eucatastrophe: piercing joy that brings tears

[mark12_30]

From letter 89 by Tolkien:
"... I coined the word 'eucatastrophe': the sudden happy turn in a story which pierces you with a joy that brings tears (which I argued it is the highest function of fairy stories to produce). And I was there led to the view that it produces its peculiar effect because it is a sudden glimpse of truth.... It percieves-- if the story has literary 'truth'...--that this is indeed how things really do work in the Great World for which our nature is made. And I concluded by saying that the Resurrection was the greatest 'eucatastrophe' possible in the greatest fairy story-- and produces that essential emotion: Christian joy which produces tears because it is qualitatively so like sorrow, because it comes from those places where Joy and Sorrow are at one, reconciled, as selfishness and altruism are lost in Love..."

--Letter 89

A number of things surface in this letter that I should like to open up for discussion.

Working backwards: What do you think of Tolkien's idea that "selfishness and altruism are lost in love"? Do you see evidence of that in LOTR, or Silm, or the Hobbit?

What do you think of Tolkien's idea that Joy and Sorrow can become one and reconciled, and where do you see evidence of that in LOTR, or Silm, or the Hobbit?

And given his definition of eucatastrophe: a sudden happy turn, a sudden glimpse of truth, that peirces you with a joy that brings tears-- what passages in LOTR, or Silm, or the Hobbit effect you that way, and what is the truth that you perceive in the "sudden happy turn"?

--Helen

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[The Silver-shod Muse]

Eucatastrophe. What an interesting word.

...the sudden happy turn in a story which pierces you with a joy that brings tears (which I argued it is the highest function of fairy stories to produce).

I agree completely with that letter. In my opinion it was Tolkien's ability to so poignantly breathe life into the effects of joy and sorrow's reconciliation that makes his works great. Might this emotion, or the effects of this "sudden happy turn" be akin to transcendence for both the reader and for the character(s)?

And I concluded by saying that the Resurrection was the greatest 'eucatastrophe' possible in the greatest fairy story-- and produces that essential emotion: Christian joy which produces tears because it is qualitatively so like sorrow, because it comes from those places where Joy and Sorrow are at one, reconciled, as selfishness and altruism are lost in Love..."

Perhaps LotR's relation to life as a Christian lies in this. I was surprised to find that when reading LotR I felt that same all-consuming joy/sorrow that I experienced when I was in prayer and communion with my Saviour. In both instances I have found myself in tears of joy that fall purely for the love and truth of it all, and are by far the best kind and the most sincere.

The overwhelming victory of love and ultimate truth shines through every page of LotR. It is humbling to read such powerful words, and I only hope that someday my writings will reach people with the truth as Tolkien's has and still does.

Great topic by the way, and very skillfully addressed.

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: The Silver-shod Muse ]

[Bêthberry]

Hello Mark12-30,

I'm so glad you have posted this topic! I don't know the Lettersfrom which you quote,but I do know Tolkien's essay "On Fairy-Stories." I hope you don't mind if I quote from that as a second source of the ideas from Tolkien which you have quoted here.

But the 'consolation' of fairy-stories has another aspect than the imaginative satisfaction of ancient desires. Far more important is the Consolation of the Happy Enidng. Almost I would venture to assert that all complete fairy-stories must have it. At least I would say that Tragedy is true form of Drama, its hightest function; but the oppositive is true of Fairy-story. Since we do not appear to possess a word that expresses this opposite--I will call it Eucatastrophe. The eucatastrophic tale is the true form of fairy-tale, and its hightest function.

The consolation of fairy-stories, the joy of the happy ending: or more correctly of the good catastrophphe, the sudden joyous 'turn' (for there is no true end to any fairy-tale): this joy, wich is one of the things which fairy-tales can produce supremely well, is not essentially 'escapist', nor 'fugitive'. In its fairy-tale--or otherworld--setting, it is a sudden and miraculous grace: never to be counted on to recur. It does not deny the existence of dyscatastrophe, of sorrow and failure: the possibility of these is necessary to the joy of deliverance; it denies (in the face of much evidence, if you will) universal final defeat and in so far is evangelium, giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief....I would venture to say that approaching the Christian Story from this direction, it has long been my feeling (a joyous feeling) that God redeemed the corrupt making-creatures, men, in a way fitting to this aspect, as to others, of their strange nature. The Gospels contain a fairy-story .... The Birth of Christ is the eucatastrophe of Man's history. The Resurrection is the eucatastrophe of the story of the Incarnation. ...There is no tale ever told that men would rather find was true....

This is the explanation of Tolkien's thought that I know best. Let me run off now, complete my RL tasks, and get back to this thread after I have contemplated it some more.

Bethberry

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I just found the word "eucatastrophe" in Shippey's J.R.R. Tolkien, Author of the Century! He uses it to describe the ending of Leaf by Niggleand in doing so (since that story is strongly autobiographical), Tolkien's own life. When Niggle dies, the real world forgets him, a tragedy. But the world after death turns to eucatastrophe:
Niggle's reward is to find his picture come true at the end of his journey, his 'sub-creation' accepted by the Creator, there in full detail and 'finished' but (exactly the opposite of what happens in the world he has left) not 'finished with', in the sense that there is still enormous scope for development.

What a wonderful parallel to Tolkien's own works, not all finished and certainly not finished with, an inspiration to so many for so many years! This is the eucatastrophe I would wish for in my own life, to be able to look back and see that, no matter how dissatisfied I was with what I've done, something good came of it. One of my favorite Bible verses touches this: "All things work together for good... (Romans 8:28) Thank God the eucatastrophe is not something that is within my power or responsibility!!

[The Silver-shod Muse]

I agree Estelyn! smilies/wink.gif
I know that this may seem just a bit off-topic, but one of the most moving examples of Tolkien's definition of eucatastrophe can be found in C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle. All the good creatures of Narnia are standing in the doorway behind Aslan seeing, horror-struck and overcome with grief, the dissolution of all that was Narnia. But when they turn back after the destruction and look through the doorway, expecting the end of all good times and joy, there is Narnia again, only bigger and better and brighter, a heaven, the true Narnia all along, as it were. All the things that the children thought were terrible and ruinous were really working towards good and the fulfillment of Aslan's plan. It is such a potent and stirring scene, albeit blatantly allegorical, and a very good utilization of the fantasy eucatastropy element.

[mark12_30]

Selfishness and Altruism lost in Love: to me the embodiment of this one is Aragorn. To oversimplify: He (selfishly) wants Arwen badly enough to (altruistically) roam the countryside protecting countries that don't know he's there, chase Gollum across the world because Gandalf wants him to, and fight an entire war to detract attention from two halflings. And in the end, when he finally takes Arwen's hand, probably thinking at long last she is MINE MINE MINE, none of us resent it in the least. (do we?)

Joy and sorrow reconciled and become one: That one seems harder to me, but I think of those moments that Frodo and Sam have on the journey between Emyn Muil and Mt Doom when they look at each other and discover their ever-deepening friendship has gone yet another level deeper, and that is a great joy; yet, they are immersed in sorrow as they realise it.

Pure eucatastrophe: Sam's glimpse of the star beyond the Ephel Duath.

More: Frodo and Sam meeting Bilbo and the elves in the woods of the Shire at the end of the book-- The joy of Frodo and Bilbo's transcendance against the wrenching sorrow of leaving Sam.

[mark12_30]

Selfishness and Altruism uniting in love: In one of my favorite chapters, "A Conspiracy Unmasked". Pippin, Merry, and Sam decide to go with Frodo-- wherever and intro whatever he goes-- because he needs their help, and, they don't want to be without him. Merry says later (I think to Haldir) that if he'd known what the world outside was like he wouldn't have had the heart to leave the Shire. But leave it he did, and Pipin and Sam too, for love of Frodo.

[Mister Underhill]

An even more pointed example might be Sam's dash to Anduin and flinging of himself into the river to make sure Frodo doesn't leave without him.

Sam's feelings and motivations usually seem more pure and undiluted -- just somehow less complex -- than those of most of the other characters, and his mixed motivations of altruism and selfishness, merging together in love, are right out there on his sleeve in the final scene of FotR.

[mark12_30]

Good point, Mr. Underhill. Sam is a steady eucatastrophe-producer. ("Eucer"?)

I picked up Smith of Wooton Major last night and about got euc'ed to peices in Faery-land. I sure didn't get that much out of it the first time I read it!

A new connection for me also (lately) has been, now that I knew that the eagles are sent by Manwe (and not just a convenient conincidence) I get euc'ed when I read, "The Eagles are coming!" It takes me right to the rescue of Frodo and Sam-- even if I'm in the battle of Five Armies instead.

Speaking of Frodo and Sam at the crack of Doom-- now there's an odd juxtaposition of selfishness (Frodo claiming ring) and self-sacrifice (Frodo's draining himself to get to the cracks of Doom, and Sam spending himself to get him there as well.) Altruism and selfishness made one in love-- does that fit? Hmmm.

[Kuruharan]

get euc'ed when I read, "The Eagles are coming!" It takes me right to the rescue of Frodo and Sam-- even if I'm in the battle of Five Armies instead.


But if it happens more than once is it still a eucatastrophe?

[mark12_30]

I think so. Tolkien said, "never to be counted on to recur". He didn't say that it couldn't recur. And I find that some do recur, for me, several times, sometimes deeper and more piercing every time. Grey Havens, for instance. (Mercy!!)

