and perhaps irrational dislike for the academic perspective that holds the First and Second Age stuff as canon, as cleanly trumping interpretation of the Third Age stuff. As the strict Old Testament God of laws and judgement morphed into the more loving and forgiving God of the New, I see Tolkien's divinities as learning, growing and changing too.

When Tolkien made his son Christopher his literary executor, he was implicit in his wish to have 1st and 2nd Age material published; as a matter of fact, it was certainly Tolkien's hope that The Silmarillion, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, would be published in his lifetime. Unfortunately, based on the vagueries of the publishing business, a sequel for The Hobbit (ie., The Lord of the Rings) overrode Tolkien's ardent wishes that his earlier histories be brought to light.

Therefore, your wish to adjudicate a separation of canonicity regarding such material is a matter of personal taste and not one necessarily held by most of the posters here, or of the majority of Tolkien scholars, for that matter. The ties that bind the new and the old were clearly necessary to Tolkien, who was vehement that the publishers include so much of his ancient history in the appendices of LoTR. In addition, references to the Ring of Barahir, Morgoth, Eärendil, Varda (Elbereth Gilthoniel), Gondolin, etc., make it clear that Tolkien purposefully set about to have the Third Age merely another epoch in a grander, more ancient tale of Middle-earth.

[blantyr]

As a matter of polite discourse, it is always a good thing to avoid ad hominem attacks, and simply focus on the topic at hand--but if you're going to jump into an argument (or discussion, if "argument" sounds divisive rather than logical to you), it helps to know what ideas you're debating against... and the whole thread is a matter of public record. While it's laudable to avoid saying "Downer X is a blithering idiot" and "Downer Y is clearly an idiot," there is nothing wrong at all with saying "Downer A, Downer B, and Downer C all seem to be arguing from an intellectualist perspective--insert quotations here--and I think they're missing the boat with regards to the proper spirit of Tolkien--insert quotation from Tolkien here."

There is nothing wrong with the above style of discussion. Still, I don't see it as the only possible style of discussion.

I don't know that any of us ought to consider ourselves keepers and defenders of the proper spirit of Tolkien. He wrote different works in different styles at different points in his career. I don't know that there is any single 'proper' spirit. I feel it is art, and that beauty in art comes to a great extent from the perspective of the observer. Even if there was a proper spirit of Tolkien, different aspects of it would resonate in different readers. If five blind hobbits were to stumble into an Oliphant, and we were to find ourselves involved in a rope / snake / fan / tree / wall sort of discourse, you might find me off the the side practicing my face palms. Tolkien's works are as complex and multi-faceted as any Oliphant.

And I fear I for one will base my perspectives from the art rather than academic sources. If I believe the magical conflict more blatant in the First Age than the Third, I'll work from examples rather than trying to access academic works looking for an appropriate quote. I've read and reread The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings often enough that my originals are falling apart, but I'm not into the First and Second Age stuff, let alone any of the professor's notes or letters.

leap and blantyr, if you're interested in a discussion of the pros and cons of what I think you call intellectualizing, you might like to have a look at this thread. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=15701)

The text was interesting and worthy. I can see how the thread ended with the cartoon, though.

http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/cartoons/nemi/Nemi210809_600x194.gif

[Nogrod]

There are academic works on any issue that are paper-dry and "academic" in the worst sense of the term, strangers to life or literature. There are also idiosyncratic interpretations led by self-righteous hot-heads that maybe inspired but will leave most of the other people quite empty-handed - and there are emotional & individualistic viewpoints that serve mainly as spiritual masturbation for the one who writes them...

But many academic texts are also profound, thought for, learned, inspiring and uplifting with all the supporting "evidence" and learning behind it, not to say that they can rally make a difference. There are also some more or less home-spawn "exotic-theories" that can actually affect many people and make them learn to see things in new ways - and at their best, even the purely personal and emotional views can open up new worlds for others to explore and to re-adjust their minds.


So let's not say academic discussion is bad as such, or that not having footnotes is bad, or that disagreeing is bad in itself.