[Lush]

When Treebeard parts with the company, and utters the words now employed in the beginning of the movie. "..the world is changing..."
One gets the sense that ultimately, everything has gone right, but the immensity of the moment is almost too much to bear. Galadriel's answer is as reassuring as it is heartbreaking. For me, this passage brought about one of the most profound moments of clarity throughout the book. The world really is changing, and when the reader (or at least, myself) realises the scale of the change, the mystery of what is to come, and the character's many roles in helping to bring this change about, he/she wants to smile, with tears in their eyes. Well, at least a pathetic crybaby like myself does.

[Kuruharan]

And I find that some do recur, for me, several times

But, I meant the event itself, not necessarily the reader's reaction to it.

[mark12_30]

Perhaps you could expand/ explain your question so that it makes sense to me. I'm a bit thick.

My initial reaction is, that part of eucatastrophe is that it is a glimpse into the eternal, into what is true and pure and good; I think part of that, is the reader's openness to recieving it. If Frodo is revealed as shining with an internal light, is it only allowed to happen once? Why? If that's who he really is, why should we not see it more than once?

But I don't think I'm really connecting with your question, am I? Help me out here.

[Kuruharan]

Perhaps you could expand/ explain your question so that it makes sense to me.

Sure, I'll try to form a coherent idea out of my inarticulate jargon.

Speaking strictly in the context of the story, my question is can an event be considered a eucatastrophe if it happens more than once? Meaning that can a extraordinary event take place in a story the same way (or almost the same way) twice or more, and still be considered "never to be counted on to recur?" If something happens a certain way twice or more then it may happen again.

To me that seems to dilute the value of this experience of seeing, in a miraculous and unexpected fashion, the triumph of Good over Evil (to cite an example) if it happens the same way more than once. If the "unexpected" starts happening over and over it ceases to be unexpected. The key is that the eucatastrophe be unrepeatable.

This is not to say that there could not be more than one eucatastrophe in a story, but I don't believe that it should happen the same way twice. It needs to be different circumstances and a different "unexpected."

I hope that clarified. smilies/smile.gif

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[mark12_30]

All right, Kuruharan, I see your point, and I agree that formula should be avoided and would lessen the suprise quality of the eucatastrophe.

However, does that mean that one eucatastrophe must therefore not point to another? To me, the more I read the same story, the more the story layers connect together, and I see how things relate. So as I re-read through the story, I encounter more of them, especially as I learn more about relationships.

So when (for instance) Frodo dreams, again, about going over the sea, is it forbidden to be a eucatastrophe, simply because he has dreamed before? Or, do the dreams now mean far more to me-- and connect me with the distant, shining truth-- because now I know that he WILL sail?

All his mentions, references, dreams, and songs about the sea, scattered throughout the tale, now connect me to his final departure. That doesn't lessen his final departure; it deepens it. For me, anyway.

The way that I interpret "never to be counted on to recur" is, for instance, that the Ringbearers only sail once. But I don't interpret that as meaning, I'm only permitted one revelation about it. The revelations are scattered throughout the book. And the more I reread it the more of them I catch, until the big picture begins to form, the tapestry of revelation that was there all along, but I didn't have eyes to see it yet.

[Kuruharan]

However, does that mean that one eucatastrophe must therefore not point to another?

Certainly not.

So when (for instance) Frodo dreams, again, about going over the sea, is it forbidden to be a eucatastrophe, simply because he has dreamed before?

Certainly not. But he can only actually sail over the Sea once. It's the actual event, not events pointing to it or eucatastrophes preceeding it that I mean.

Or, do the dreams now mean far more to me-- and connect me with the distant, shining truth-- because now I know that he WILL sail?


That's hard for me to say, but perhaps. But I personally would not define a dream as a eucatastrophe. It's not a great unexpected event. It's a personal experience for the dreamer. It may lead to a eucatastrophe but I don't think that it is a eucatastrophe in and of itself.

I think that perhaps the difference between us is a different viewpoint on eucatastrophes. I think that what is important to you are glimpses of great future events and then the event. For me, I'm mainly concerned with the event itself, and not so much with the events leading up to it.

Not that one viewpoint is better than another, just different.

[mark12_30]

Okay, Kuruharan, I can see that. I'm almost more concerned with the stuff that points forwards to the event than the event itself, because dreams, visions, prophesies etc tell us so much about destiny and personality and how they combine. To me it's as important to understand why Frodo sailed, as that he sailed; and every pointer to that decision (did I just say that? what a geek) ... anyway, every pointer to that decision is part of the leaving. Likewise, Aragon and Arwen-- yes, their marriage (and then their parting) is incredibly poignant, and that's the part that gets me on the rfirst read-thru. But on subsequent read-throughs, what gets me more are the pointers-- Arwen sending Aragorn the banner, and the message that goes with it-- either our hope comes, or all hope's end... (zap. Euc'ed.)

So I guess for me, it's backwards-progressive; the first time thru for me the final Event may be the eucatastrophe, but in following readings, as I begin to see the forward-pointing connections, indications, (dreams, visions, prophesies) that lead to the Event, and then THOSE get me, almost as much if not more than the final event.

(Maybe that explains why Isaiah is my favorite book about Jesus... He shall feed his flock like a shepherd, and he shall gather the lambs in his arms... zap.)

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

How is eucatastastrophe different from catharsis?

I mean eucatastrophe. Sorry, I don't normally stutter.

-Maril

[ August 18, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

But if it happens more than once is it still a eucatastrophe?

Since two similar events can be catastrophes, I would say 'yes'. Some eucatastrophic events can be greater and more decisive than others, but that doesn't make the more minor ones any less deserving of the description.

How is eucatastastrophe different from catharsis?

I obtained the following definition from dictionary.com:
ca·thar·sis Pronunciation Key (k-thärss)
n. pl. ca·thar·ses (-sz)
Medicine. Purgation, especially for the digestive system.
A purifying or figurative cleansing of the emotions, especially pity and fear, described by Aristotle as an effect of tragic drama on its audience.
A release of emotional tension, as after an overwhelming experience, that restores or refreshes the spirit.
Psychology.
A technique used to relieve tension and anxiety by bringing repressed feelings and fears to consciousness.
The therapeutic result of this process; abreaction.

[New Latin, from Greek katharsis, from kathairein, to purge, from katharos, pure.]


I would say that a eucatastrophe is an event, whereas a catharsis is an effect. A eucatastrophe may bring about a catharsis, but it doesn't constitute one.

[Gandalf_theGrey]

* Steps forth, smoking a conversational bowl of Old Toby. *

Hullo, Kuruharan and mark12_30:

* bows a greeting *

I am greatly enjoying your discussion. Here are my own two pieces of mithril:

As for the dream of Frodo sailing over the sea, that sort of dream as a prophetic indicator of a future event does not to my mind qualify as eucatastrophe. Certainly the dream was a consolation ... but I see no evidence that it had a direct cause-and-effect bearing on Frodo's behavior. Thus, the dream was a percursor to eucatastrophe which added depth to the eucatastrophe when it finally did happen.

However, I would say that there are indeed dreams of another nature ... dreams so powerful as to be life-changing. Such dreams qualify as events in and of themselves.

To my mind, a dream qualifies as being a eucatastrophe if it meets the following two criteria as defined in Tolkien's letter # 89:

1) an event causing unexpected joy that brings tears

2) an event bringing a sudden glimpse of truth

I've had such a life-changing dream, about Mirkwood. Before the dream, I hesitantly avoided taking a certain action in my waking life. After the dream, that very day I set about taking that very action with an optimism I had not been gifted with before.

Looking forward to hearing any and all further insight on this fascinating, uplifting, and most worthy topic, smilies/smile.gif

Olórin

[ August 18, 2002: Message edited by: Gandalf_theGrey ]

[Nar]

I would say that a eucatastrophe-- if earned, that is, if the entire book leads to and compells that stunning reverse (which will happen if a book's well-written) --induces a particular type of catharsis. I think there are other patterns that induce different types of catharsis. An unearned attempt at eucatastrophe is cheap and manipulative. You can see such things in the formulaic reverses in romance novels-- 'The hero loves her after all! It was all a misunderstanding! YAWN!'

I think 'the eagles are coming!' works twice because the eagles serve a different function at the battle of the Black Gates and the Battle of Five Armies.

The eagles don't rush around LotR saving the company at every questing dead end-- they don't come and help on Caradhras or against the wargs in front of Moria. This is plotted into the book-- the Eye is now active and by the end of FotR we know its power is airborne. Thus, in Morder, the eagles can't airdrop canteens and leaf-wrapped lembas (I knew those air-dropped foil-wrapped poptarts reminded me of something!), or give express rides to Sammeth Naur. They'd give Frodo and Sam's purpose and position away, and Sauron woud be on them like the prince of cats on a mouse.

Matters are more serious now, the characters face not the enemies (goblins and wargs) but the Enemy and an organized army. Strategically and thematically, LotR is a progressive development of the Hobbit, so the development of the 'Eagles' eucatastrophe moves us differently.

The eagles in the Hobbit create a eucatastrophe divided between physical help-- goblin slaying, etc, and the seal of the 'higher powers' (of the eyrie or of Valinor) on the alliance-- 'yes, you stubborn idiots, that was the key, form the alliance or the orcs and wolves will get you!' The eagles aren't shown to be influenced by Valinor in The Hobbit, but they enter the alliance only after the thickheaded elves, dwarves and men have begun it themselves.

The eagles in LotR arrive after the battle for both Aragorn's side and Frodo's side has mostly been endured-- they're more of an expression of higher solidarity and, as in the Hobbit, a seal on the choices of each side 'yes, sacrifice all and endure all, with a hope that's not exactly hope, that was the key!' (We may not know of the Manwe connection with the eagles at that point, but we do know that Gandalf was sent back and the eagles retrieved him.)

In LotR the eagles' function as seal and agents of solidarity leads their function as physical preservers. Because it comes at or after Sauron's defeat, the eagles' practical help now serves as an extension of sealing and solidarity. The eagles possibly bring about a slightly earlier end at the gates so Pippin can be found before QUITE suffocated. They certainly allow the retrieval from Mt. Doom so Frodo and Sam need not die in a horribly existentialist manner after saving everyone --'Well, you got what you wanted, and it's a cold, hard, ironic universe after all.' --NO thank you!

This is the development of that eucatastrophe from The Hobbit to LotR: from a saving from the goblin army that overshadows the confirmation: 'Alliance was right!' to a confirmation: 'Endurance, sacrifice --right!' that is then embodied in the saving of Frodo and Sam. (Pippin as well, by helping end the battle early: by Elrond's foresight Pippin's death was a probability. However, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition! -- uh, the eagles!)

[ August 18, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[Kuruharan]

Squatter:
Some eucatastrophic events can be greater and more decisive than others, but that doesn't make the more minor ones any less deserving of the description.


True. But I still think that a dream can't be a eucatastrophe. I also lay particular stress on "can never be counted on to be repeated." If something happens more than once you start to feel that it can happen the same way again.

Gandalf_theGrey
However, I would say that there are indeed dreams of another nature ... dreams so powerful as to be life-changing. Such dreams qualify as events in and of themselves.


In that point I'm afraid our opinions must respectfully follow slightly different paths. I'm not for a minute denying that a dream can change somebody's life so that they sally forth to do great deeds and wreck eucatastrophies wherever they go, but I personally believe that there needs to be some sort of, well, "action" involved. That a eucatastrophe should be the type of thing that reaches beyond one individual. Of course, the effect of a eucatastrophe for individuals can be intensely personal, but I think that a wider range of characters needs to be involved. It increases the inherent improbability and the miraculousness of the "event."

Nar:
Actually it is an interesting point in The Hobbit that the forces of Good were not really able to assure their victory until Beorn came and killed Blog. So maybe the Eagles coming was not such a eucatastrophe after all. Maybe the arrival of Beorn from hundreds and hundreds of miles away, just in time to smash and slash goblins and kill Blog, was the real eucatastrophe.

Frodo and Sam need not die in a horribly existentialist manner after saving everyone --'Well, you got what you wanted, and it's a cold, hard, ironic universe after all.'

Ahh, wouldn't that version just warm-over the cold, dead hearts of the literary critics.

Hmm, looking over this thread I get the feeling that my mind is very "event" and "action" oriented.

P.S. I also want to make sure that everyone understands that I am talking about events in the story and in the context of the story (defining story as the whole history of Middle earth, as we know it), not the "outside" reactions of the readers. Just making sure. smilies/smile.gif

[Gandalf_theGrey]

Hullo, good Kuruharan!

I thank you for your worthy reply, for it forces me to think, and rethink, and refine my views. * bows *

Careful though, for such thought might prove dangerous. * good-natured grin while blowing a mischievous smoke ring or two * smilies/smile.gif

At the risk of becoming yet more muddled, if you define the word "event" as "an occurrence, something which happens or happened" ... you could actually define both Frodo's prophetic dream and my dream of Mirkwood as being "events." My reasoning is that a dream must first occur or happen, (that is, be an event) in order for the dream to be remembered, discussed, have its existence recognized.

However, I would not identify Frodo's prophetic dream as being a eucatastrophic event, because Frodo was a passive observer rather than an interactive participant. Thus, I would differentiate between an event and an Event, if you take my meaning. I do recognize your hesitancy, Kuruharan, to assign the word "action" to a dream, because at best we would be dealing with the action of the mind, and that sort of action is hard to gauge or measure.

Perhaps as our debate goes on, you may find that I more overtly come to agree with you. * bows * Meanwhile, I'm enjoying the speculation. smilies/smile.gif

As for your assertion that a eucatastrophe ought to reach beyond the individual, I would counter that even the smallest actions ... even those actions which are not eucatastrophes, even those actions thought to be private ... can often affect far more people than the individual ever realized. Bilbo's staying his hand out of pity of Gollum, for instance. A eucatastrophe? I would say no. A small action? Again, I would say no.

As for your statement that "If something happens more than once you start to feel that it can happen the same way again." ... well, certainly there is the danger of taking the sublime for granted, as expressed in the adage, "Familiarity breeds contempt." Still, to my mind, the phrase "can never be counted on to be repeated" leaves the door open to the possibility of repetition.

Thank you for our continuing discussion, Kuruharan. I look forward to your further insight, as you wish.

At your Service,

Gandalf the Grey

[Nar]

Kuruharan, you make an interesting point which I had completely forgotten about: ...the forces of Good were not really able to assure their victory until Beorn came and killed Blog. So maybe the Eagles coming was not such a eucatastrophe after all. Maybe the arrival of Beorn from hundreds and hundreds of miles away, just in time to smash and slash goblins and kill Blog, was the real eucatastrophe. Regardless of the eagles' pre-existing relationship with Manwe, in The Hobbit they don't function any differently from Beorn-- they both appear as wild, intelligent and powerful beings whose help may be available to decent folk if they please and are pleased (by adroit storytelling and Gandalf's wiles or a previous debt to Gandalf). The eagles take on greater significance in retrospect, but I can't find that in The Hobbit itself-- they're Gandalf's friends and Gandalf's a good wizard, but I think that's it within the book. They appear within The Hobbit as much more embodied forces of nature than representatives of justice from some of the higher aspects of creation.

On balance, I still think that the arrival of both (now that you've reminded me of Beorn) is a eucatastrophe. Once the feuding two-leggers sort out their alliance, it is confirmed by the arrival of allies from the air and earth.

However, I find this, as well as Tom Bombadil's rescue of the hobbits, to be happy reverses of a more earthbound type-- we could argue if they qualify as eucatastrophes by Tolkien's definition. If they do, I think it's in a more of a mythic or folktale way: do the right thing, sing the right song, make the right gesture, and the forces of creation will save you, banish your enemies, retrieve all your errors. Magical thinking is a nice fantasy and refuge for the beleagured, but any true code of morals and faith cannot remain there. The eucatastrophe at the end of RotK is much more mature-- get it all done at the price required, and the lords of the air will shift the resulting pattern so that the price is slightly less terrible -- some sacrifice required, but lacking that last bitter taste of irony.

[mark12_30]

I'm finding myself wondering how many definitions of eucatastrophe there are. Here's what i started with at the top of the thread:

I coined the word 'eucatastrophe': the sudden happy turn in a story which pierces you with a joy that brings tears (which I argued it is the highest function of fairy stories to produce). And I was there led to the view that it produces its peculiar effect because it is
a sudden glimpse of truth.... It percieves-- if the story has literary 'truth'...--that this is indeed how things really do work in the Great World for which our nature is made.



The main thing I get out of this is the "glimpse of truth". While it produces emotion (catharsis, Maril) it is not essentially emotional; it is the realisation of truth, a deeper, more profound truth than the reader was expecting. My image of it is that the reader is happily reading along enjoying the plot and the interactions, and suddenly, so to speak, the bottom drops out and he sees into the depths, clearly or not, but beyond the bounds of the story into truth.

To me this has little to do with how many of those moments there are in any given book; can there be only a few; do they belong at the end; do they involve many people or few or are they actions or dreams or thoughts or whatever. The point is that it is a window to enduring truth outside the story, which the reader suddenly percieves and is struck by. And the natural-- or sometimes supernatural-- response to the truth is the sudden happiness, the joy that brings tears.

I take it that this is a quite different definition than some of us are working off of?

[ August 18, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Gandalf_theGrey]

mark12_30 states:

The point is that it is a window to enduring truth outside the story, which the reader suddenly percieves and is struck by. And the natural-- or sometimes supernatural-- response to the truth is the sudden happiness, the joy that brings tears.


Well of course!

That said, I'm enjoying the extracurricular analysis. smilies/smile.gif

Gandalf the Grey

[Kuruharan]

For the sake of clarity I'm going to have to deal with everyone's points in a scrambled order, so please bear with me.

(Rather ironic that in order to be clear I have to scramble everything.)

Nar:
However, I find this, as well as Tom Bombadil's rescue of the hobbits, to be happy reverses of a more earthbound type-- we could argue if they qualify as eucatastrophes by Tolkien's definition.

I'm going to take a positive stand and say...maybe? smilies/wink.gif

If they do, I think it's in a more of a mythic or folktale way: do the right thing, sing the right song, make the right gesture, and the forces of creation will save you, banish your enemies, retrieve all your errors...The eucatastrophe at the end of RotK is much more mature

Well, yes. But I think that the funny dancing, feathered fellow may just be the "dressing" in stating the message in a different, but equally viable, way. The message in both cases is that sometimes your fat will get pulled out of the fire (or the tree) by unexpected, or even unknown (to you), forces. Or stated more clearly, the mythic and the "mature" ways of stating this are the flip sides of the same coin. So maybe the message can remain in it's glossing of "myth" (or "wonderous" if you prefer), and, indeed, perhaps needs to do so.

mark12_30:
I'm finding myself wondering how many definitions of eucatastrophe there are.