Disagreement is the nurturing force of enlightenment - when it is argued about and not fought over with guns or fists - or bad rhetoric... :rolleyes:

I think it a stupid or immature attitude when I hear people saying that they hate / love either classical music, hip-hop, techno, heavy rock, punk, mainstream pop, whatever... You can do any of those astonishingly great or blatantly bad. A lousy interpretation of Vivaldi is no better than commercially driven punk-rock. Dead Kennedys, Bach and The Who can all be good, while it is clear that Justin Bieber and Francis Goya mock music and those bling-guys are a disgrace to hip-hop... :)

[Nerwen]

To be honest, I rather liked leap's first post - which doesn't mean I have to agree with each and every statement therein.

Well, that's your opinion, Pitch. Mine is that he was most extraordinarily rude.

I learned there to discuss ideas rather than name names. I'd be pleased to discuss ideas, but am not inclined to call people out, to turn things personal and partisan.

My point is that, in fact, nobody (not even the thread starter) was maintaining the point of view you seem ascribe to us collectively. You see, sometimes names do help, blantyr. I also think it's a good idea, in general, not to leap blindly into a debate.

I don't know that any of us ought to consider ourselves keepers and defenders of the proper spirit of Tolkien. He wrote different works in different styles at different points in his career. I don't know that there is any single 'proper' spirit. I feel it is art, and that beauty in art comes to a great extent from the perspective of the observer. Even if there was a proper spirit of Tolkien, different aspects of it would resonate in different readers.
An excellent point, and one I couldn't agree with more. On that note, perhaps you should think twice next time before you post in support of someone who is heavily laying down the law about what topics others may or may not discuss, and in what fashion?

EDIT:X'd with Nogrod.

[Aiwendil]

Still, I don't see it as the only possible style of discussion.

See, no one ever claimed it was the only possible style of discussion.

[Morthoron]

Things get really disquieting on a thread when the discussion turns from disquisition to a dissertation on how one should discuss the discursive aspects of discourse, which I find is a disgusting digression. ;)

[Nerwen]

See, no one ever claimed it was the only possible style of discussion.

For that matter, nobody (except Dak, possibly) ever claimed that his or hers were (to quote you again, blantyr) "the only possible interpretations". Where exactly did you get that idea?

Now, I want you to understand this: I am a great believer in, and defender of, the right of readers to like what they like, dislike what they don't like, and generally approach books in any way they please, rather than having to interpret them in any one "official" manner.

However, once you move out of the realm of personal preference, I think it fair enough that you should be asked to support your statements.

Now, there are many things in Tolkien's work (as in many other writers' work, for that matter), that don't have a final, definitive answer. In fact, I believe most of us hold this as a basic assumption. But the thing is, often the value of a discussion lies not so much in its ultimate goal but in the interesting things that happen along the way. I really think this is something that people who disapprove of argument miss, just as much as those who are only interested in winning or losing.

Please don't think me hard line about this– I'm not saying every stray remark should be debated into the ground or that every statement must be proven from first principles. However, blantyr, the fact is that you have certainly not been shy about giving us your views, at length, on a considerable number of topics– have you? I ask you to consider how much practical difference there is, then, between saying your opinions should be above question, and maintaining you're always right?

[Herald_of_Mandos]

My God, people...I think Tolkien would appreciate this discussion about as much as he appreciated hippies making LOTR into something other then what he originally intended. Granted, Tolkien's work is intellectual, but it is not intellectualism.

One of the biggest tragedies is approaching his works or ending his works in something other than the faerie that birthed it. We all appreciate the in depth discussion (I certainly love the finer points of Tolkien) but some of this is insane.
To me, Middle Earth was, and is real. I think it is for all of us, in our hearts. Yet I am still holding out within the design that it really is tangible.

Right on! What makes these half-baked academic types think they have the right to say anything whatever until they've made absolutely sure that it couldn't possibly upset anybody's swarfega-dish for any reason at all? Don't they realise that just by speaking of "The Lord of the Rings" as "a novel by J.R.R Tolkien" they're dealing a vicious slap in the face to those of us who regard it as a sacred text? Why, it's like attacking the Cult of the Sonorous Enigma! It's the greatest tragedy since the Pica regime!