Two things...

One, incorporating the comments of Gandalf the Grey

I coined the word 'eucatastrophe': the sudden happy turn in a story which pierces you with a joy that brings tears

-and-

if you define the word "event" as "an occurrence, something which happens or happened" ... you could actually define both Frodo's prophetic dream and my dream of Mirkwood as being "events."

An event that is a definite action on the part of a character or characters (including in the context of the story everyone up to Eru) that not only advances the plot of the story but is in fact a hinge (or for that matter THE hinge) on which the story turns. (There, I hope I managed to credibly tie the two seemingly unrelated quotes together. smilies/wink.gif)

To my mind at least, this event should be accomplished in an unexpected way (although Eru, and to a lesser extent the Valar, would be obvious exceptions to this) on the part of the characters. And perhaps the total consequences should be beyond the intent of the characters that perform the act. (Again Eru, and to a lesser extent the Valar, would be exceptions to this.)

As for your assertion that a eucatastrophe ought to reach beyond the individual, I would counter that even the smallest actions ... even those actions which are not eucatastrophes, even those actions thought to be private ... can often affect far more people than the individual ever realized...A eucatastrophe? I would say no. A small action? Again, I would say no.


A small action with large ultimate consequences. (Notice the word "ultimate." It's very important.)

The actions of eucatastrophe are also in themselves, small. What makes them seem great is the immediate results. Bard shooting his arrow, Bilbo jumping over Gollum, Sauron leaving Thrain alive in his dungeon for Gandalf to find, Gollum 'nancing about the Crack of Doom and then doing a swan dive right on in. All single actions, and yet some of them had a great immediate impact, and some of them had great ultimate impact.

Perhaps, a better definition for a eucatastrophe is the final culminating event in a great chain of events that (within the context of the story) gives a "glimpse of truth," or a glimpse of the ultimate victory of the Good.

Now, to the Second part of the answer for mark12_30...

I'm finding myself wondering how many definitions of eucatastrophe there are.

The trouble may not be that there are so many definitions, it may be that there are so many ways of looking at it. I believe that Tolkien was taking the perspective of the reader in that particular quote. I've been (I think) trying to analyze a eucatastrophe purely in the context of the story. It may be that I've been trying to do something that can't really be done because it's difficult to seperate the story from the person that's reading it in this particular case.

In that case you can only have pity on my brain, for it is weak. It's also consumed with the odious reality that I must return to classes tomorrow (yuck!)

So if poor ole' Kuruharan seems to lurch and stagger from one non-point to another, giving the general impression that he hasn't the least idea of what he is supposed to be talking about, just smile and nod your head and say, "There, there Kuruharan! I'm sure that you won't have to do 2 and a half research papers this semester like you had to last Spring!"

[Edit: For some reason I also seem to be spelling like crap tonight!]

[ August 18, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[lindil]

Beautiful discussion nd idea for a thread.

Helen posted: "...when he finally takes Arwen's hand, probably thinking at long last she is MINE MINE MINE, none of us resent it in the least. (do we?)"

lindil: I think that the marriage was probably an incrdibly poignant moment for both, for by marrying his foster father's daughter he was in effect taking his treasure. I imagine that he was incredibly humble , especially w/ Elrond there!

I also imagine that he knew Gandalf was a maia of some sort and was probably awed to be the first man having a Maia at his wedding [not too mention crowning him and pronouncing a blessing of the valar over him].

As for the Eucatastrophe, it amazes me how in the Silm we alternate from Eucatstophe to catastrophe Tuor seeing Gondolin, his cousin living out a nightmare curse of Morgoth. Earendil reaching Valinor west overcoming Morgoth and Maedhros and Maglor steal the Silmarill.

The Light of the 2 trees and the descriptions of valinor and it's rulers and the destruction of the Tree's. The silm is full of so many High's and Low's it is amazing. The LotR has them too of course but they have very different feel to them.

Also Smith of Wooten major and Leaf by Niggle have always been favorites of mine because of their exploring of eucatstrophe, esp Smith.

I find that to be almost the essence of M-E.

thanks for the beautiful thread!

And Helen have you sent the Fairy wife to the Downs ??!?!?!?

don't deprive everyone! smilies/smile.gif

[littlemanpoet]

An excellent thread and discussion. Kudos to all on great thoughts and ideas. Confessing that I have only read about halfway through, I humbly add this (possibly redundant) thought: perhaps a distinction is needed between eucatastrophe and, say, wonder (I think, since I've given a lot of thought to that particular concept). I must go now, but I hope to develop this more later. Feel free, any of you, to beat me to it. smilies/smile.gif

[mark12_30]

Lindil,

Regarding Aragorn's marriage, I agree wholeheartedly with all your points. And I don't mean to imply that he was arrogant, grasping, or ... whatever. But I do think there must have been a loud voice in his mind saying, 'Sixty-plus years... and I really did it. I really earned her hand.' At least, I find myself hoping so. Hercules had nothing on Strider.

Regarding the Silm-- hoo, boy. I read it over 4th of July, and my poor mother in law had to put up with my saying things like, "Fingolfin! NOOOO!!" and "Sorry, Gondolin has just fallen, and I have to go away and cry now." And when Gondolin opened and troops poured out, I stood up and shouted in triumph. (Amazingly, my inlaws love me anyway.)

Regarding The Fairy Wife: thank you so much. No, I haven't sent it in yet, because I am stubbornly waiting for those journals to make sure I haven't abused Osanwe too badly! And also, I am slowly pondering several of your suggested changes, and item by item, I may either take your advice or dodge it more creatively. (I think the dragon stays, but I may explain him a little better.) Regardless, I am deeply in your debt. --Helen

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[littlemanpoet]

Helen, I think what Kuruharan was getting at, with which I agree, is that for all the best reasons, you have (imho) misapplied the word "eucatastrophe", and you mean instead, "wonder". Especially since you are most concerned with your own reaction to the 'pointers' to the so-called primary eucatastrophe. I am convinced that Tolkien meant 'eucatastrophe' to be a unique event in a story. It is THE sudden turn, a miraculous grace unlooked for, that proves that in the end, Life will conquer Death. The single poignant eucatastrophe in LotR is that the Ring, against all odds, against all wisdom, against all likelihood, finally was cast into the Crack of Doom. The JOY on the Fields of Cormallen give evidence to this. There were many repercussions to this single eucatastrophe, and they are more evidences of the evangelium. The feeling of JOY that you experience, I venture to say, is the wonder of recovery about which Tolkien writes in On Faerie Stories, where he describes how fairy-stories function in terms of Escape, Recovery (of wonder), and Consolation. The evidences you describe of the wonder you experience in reading LotR are very real, of course. Please don't hear me denying that! My point is that the term 'eucastrophe' has a quite specific definition as created by Tolkien, as does the 'wonder' he describes.

You might want to check out other current threads that discuss very related themes: "Escape" and "The Wrong kind of Detais: the components of wonder".

With best regards, LMP - aka Paul the brooding bard

[mark12_30]

Well, lmp, I guess I'll have to reread On Fairy Stories again, and look at that definition more closely. In terms of the definition above, however:
And I was there led to the view that it produces its peculiar effect because it is a sudden glimpse of truth.... It percieves-- if the story has literary 'truth'...--that this is indeed how things really do work in the Great World for which our nature is made.


Personally, I can't imagine that each fairy-story is allowed only one such sudden glimpse of the truth. I do separate wonder from that sudden glimpse of truth(revelation), and revelation is different than wonder, as it is also different than catharsis (although revelation can also produce both wonder and catharsis.)

In the quote from On Faery Stories, in one of the earliest posts, Tolkien says:

The Gospels contain a fairy-story .... The Birth of Christ is the eucatastrophe of Man's history. The Resurrection is the eucatastrophe of the story of the Incarnation.

By your logic, Tolkien can't have both; he must pick, one or the other, because the story of Jesus' life may only have one eucatastrophe in it. But he says it has (at least) two. So either he's talking about different threads in the story, each thread allowed its own eucatastrophe, or, he's wrong about his own word.

Since there seems to be more than one voice insisting that there can only be one eucatastrophe, one revelation, per book, I'm a bit baffled. I really have a very hard time with that, but, I can't prove or disprove it at the moment, since I'm anchored in the letters and not the essay...

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

I have a different dictionary I guess.

Webster's New Collegiate -
Cartharsis: b) a purification or purgation that brings about spiritual renewal or release from tension.

I think there are three parts to this process then...

- the eucatastrophe or event brings about the
- catharsis, which brings about the
- spiritual renewal or recognition

I think we're not clearly delineating the event, the eucatastrophe, from the spiritual renewal, which is why there's a question whether we're confusing eucatastrophe with wonder. We're mixing the event with the response/result: catharsis, spiritual renewal, then wonder.

I think Kuru has a good tool to use to decide whether there can be one or more eucatastrophe's in one book.

From the perspective of the reader, it must be that there can be more than one eucatastrophe, because the reader continues for an entire lifetime (however long). In that lifetime there can be many eucatastrophes.

From the perspective of a book, because you are considering the book as a whole, there can only be one defining eucatastrophe, because the structure of a story is such that there is one pre-eminent defining climax.

Before you jump on this, hear me out.

From the perspective of characters in a book, there can be more than one eucatastrophe because their lives continue beyond that one defining moment.

The answer lies in how you define your 'set' under consideration or examination for eucatastrophes. Something in a smaller set, say considering only one chapter of the LotR in isolation can be considered a eucatastrophe (Sam seeing the Oliphaunt likely die; from the perspective of Sam this is a myth turned real and then suddenly lost - if I saw a unicorn I would have a similar response), but in reference to the larger events of Middle Earth not be considered a eucatastrophe at all. From the perspective of Middle Earth in the War of the Ring, only the destruction of the ring would qualify. And so on.

It's like the difference between considering a person in terms of the experience of their lifetime, or in terms of their specific collection of body parts. From the perspective of a collection of body parts, eucatastrophe can only be experienced by mind, so "Al" the collection of body parts Never experiences eucatastrophe. From the perspective of experience, "Al", the lifetime, may have many experiences of eucatastrophe. Or "Al" the child may have only one. Or none.

[Rimbaud]

Eucatastrophe: piercing joy that brings tears.

From an initial perusal of this worthy thread I conclude that I, on a purely personal level, have a far higher threshold for eucatastrophe than others. This is no to denigrate the pleasure of others or to deny them the nomenclature; however I do feel that it is inherently rare.

In fact I would go so far to say that it is very uncommon for such an event (I use the word with thought and knowledge of that which has been said before) to happen more often than once in a novel. Tolkien thus cements his standing by arguably achieving that, although for me not in the Lord of the Rings.

Turin slaying Beleg comes to mind. Maybe another is contained within the Narn I Hin Hurin but I don't wish to dilute the 'rapier-like' thrust of my argument too much...

~ Rimbaud, in loving memory of mixed metaphors.

[littlemanpoet]

Helen, in the quote from Tolkien regarding the incarnation being the eucatastrophe of the history of man and the resurrection being the eucatastrophe of the life of Christ (I may have that one wrong), he is speaking of two different stories, and for each one, its own catastrophe. Man's his-story, and the gospel story. One eucatastrophe each.

Nevertheless, I find Marelingelaflorum's (sorry I can't remember that) point-of-view of each character an interesting approach, and decidedly something that we moderns would think in terms of. And I still say that it fits into my notion that there is one per story. Our lives are arguably made up of a number of stories, each with its eu - or dys- catastrophe. And our whole life is one story, with its climactic catastrophe of whichever type. So it will be with characters within a story.

I admit that I have more thinking to do on Marel's and others' points before I have a really firm stance on all this.

Excellent thread!

[mark12_30]

Maril, about Catharsis.

First, my primary association with the word is with the sense of release of tension involved. But I'd like to work with your definition for a bit.

(I hope this doesn't get "too religious", but I don't know quite what your threshhold is... here we go.)

Your dictionary definition:
Cartharsis: b) a purification or purgation that brings about spiritual renewal or release from tension.

I would argue both from my reading and my experience that this is a common mystical and disciplinary outlook, found for instance in many highly respected catholic mystics (Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross.)

However, I would argue that there is also another (and for certain schools, more common, and for certain schools, more highly valued) order, and that is, revelation produces spiritual renewal which produces purification which produces release from tension.

And I also argue that this order is also found in many highly respected mystics-- including St. Teresa, and John of the Cross! They embrace both. And in fact, they say that although one usually starts with the purgations first, that later, the experience that begins with revelation is the more pure work of God. (If so inclined, feel free to refer to Inner Mansions by Teresa, or Dark Night of the Soul by JOTC.)

In my opinion, the purification and spiritual renewal which begins with revelation is (a) at least equally valid and (b) often produces more lasting results. Of course it depends on the reaction of the disciple.

I would also argue that Tolkien would also embrace the second definition, without ruling out the first. I would refer to his letter to Michael (regarding women & friendships) at the end of which he discusses communion. He clearly intends to show Michael that the revelatory experience of taking communion in a community you do not enjoy, will produce a purification in him. The mystical experience of partaking in communion produces the purifying effect of mystic fellowship in the community that one would not otherwise enjoy on a societal level.

Of course, a good catholic would have gone to confession first... purgation. Round and round we go. I do agree that they are intertwined. Point being, I do not agree with the dictionary that the purification always preceeds the spiritual renewal. I think often the revelation, and the renewal, comes first, causing purgation and thence producing the emotional sense of relief.

In the charismatic, pentecostal, and "third wave" movements of the late twentieth century, the experience which begins with revelation and proceeds to purification is valued far more highly than the experience which begins with the purification. The simple reason is that experiences which are held to have originated by God's initiative (revelation) are trusted more, because God's motivations aren't in question, whreas the human's motivations might be.

Why all this isn't off-topic, is because if one believes that a eucatastrophe is a vision of the truth, a glimpse of the truth, then there's the revelation (revealed truth.) So, in the usual order of things, I would expect truth to be revealed (revelation); to be received in the inner being of the perciever (spiritual renewal);
as a result of perceiving and recieving, then follows purification (forsaking doubt and sin) and then follows emotional release.

Quick example of the progression we're all familiar with (whether this qualifies as a eucatastrophe or not, I won't go into here, lets focus on the progression): Sam sees the star above the Ephel Duath. The revelation is that its purity is untouched by the shadow (the beauty of it smote his heart; the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty forever beyond its reach). Following that revelation was the spiritual renewal (his own fate and even his master's ceased to trouble him (because he sees the bigger picture.)). The purgation is his choice to no longer despair or be discouraged (putting away all fear). And the release is the emotional peace and freedom he feels afterwards (cast himself into a deep untroubled sleep).

Well, Maril, I hope I didn't overdo it. Grace and peace. --Helen

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Kuruharan]

lmp: While I was trying to expound at greater length (no kidding!), that is one of the points that I was working toward.

mark12_30:

Since there seems to be more than one voice insisting that there can only be one eucatastrophe, one revelation, per book, I'm a bit baffled.

Who has said that? Certainly not me. As a matter of fact I've said the opposite several times. My thing is not that there can't be more than one eucatastrophe per story, it is that the eucatastrophe should not happen the same way twice. Perhaps even that the multiple eucatastrophies should be directed at different objectives. Maril of the Really Long Name smilies/wink.gif also has a very good point about the perspective of the characters in the story and the circumstances that are being used to define the eucatastrophe in question.

[littlemanpoet]

Helen: "Since there seems to be more than one voice insisting that there can only be one eucatastrophe, one revelation, per book, I'm a bit baffled."
Kuruharan: "Who has said that?"

Uh, me. But I am modifying my view to take into account Marel-fluim's pov idea. So on one hand there is the thematic eucatastrophe, that being the destruction of the Ring and defeat of the Dark Lord against all odds, and on the other hand there is character eucatastrophe; for Frodo it is arguably Gollum biting off his finger and thus saving Frodo from evil; for Sam, perhaps it is not dying in Mordor after all; and so forth. I would argue that Sam jumping into the water is not eucatastrophe, but characteristic exhibition of his loyalty. Whereas wonderous because Sam's loyalty is wonderful, not eucatastrophic precisely because it's the kind of thing Sam would do.

You know, there is a side of me that dislikes analyzing Tolkien and the LotR into the ground like this, and I only do it so as to keep Tolkien's terms true to their original intent. What I'm trying to say is that Helen is quite right in pointing us to the many beautiful strands in the tapestry that is LotR.

[mark12_30]

Kuruharan, littlemanpoet, Squatter, Marilangesundheitimaluim, and Rimbaud,

This all brings me around to take a harder look at the various definitions of eucatastrophe, and re-promise myself to read On Faery Stories while I'm on vacation next week! But Maril's discussion of character threads makes a great deal of sense to me. I guess my next question is, if eucatastrophes are supposed to be relatively rare in any given story, including in the story-thread of one individual, what is the difference between eucatastrophe and "simple", window-into-the-truth revelation? Frodo, for example, sometimes swims in revelation. Sometimes so does Sam. Does the frequency of it make it not-a-eucatastrophe, even though it's different each time? If so, why?

Taking another favorite story of mine as an example: The Golden Key by George MacDonald. The more one reads the story, the more revelations surface each time. Which of them are eucatastrophes? By the definition given in the letters, many of them could be. By Maril's definition, looking at the whole story as a set of stories, there could be one or more eucatastrophe(s) per chapter. And sometimes I think in MacDonald, that that is so.

Ay, me!! By the way, Maril, thanks for getting me going on that whole revelation/renewal/purgation/release thing. It had been a while since I'd reviewed that, and it was time. (I hope you all survived it.)

--Helen

[littlemanpoet]

I have a hunch, Helen, that the "wonder" to which I refer and the "revelation" to which you refer are two closely related instances of recovery. Wonder brings me JOY, and glimpses of truth do the same for you. Are we talking about two sides of the same coin? Perhaps the same thing exactly? Is wonder the feeling, and the glimpse of truth the spiritual sister to it? As you can see, I'm very uncertain about this, it's just a hunch. Perhaps applying it to LotR might help.