Of course, there are those who might try to tell you that posting on an internet forum pretty much does for suspension of disbelief in Middle-earth anyway, but then some people will say anything. Why, I've even heard there are lunatics out there who claim my beloved homeland of San Serriffe is totally fictitious! How dare they!:mad:

[leapofberen]

Exactly Mandos...Why did it take you so long to speak up? Have you been reading these posts? We have a lot of catching up to do in here!

[blantyr]

Please don't think me hard line about this– I'm not saying every stray remark should be debated into the ground or that every statement must be proven from first principles. However, blantyr, the fact is that you have certainly not been shy about giving us your views, at length, on a considerable number of topics– have you? I ask you to consider how much practical difference there is, then, between saying your opinions should be above question, and maintaining you're always right?

There is not so much difference "between saying your opinions should be above question, and maintaining you're always right," however I assert neither. I would expect healthy diversity in people's views about Tolkien's works. I expect the diversity of views on Tolkien says as much about the diversity of people holding these views -- about how various downers see things -- as about Tolkien. As people will see different things in random ink blots, people will be attracted to different aspects of Tolkien's work and fit the work into their own way of seeing the world.

Dakêsîntrah might stand as an example, with his interest in world mythology and comparative religion coloring his posts. To the extent that my interests and studies don't overlap his, my interest in and understanding of Tolkien are going to focus on different aspects and ideas. While Dakêsîntrah and I might plausibly be unusual or extreme cases, I'd suggest we all bring something of ourselves into what we find in Middle Earth.

This being the case, I might not be so interested in debate and proofs as some. I also read Tolkien more as art than as a formal and consistent academic system. As such, I might not be using the same tools as others.

[Herald_of_Mandos]

Exactly Mandos...Why did it take you so long to speak up? Have you been reading these posts? We have a lot of catching up to do in here!

Well, I've been looking them over; we San Serriffeans tend to feel superficial details gets in the way of appreciation at the deeper, intuitive level, so I just don't feel the need to waste my time reading each and every post.

Talking of my culture, I wonder what people like N----n (as I'll call her to avoid conflict) would think of the dramas performed in our famous Festival of the Well-Made Play, the true meaning of which nobody in the audience comprehends? No doubt she would wish to subject them to some kind of icy academic analysis!:rolleyes:

Not that I'm trying to pick a fight with anyone here. Just saying what I feel!

[Inziladun]

It would appear that there's an easy solution for those who don't find this thread appropriate, or worthy of their attention: simply avoid it and move on to other things.

[Bêthberry]

Inzil, I have to say that your siggie has inspired me to sit and to listen to, over and over again, the Chicago Symphony's version of the Overture and then to Karajan's version. My father loved Tannhauser but I can't remember which rendition I grew up with. Thank you so much for the remembrance. (/off topic)

I often have to laugh at the animosity of some Tolkien fans to "academic" discussion. Tolkien was himself an academic and his professional work represents a wide range of styles, from the very dry tomes of academe to the more passionate voice of the "essai." But the very foundation of his art is his love of language, of philology, and his keen interest in, as the academic Shippey has it, the "asterisk" poem/word/source, which haunts our interest and whets our curiosity to uncover more. This was, indeed, the very nature of Tolkien's own passion and it is the rare fan who doesn't share this.

There is, indeed, a great number of tum tum trees which Tolkien bemoaned (out of respect for all I refuse to give a footnote for that allusion), but by and large he had great respect for those who loved the tower. Most of us here, I believe, are those. One can love the tower and still want to discover the asterisk word.

[Morthoron]

It would appear that there's an easy solution for those who don't find this thread appropriate, or worthy of their attention: simply avoid it and move on to other things.

How absurd! Imagine if everyone had that kind of laissez faire attitude!

It is absolutely necessary for posters to voice their distaste for a certain topic, or the manner in which a topic is being discussed. Without people wasting immense amounts of time harping on inconsequential points, Internet forums would cease to exist.

And I, for one, will not be held responsible for the destruction of the Internet!

[blantyr]

How absurd! Imagine if everyone had that kind of laissez faire attitude!

It is absolutely necessary for posters to voice their distaste for a certain topic, or the manner in which a topic is being discussed. Without people wasting immense amounts of time harping on inconsequential points, Internet forums would cease to exist.

And I, for one, will not be held responsible for the destruction of the Internet!