...Sam's glimpse of the star beyond the Ephel Duath. This brings tears to my eyes every time I read it, for here we have hope in the face of despair. There, that ties the wonder to the revelation, right? While I do not call this eucatastrophe, because although a singular event, it is not a sudden reversal, but points to the one that will come.

Oh, and here's one on the character level: Boromir's death. Is it a personal eucatastrophe for Boromir that he died well? It certainly brings wonder to me, especially the way Aragron, Legolas and Gimli honor him. And then Faramir sees Boromir's bier as if in a dream - wondrous. A glimpse of truth? I say yes, for the river takes on the quality of myth and the hereafter in the dream, and Boromir is again seen to be honored, having died well. Is that the glimpse of truth, that he is somehow redeemed by dying in the defense of Merry and Pippin? As recompense for having tried to take the Ring? What a complicated weaving of threads! Okay, I'll be quiet now.

[mark12_30]

lmp,

Is wonder the feeling, and the glimpse of truth the spiritual sister to it?
Fascinating question; I've often wondered what people are referrring to when they use the word "wonder", and felt a bit left out! Maybe I'm not after all. That would be nice.

...Sam's glimpse of the star beyond the Ephel Duath....
This brings tears to my eyes every time I read it, for here we have hope in the face of despair. There, that ties the wonder to the revelation, right? While I do not call this eucatastrophe, because although a singular event, it is not a sudden reversal, but points to the one that will come.


There I get confused; why is this not a sudden reversal? It's not the end of the quest, granted; but the sky was dark, Sauron's power was ascendant, and despair and worry predominated; but after this moment, the wind had blown, a weakness was shown in Sauron's power, Sam ceased to worry not only about his own fate **but also that of his master**. (And he lies down and sleeps unguarded and in peace.) That to me is a huge reversal, of the soul-- that he is able to trust not only himself, but **his beloved Master**, to Providence. Incredible.

Is it a personal eucatastrophe for Boromir that he died well? It certainly brings wonder to me, especially the way Aragron, Legolas and Gimli honor him. And then Faramir sees Boromir's bier as if in a dream - wondrous. A glimpse of truth? I say yes, for the river takes on the quality of myth and the hereafter in the dream, and Boromir is again seen to be honored, having died well. Is that the glimpse of truth, that he is somehow redeemed by dying in the defense of Merry and Pippin? As recompense for having tried to take the Ring?

Yes!
Okay, I'll be quiet now.
Nah.

[Belin]

It is THE sudden turn

I think this is right; eucatastrophe is presented in "On Fairy-Stories" as a structural element of the story. Tolkien calls it:

the sudden "turn" (for there is no true end to any fairy-tale)

He's proposing it as an alternative to an ending, of which there can't be more than one. On the other hand, I agree with Maril's point-of-view argument as well, precisely because Tolkien points out that a fairy-tale doesn't end, but goes on beyond the borders of the picture into lots of things we don't know about. LotR is several (strongly interwoven) stories, and each one has (or should have, I haven't taken inventory of them just yet) its own mini-eucatastrophe.

Is it a personal eucatastrophe for Boromir that he died well? It certainly brings wonder to me, especially the way Aragron, Legolas and Gimli honor him. ... Boromir is again seen to be honored, having died well. Is that the glimpse of truth, that he is somehow redeemed by dying in the defense of Merry and Pippin?

Maybe... I might choose, instead, the moment Pippin remembered him and committed himself to Denethor. Selfishness and altruism lost in love... Pippin is partly spurred by (selfish) pride to this arguably altrustic moment, because of his love for Boromir. Boromir's fall to the ring and the orcs and his (partial) responsibility for breaking of the Fellowship are not a failure, even though he failed to protect the hobbits, because Pippin is substituting for the hope that Boromir would have liked to have brought to his city.

On the other hand, this is a not really a moment of joy, but of deep apprehension, so perhaps it doesn't fit as well as yours, lmp.

--Belin Ibaimendi

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: Belin ]

[littlemanpoet]

HelenMark: There I get confused; why is this not a sudden reversal?
Good point. Perhaps this is the real eucatastrophe for Sam, or at least one of them, depending on which Sam-story we're talking about. One eucatastrophe per story. Your good point leads me to a further extrapolation to the definition, and maybe this is only me realizing what's already there:

1) sudden reversal
2) never to recur
3) powerful ramifications for Good

I don't know quite how to say the last one, but that's my best try. According to these three elements of the definition, the Sam/star event does seem to function as a eucatastrophe in regard to the story of Sam's (not loyalty but) determination. It's really about Sam's ability to see the big picture despite his own circumstances.

Which brings me to something else that I have to take exception to: some of us have said that the Eagles saving Frodo and Sam from the doom of Mordor is a eucatastrophe (which it may be) because if they had died there, it would have been a terrible ironic ending. I take exception to that. Some of the most moving stories I've ever read are those where someone is willing to die for someone else, with NOTHING in it for the one whose life is to end. Just as an off-hand example, I think of the John Q. Archibald character in the recent movie, [SPOILER ALERT] who is willing to die and give up his heart for his son. Now THAT is moving.

Nah. smilies/tongue.gif smilies/biggrin.gif

He's proposing it as an alternative to an ending, of which there can't be more than one. smilies/eek.gif A lightbulb just went on with that one. Thanks, Belin! This definitely fills out my understanding of the function of eucatastrophe in anybody's story.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Oh! Thank you littlemanpoet, Belin's insight went right past me in the first reading.

Yes, Belin! Very true. And one of the facts that writers point to as unusual about the LotR is that it continues beyond the climax and subsequent, hmm, for lack of a word I'll use a music term 'tonic note', or.. oh, here we go.. resolution. This is also one of the main aspects which identifies the LotR as a classic 'milieu'-type story where the world or milieu dominates. It's an excellent demonstration of Tolkien's theory that fairy stories never end, and may be why addicts such as ourselves can't just read it once and put it a shelf "Ah, that was a good book" and be done with it! Too much continues off the page and into the margins.

Helen/Mark12_30, my threshold for polite spiritual discussion is actually quite high, though in the past I've been very sensitive to appropriation of the LotR to the detriment of other perspectives, which you are not doing here. Using the LotR (or anything) as a diving board for ones personal spiritual path is excellent, and I applaud.

My knowledge of Christian spiritual practice is both limited and superficial I'm afraid. But starting with the theory that spirituality of all types have in their ethics and ultimate basis a commonality, while in philosophy differ, I'd like to point out the validity of starting with purgation or confession. I think that in those cases where the revelation comes first, they have already had some form of preceding purgation that has brought them to that place where they are open to the revelation. Even if it was not intentional (or perhaps especially if it was not intentional), for example, Sam's back-breaking service to Frodo across Ephel Duath was not for the sake of some spiritual gain, and he had reached of point of understanding that... he just couldn't do it. He had also become aware that Frodo, whose resilience and will he'd relied upon, couldn't either. They had neither the strength nor the will nor the courage to complete their task.

I argue that this humbled mindset was the basis from which Sam rose above it all. Else in the parting of the clouds of Ephel Duath, he would have only seen a star.

[mark12_30]

Maril,


I'd like to point out the validity of starting with purgation or confession.

I tried to say both were valid, was I unclear? Sorry;
I think that in those cases where the revelation comes first, they have already had some form of preceding purgation that has brought them to that place where they are open to the revelation.

Good point, Maril. And your point about Sam's backbreaking-- yet in the end, "insufficient"-- labor is well taken.

I wonder, then, if we were to backtrack, and look at all the places where Frodo opened himself to revelation, whether we'd find that he had been first purified. Glancing back superficially, he'd been at least terrified by black riders (Gildor, Rivendell) or half-drowned by Old Man Willow (Goldberry) or marched thru Moria (Galadriel.) Interesting. Deserves further thought.

--Helen

[Child of the 7th Age]

Helen -

This is a delightful thread, and I am sorry that I did not come to it sooner. I did read it through, but don't feel qualified to add much more to many of these insightful comments.

Except ......... I did want to draw attention to one point, and suggest another way of looking at it. First, there was a comment by Maril:

I think in those cases where the revelation comes first, they have already done some form of preceding purgation that has brought them to that place where they are open to revelation.

I totally agree with this general statement.

Helen responded by saying:

I wonder, then, if we were to backtrack, and look at all the places where Frodo opened himself to revelation, whether we'd find that he had been first purified. Glancing back superficially, he'd been at least terrified by black riders (Gildor, Rivendell) or half-drowned by Old Man Willow (Goldberry) or marched thru Moria (Galadriel). Interesting. Deserves further thought.

Here is where I see a problem. I think that it is not the event itelf which leads to purification, but rather the response of the particular person to that event. Let's think about this. Frodo was not the only one of the company who went through some rather hair raising experience in terms of Moria or Old Man Willow or the Black Riders, or for that matter the Barrow Wight. It is true that the terror was directed more to him than to any other in the company. But I don't think that is the central issue. Another individual could have gone through these same experiences and come out corrupted rather than purified or purged.

Take a look what Gandalf has to say about Frodo in Rivendell and you'll get a sense of the process which is going on inside him.
Gandalf looks closely at the recovering Frodo. He sees transparency about him and especially in his left hand. This is the product of the morgul blade and the wraith's attack on Frodo. If it were merely the event at work on Frodo, this is all Gandalf would have seen.

But Gandalf saw much more than this. He saw another process going on within the hobbit, and this is how he described it:

"Still that must be expected," said Gandalf to himself. "He is not half through yet, and to what he will come in the end not een Elrond can foretell. Not to evil, I think. He may become like a glass filled with a clear light for eyes to see that can.

The reference to "a glass filled with a clear light for eyes to see that can" was, I believe, the internal response by Frodo to those terrible precipitating events. And what is this response? Take a look at the first description, and then take a look at the description of the phial of Galadriel:

She held up a small crystal phial: it glittered as she moved it, and rays of white light sprang from her hand. "In this phial," she said "is caught the light of Earendil's star, set amd the waters of my fountain. It will shine still brighter when night is about you. May it be a light for you in dark places, when all other lights go out."

If you look at these two descriptions, I think you can see a definite similarity between the phial and the description of Frodo which Gandalf gives us. This means that, internally, Frodo is becoming like the Phial of Galandriel. This, in turn, reflects Earendil's Star which is the light of the Silmarilli itself. So Frodo is becoming like a little splinter of the Silmarils, which themselves are a reflection of the Two Trees. And the latter is itself the product of the song of power of Yavanna and the tears of Nienna.

To me, this is totally awesome! For a little hobbit to have this within him the light of the Valar, is indeed unimaginable. It is the ultimate purification and purging. But it is the process, not the precipitating event which is the critical thing, I think.

Sam is a wonderful hobbit, and he goes through many horrifying experiences. Sam, for example, sees Frodo injured and thinks that he is dead. He too undergoes purification, but the process by which he is purified is much different than Frodo. His own purification rests on the grounds of sacrifice for his fellow man.

Frodo is the seer and prophet, and Sam is the one called to the service of man. Both are wonderful spiritual routes and both individuals have been through terrible experiences which tranform them. But, in each hobbit, the process is different because of what's inside them. And ultimately, I would argue that means that it is not the events which dictate the transformation, but rather Eru.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit
Again

[littlemanpoet]

Sharon: Your contributions always bring something new and deep. You even got me thinking about certain personally choices in terms of spirituality or lack thereof, but enough about that.

Frodo is the seer and prophet, and Sam is the one called to the service of man. Both are wonderful spiritual routes and both individuals have been through terrible experiences which tranform them. But, in each hobbit, the process is different because of what's inside them. And ultimately, I would argue that means that it is not the events which dictate the transformation, but rather Eru.

I acknowledge seer in Frodo, but where in LotR is he prophet?
In any case, the distinction you are making seems to me to be "spiritual man" and "man of the earth who is nonetheless good". I want to ask what if Frodo had chosen not to accept the spiritual side of his life, but to be a man of the earth who is nonetheless good? Or didn't Frodo have a choice in that? Was that at Eru's dictate?

This clearly has implications in terms of real life, and you got me curious...

[Child of the 7th Age]

Littlemanpoet, aka Imp-----

It's good to see you again. By the way, I haven't forgotten what I need and want to do to help with the writing. My life should improve drastically when both my children return to school by next week!

About Frodo the prophet. Do you remember the last scene at the Grey Havens? Frodo talks to Sam and tells him something of the years to come. He mentions the names of five of his children who are not yet born, and "perhaps more that I cannot yet see." The names are all correct, although he does get the birth order switched on two of them. That point is mentioned in Tolkien's unpublished epilogue in Sauron's Defeat. Frodo also tells Sam he'll be mayor as long as he wants to and the most famous gardener in history. Finally, in terms of going to the West, he also predicts "Your time may come."

This isn't a "prophet" in the biblical sense, but it certainly involves true telling of the future. I think there are one or two other points in the LotR where Frodo does this, but my mind won't dredge those up right now.

About your other question regarding paths in life. Imp, if I knew the true answer to that, I would have to be Eru!! But I will take a guess. And this applies not only to the characters in the book, but ourselves as individuals as well. No, I truly believe that there is no way that Frodo could turn into someone like Pippin or Sam. And the same goes for the reverse. I think we are each given certain gifts inside ourselves. We have the choice to develop those gifts or not, but we don't really have the ability to pick any path at random and go on it. I guess the proponents of the "American dream" would dispute this, but I truly feel this is part of the bittersweet nature of life.

Frodo could have chosen to ignore what was inside himself. He would have ended up corrupted and a puppet of Sauron. But he couldn't will himself into becoming like Pippin, for example, a good and decent fellow who became a leader in the hobbit community. That's not to say he couldn't have developed certain minimal talents in those areas. We could all use a general sharpening of our overall skills, e.g., learning to do more good deeds for our neighbors, becoming more aware of our community's needs etc. but there's a limit to this process. There are certain gifts and certain limitations that Eru built into us, and we have to respect those.

I'll give you a few personal examples. I have two children, both raised in the same family and community and spiritual heritage. Yet they are so different that it is unbelievable. I have a very academic son who, I suspect, may some day make some scientific or medical discovery that will benefit many people. I have a daughter who is far less oriented to school (in fact, she has a mild learning disability), but who has a very unusual gift with people. She is very much like Sam. Now what if I try to change my daughter into my son, or vice versa. The only thing I will do is drive them both away from what they were meant to become. Yes, I make sure that my son does volunteer work in the summers so he learns to be more sensitive to people, and I also have my daughter tutored so she will see more of the beauty of words. But I can't change what they will, or should, become.

And frankly I'm no different. I would most like to be a Frodo I think, but that is not me. Yes, I can focus on certain improvements in that area, but no one is ever going to mistake me for a seer! Neither am I a Sam or Eowyn or Faramir or Gandalf, even though those characters appeal to me.

At best, I'm afraid I'm a lowly Bilbo. I'm definitely a teacher and a bit of a historian. Like Bilbo, I've adopted a young one (my daughter) and also like Bilbo, I'm a bit of an eccentric given the community that I live in. If I were to go around and moan about the fact that I'm not Frodo, and never will be Frodo, I'd only turn myself into a frustrated, angry person instead of doing the best job at what I actually can manage to do and be. So if I can't be Frodo, I guess it's not too bad to be the person that Frodo most loved in his life.!

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[mark12_30]

lmp,

One could argue that Frodo prophesied with paper and pen rather than crying in the town square or on the hillside. It is one method. And many prophets recorded, not just what would be, but what had been. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and others, recorded chapters of history along with chapters of futuristic prediction. Moses, regarded as one of the greatest prophets, wrote mostly law and history (The Pentateuch). Prophesying is not only about speaking God's will for the future, but about presenting God's viewpoint in the present, and also presenting God's interpretation of the past.

But... maybe "seer" might be the safer word.


Edit-- on third thought, I think for Frodo I prefer the word "mystic"-- one who pursues union with God out of desire and longing, instead of one who is driven by a burning inner message. Frodo always displayed desire for elvish things long before he had any knowledge of mission or calling, and I think he retained that desire and longing after his mission was over-- and that's what led him to the West.

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[mark12_30]

Oops, cross-posting with Sharon again.

Sharon, you've hit on one of my favorite concepts of "goal in life"-- fulfilling, aka not missing out on, one's design and destiny. How disappointing to get to the end of one's life and find that, instead of being designed to be (for instance) a mediocre software engineer, I was supposed to be (for instance) a good musician. I'd rather find what I was designed to do and be, and let that mature, rather than fighting the current of my own spirit all the way.

I do think Frodo was designed to be a mystic and Sam was designed to be a family man. I also think Aragorn was designed to be a king.

Regarding eucatastrophy-- are these connected at all? We've been discussing Sam's star over the Ephel Duath; how would that fit into his destiny of being a family man? Or does it only fit into the quest, and not his life afterwards?

I'm more and more fascinated by those moments when Tolkien tears a gap in the fabric of "what we see today" and shows us "what really is" or "What will be." Sam sees Frodo shining; Aragorn revealed in his kingliness to a hobbit (was it Pippin, I forget?); Gandalf revealed to Bilbo in Bag End. What do these glimpses tell us?

And I also just love the moments when Sam surprises Frodo... Maril, thanks for bringing that up a long time ago, I think in a post about men-servants, you mentioned that & it's fascinated me ever since.

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[mark12_30]

Belin,

You mentioned lmp's choice of Boromir's death as a eucatastrophe and then replied Maybe... I might choose, instead, the moment Pippin remembered him and committed himself to Denethor.
One, I really liked your analysis and hadn't thought Pippin's actions through that far before; and two, you're illustrating how varied interpretations can be of which point is the "one' climactic eucatastrophe in the story.

Now what if there were a reader who found lmp's choice the first time through the trilogy, your choice the second time through, and the third time through picked Faramir's vision as the eucatastrophe? Same person, three different eucatastrophes about the same character.

I don't think that that is invalid.

[Mister Underhill]

I have to confess that I came into this most splendid thread having a conception of “eucatastrophe” as meaning something more akin to “revelation”, but after reading some of the posts I went back to check the primary sources – the letter and the essay. It seems to me that the prof uses the word as a substitute for “happy ending” – that is, as a more meaningful, resonant, and mature alternative to the cleaned up happy endings for which Disney has become so famous. So, “...and they lived happily ever after” becomes, “...and they caught a brief glimpse of divine grace, and kept on living.” The joy of the moment of eucatastrophe is all the more poignant because it’s only a glimpse, a preview, not a guarantee of happily ever after, and the characters must carry on in the field of the imperfect world afterwards.

Just breaking the word down a bit –

“euc” suggests “Eucharist”, which in its simplest form implies communion with God. Its etymological roots all seem to suggest gratitude, grace, rejoicing.