I'm not sure the threat to Barrow Downs is all that severe. I'm not sure, but I think you have to throw the server into a volcano.

Perhaps a really big flood would do.

[Inziladun]

Inzil, I have to say that your siggie has inspired me to sit and to listen to, over and over again, the Chicago Symphony's version of the Overture and then to Karajan's version. My father loved Tannhauser but I can't remember which rendition I grew up with. Thank you so much for the remembrance. (/off topic)

I'm glad it gave you fond memories. The Tannhäuser Overture is one of my favourite pieces, and that particular performance is absolutely stunning. With no hyperbole, it seems that, especially in the last few minutes of the second part, one can hear dim echoes of Heaven.

I often have to laugh at the animosity of some Tolkien fans to "academic" discussion. Tolkien was himself an academic and his professional work represents a wide range of styles, from the very dry tomes of academe to the more passionate voice of the "essai." But the very foundation of his art is his love of language, of philology, and his keen interest in, as the academic Shippey has it, the "asterisk" poem/word/source, which haunts our interest and whets our curiosity to uncover more. This was, indeed, the very nature of Tolkien's own passion and it is the rare fan who doesn't share this.

Well put. If we here were all adverse to such discussions, this forum might be a boring place indeed. Occasionally I run up on topics I don't find very interesting, but the thing to do there is to ignore them, and find one of the myriad threads that does get my attention.

Without people wasting immense amounts of time harping on inconsequential points, Internet forums would cease to exist.

Ah, there are so many fora that in my opinion have no business existing. But for the sake of the Downs, I guess they have to be allowed room as well. ;)

[Nerwen]

Dakêsîntrah might stand as an example, with his interest in world mythology and comparative religion coloring his posts. To the extent that my interests and studies don't overlap his, my interest in and understanding of Tolkien are going to focus on different aspects and ideas. While Dakêsîntrah and I might plausibly be unusual or extreme cases, I'd suggest we all bring something of ourselves into what we find in Middle Earth.
Indeed we do. Some of us, for example, may allow the fact that we actually know something about mythology and comparative religion to colour our responses to someone whose endless posting regarding the same is riddled with leaps of logic and demonstrable factual errors. Or we may allow a certain impatience to show in our reactions to what perhaps looks like to us like an act of complete self-indulgence. Just being ourselves, blantyr.;)

There is not so much difference "between saying your opinions should be above question, and maintaining you're always right," however I assert neither.
Then you're fine with your ideas, like Dak's before you, being open to debate just like everyone else's? An excellent start.:)

[leapofberen]

How absurd! Imagine if everyone had that kind of laissez faire attitude!

It is absolutely necessary for posters to voice their distaste for a certain topic, or the manner in which a topic is being discussed. Without people wasting immense amounts of time harping on inconsequential points, Internet forums would cease to exist.

And I, for one, will not be held responsible for the destruction of the Internet!


I agree...

Here I will say that while I find Daks posts intriguing and his/her grasp on some different things impressive, it is the long winded and (seemingly, perhaps unintentional) domineering posts that irritated me initially. Which led to my own controversial/ill-toned post that seemed to have an even greater effect on the thread...:o


(For which I apologize, realize that generalizing was a mistake when it only the tone/direction of a few posts that instigated my irritation. I have only seen many intelligent and passionate fans who post here, all of whom have my respect. Including Dak...)

Which Dak, I think I agree with some previous posts, what you were writing about is a topic worthy of a whole new thread, which I would love to see discussed some more. I find your concepts of history and pre-history fascinating and found the initial direction of what you were saying intriguing.






I often have to laugh at the animosity of some Tolkien fans to "academic" discussion. Tolkien was himself an academic and his professional work represents a wide range of styles, from the very dry tomes of academe to the more passionate voice of the "essai." But the very foundation of his art is his love of language, of philology, and his keen interest in, as the academic Shippey has it, the "asterisk" poem/word/source, which haunts our interest and whets our curiosity to uncover more. This was, indeed, the very nature of Tolkien's own passion and it is the rare fan who doesn't share this.