“catastrophe” has one meaning I’d never quite come across before: “the final event of the dramatic action especially of a tragedy”.

Tolkien contrasts “eucatastrophe” with “dyscatastrophe” (“dys” – bad). So, happy ending – though suggesting more than simply “happy”, suggesting happy in a sense of having the joyous revelatory quality of ultimate divine grace and victory – versus an unhappy, tragic ending.

Of course, the caveat here is that “eucatastrophe”, also unlike “happily ever after”, isn’t a true ending. But it does seem that its application does require an ending of sorts, a climax which may or may not lead to a new beginning somewhere down the line.

[mark12_30]

**standing ovation for mr underhill**

I've been wondering why "euc". Does he spell that out in the essay? or worse, the letters?... (Blushes)

euc => eucharist-- that's huge. Having communion was so key in Tolkien's life that he went to confession, if I'm not mistaken, almost every Saturday. Magnificently old-school catholic. (this said by a wildly charismatic evangelical, ROFL-- but no, I'm serious.) Point being he took communion very seriously. smilies/biggrin.gif

(I love that about the proffessor. And I can't help believing that he paints that into the story. I think that's why C7A sees Frodo as a prophet; shining face and all; because Tolkien was that hungry for God.)

In terms of ending-- yes, but-- then he says that no fairy tale ever really ends. There my brain gets seriously fuzzed. Why am I so stuck on that? Maybe because I think that parts of the story have an end; that a day can have a happy ending, and sometimes should; or that the story can have compartments that end while the main story continues.

Eucharist, eucharist. Yes. Yeah yeah yeah. Thanks, Mr. Underhill.

--Sleeping on that one!

[Frodo Baggins]

Eucatastrophe?? So THAT's what it's called! I call it (as Samwise could tell you) "Suspended between laughing and weeping". I did not experiance it until I read LOTR.

[Nar]

LMP: 'bitter irony' was my phrase... but I didn't quite mean it that way. I didn't mean it would have been a bitter turn had Frodo and Sam laid down their lives for Middle Earth-- it would have been bitter because their deaths were not necessary. Once the quest was accomplished, it was a relief to have providence, Gandalf and the eagles adjust events a little so those who did not NEED to die did not HAVE to die. Bitter is when characters are killed off for effect or pathos or because they're minor characters the author can't be bothered to care about, not because the story or the quest requires it.

My emerging understanding of eucatastrophe is that it's a sudden turn that pulls an underlying pattern taut so that it can be perceived throughout the story. Like Belin, I would call it structural. Gollum's unexpected role in the grace that grants sucess to the quest is the best example, thank you, LMP, for reminding me. The pattern there is not so much one of 'don't kill even slimy creatures, they may come in handy later' but more one of 'mercy requites mercy'. Ultimately the pattern indicates the character of providence: of all the ways to grant this grace, acts of pity for this revolting creature are what is chosen. The foolishly sentimental actions of Bilbo and Frodo towards this creature are chosen to enable grace. What does this say about providence, and incidentally the author? What I love best is that this grace that saves middle earth from Sauron is thriftily used to knit Gollum, lost though he may be, back into the saving themes of Arda. If Gollum can't be saved, even by throwing a vessel of the living light into his power, at least he's granted a useful death-- that might help him somewhere down the line. Good thinking, providence! Sometimes I think all of LotR from Eru's point of view is about trying to get Smeagol back somehow, and saving Middle Earth from Sauron is just a welcome side effect. He's a hobbit. The author's got a soft spot for them.

Boromir's decent death which retrieves his honor just as he's run out of time and Pippin's tribute in service, which eventually saves Boromir's little brother from death by (someone else's) despair, could be part of another pattern in the story-- all the same eucatastrophe-- 'if you can't serve one way, another may be found.' I can't however, settle on one single point where the eucatastrophe occurs and the pattern becomes clear. Maybe we're talking about Maril's nesting eucatastrophes in their nesting stories. By Tolkien's definition, eucatastrophe is an event that flips the story from despair to hope; I'm adding that the effect is so profound because that flip pulls a pattern taut throughout the story and gives us a sudden and complete understanding of what that pattern was-- and that this pattern reflects the character of providence, or the author.

Going on with the pattern idea, I think of purgation not as a single suffering event but as a review of a life (confession to a guide) or trial of one's character and abilities (by enduring/overcoming an ordeal).
Child of the Seventh Age ideas may bear on this: I think that it is not the event itelf which leads to purification, but rather the response of the particular person to that event.
The review or the trial works not because of suffering or abasement, those are just means to an end, but because it exposes the underlying pattern of a life or character. The review does this through close examination in the presence of wisdom, the trial by pulling the pattern of character taut under stress, making it clear once again: 'more about him than you guess!' This preparation is not a eucatastrophe but it prepares the way for one by revealing an existing pattern -- if a eucatastrophe occurs the pattern's suddenly pulled taut in the flipping of a knot(an unexpected event that connects to the rest of the pattern) to reveal the pattern in all its glory. So, am I saying that we have story-bound eucatastrophe and character-bound eucatastrophe and that they can be the same thing or overlap?

I found this idea of preparation/revelation convincing, Maril: I think that in those cases where the revelation comes first, they have already had some form of preceding purgation that has brought them to that place where they are open to the revelation.

Some kind of subtler review, a series of coincidences granted by providence, or slowly moving insights spreading unaware in the back of the conscience might preceed even apparently unexpected revelations, Helen-- it seems to me that the seeker must be somehow prepared to accept them, or the same ones would work for everyone the same way all the time, and they don't. Sadly. Sam might have been prepared to understand the significance of that star not only by his service, as you say, Maril, but also by Aragorn's story of Beren and Luthien at Weathertop and Bilbo's song about Earendil at Rivendell-- and by his earlier recognition that he and Frodo are in the same story.

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[littlemanpoet]

This thread is deep, deep, and I feel like I'm being bathed in fresh spring water by all the varied insights and (dare I say it) revelations. I'm no longer concerned with who's right and who's wrong in terms of the definition; it just goes to show the power of the reality behind the concept, and God bless Tolkien for having subcreated it.

I need to go back and read this whole thread through to figure out how we moved toward revelation and spirituality. Suffice it to say that I feel something churning deep inside that wants, perhaps, to come back to life after lying dormant for so long. My thanks to each of you, my friends.

Please take note of my updated signature; I think that it bears somehow on our discussion.

[mark12_30]

lmp, when you're ready, tell us, where do we find the rest of "The Incarnate Dream"?

[littlemanpoet]

Thanks for asking, Helen/Mark. I fear it's two years (at least, probably) from being submitted for publication. The first three chapters can be found at an on-line writers group, but its access is restricted. You can learn a little bit about it (but only in a general way) on the "Are You Writing Serious Fantasy?" thread.

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[mark12_30]

Okay. But I'm glad of the signposts. I'll snoop thru the thread a little, and wait. Thanks.

[littlemanpoet]

I still haven't read through this entire thread over again, but the attempts at etymology were bugging me, so I did a little research. From the Greek:

A "strophe" is a Greek dramatic musical device such that the chorus (think of Shakespeare) turns from one side to the other.

A "cata-strophe" is therefore, in Greek drama, the down-turn in the plot, that is, the final disaster, so to speak.

cata-pult = down-throw
eu-calyptus = good-cover
eu-reka = good-find
eu-genics = good-genes
Eu-clid = good - what? geometer? - I don't know what 'clid' is - there are no Greek derived words in English that I know of, having this particular root.

Hmmm, I wonder about "european"? eu-rope = good - earth/land (I think) - which makes sense from a Greek's point of view.

And now for the big one that we all find so fascinating:

eu-cata-strophe = good-down-turn. It's a kind of contradiction in terms, and I'm sure Tolkien fully intended it that way; a good culmination.

What I find strange, however, is his (I think) subcreation of the other new word, 'dys-catastrophe':

dys = bad, so dys-cata-strophe = bad-down-turn.

What Tolkien has done is taken a former negative, 'catastrophe', and turned it into a neutral: 'down-turn'. By the way, neither eucatastrophe nor dyscatastrophe are to be found in my dictionary.

Well, I did all that for the sake of accuracy. But I'm interested in why Tolkien felt the need to do it. I think we've answered it in part already by talking about the alternative to the happy ending in fairy stories, on one hand, and the alternative to tragedy, ironic pessimism, and other things of that ilk. Why do you suppose one can't find the two words in a dictionary? (tongue firmly in cheek)

There is another piece of eucatastrophe that we have talked only indirectly about: the denial (in the face of much evidence) of universal final defeat that catches the breath and lifts the heart...it depends on the whole story which is the setting of the turn, and yet it reflects the glory backwards.
This piece of Tolkien's definition (more accurately the explication of his definition) gives me pause in opening the concept up as widely as some on this post have. Okay, I get the sense that I'm beating a dead horse, but darn it, this concept is one that I treasure deeply and I don't want to think about it flabbily, nor am I willingly going to sit idly by and say nothing while others do (if they do). By the way, I'm still working on that end to dormancy thing - these things take time, do they not?

[mark12_30]

the denial (in the face of much evidence) of universal final defeat that catches the breath and lifts the heart...it depends on the whole story which is the setting of the turn, and yet it reflects the glory backwards.

Has anyone caught a glimpse lately?