Tut tut, tum tum. A forced laugh indeed. Nonetheless, I agree, the art is caught up in the academic foundation of Tolkien's passion for language and philology. The haunting, it seems to me, is the realism that we can feel yet still tends to stay just beyond our grasp leaving us wanting more...to reference an earlier post, who doesn't wish Tolkien would have left us more?

Yes, I love the academia as long as it continues to lead me further into the expression of the "art." Or, as I would put it, the reason why we do what we do, I guess.


Well, I've been looking them over; we San Serriffeans tend to feel superficial details gets in the way of appreciation at the deeper, intuitive level, so I just don't feel the need to waste my time reading each and every post.

Talking of my culture, I wonder what people like N----n (as I'll call her to avoid conflict) would think of the dramas performed in our famous Festival of the Well-Made Play, the true meaning of which nobody in the audience comprehends? No doubt she would wish to subject them to some kind of icy academic analysis!:rolleyes:

Not that I'm trying to pick a fight with anyone here. Just saying what I feel!


I've never seen those associated with Mandos inject such humor into a...serious situation...I laughed, and I applaud you.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Crossbreeding and Fantasy Morality

Is it only what's inside that matters?

There was a story in Black Gate magazine a while back. A human thief sneaks into the sacred chambers of a city of spider-obsessed people in order to steal something which will make him rich enough to elope with his sweetheart, one of the local nobility.

He discovers in the course of his adventure that the local nobility hatch out from spider eggs!

Then he runs away and never returns.

Speaking of fantasy crossbreeding: many years ago a TV-series called Quark chronicled the voyages of an intergalactic garbage scow. The crew featured a first officer named Ficus -- half-man/half-plant -- and a set of identical-twin bimbo clones called Betty-1 and Betty-2. In one hilarious episode, Betty-1 (or Betty-2) asked Ficus how his species bred and he offered to demonstrate with the more-than-willing clone. "First we get down on the deck and lay down on our backs," he instructed. This they both did. "Now, we raise our legs and arms up in the air," he continued. This they both did. "Now what do we do?" inquired the luscious Betty-2 (or Betty-1). Replied Ficus in all seriousness: "Now we wait for the bee."

Nothing about morality, but something about crossbreeding. Just what, I have no idea.

[Morthoron]

MTM, just to let you know, I believe you are having an engrossing conversation with a spam-bot. Cleverly disguised, but a spam-bot nonetheless.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

MTM, just to let you know, I believe you are having an engrossing conversation with a spam-bot. Cleverly disguised, but a spam-bot nonetheless.

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep it in mind. I wouldn't have bothered stepping in here, but I temporarily ran out of invective to lavish on the Itaril/Tauriel nonsense.

[Ardent]

These quotes are from the original post of this thread:
... wonders why such a cruel fate, usually the whim of fickle gods, can befall Túrin Turambar when Eru Ilúvatar is a benevolent creator.
As other posts have pointed out, this is a question of how one reconciles suffering with a loving creator. But I would go further and ask how can there be love in a world where there is so much evidence of its non-existence?
The same question hangs over other concepts such as 'beauty' and 'freedom'. Like Eu they cannot be quantified or pinned down and neither can they be eliminated from our fantasies. Being in pain may stop me appreciating the sunset, but it doesn't mean the beauty is no longer there. Logic may tell me that suns do not set (the earth spins) and that it is merely a huge, dangerous ball fire. I still say it's also beautiful.

In his discussion of "slave morality" vs. "noble morality"...:
...Where Túrin railed against his fate, Frodo, Aragon and co. seem to fall in line under some form of deontology, the journey to Mount Doom will be long and hard, but it has to be done and that is that.


Deontology: deont = duty + logic. Why not say "a sense of duty"?

When Sam sees the Scouring of the Shire in the mirror of Galadriel his sense of duty impels him to return and do something about it. Galadriel has to remind him that he was resigned to his duty to Frodo before looking in the mirror, effectively saying "know thyself". If you do not know yourself prophecy is an unreliable guide. Sam has to decide which is 'nobler in the mind'; to go back and take up arms against the Scouring, or to suffer that outrage in favour of the greater purpose.

Personally I find Nietszhe's philosophy flawed. Like Sam we have to choose, not between 'serving' or 'being served' but between different battles, different masters, different things we love.