The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Kalessin · 01-11-2003, 08:58 PM

Doug, you have a knack of starting interesting threads [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I don't think "success through failure" is the right term for the eventual consequences of those setbacks experienced by the heroes and heroines in the narrative. I think the key point was that described by Tolkien, of "evil defeating itself".

This is highlighted many times throughout the narrative - for example, you could strongly argue that it was Sauron's misjudgments, and his focus upon Gondor, that allowed the destruction of the ring. Of course, the forces of good did their best to make that happen, but in desperation and faint hope rather than great confidence and optimism. There are many other examples, as Sauron outmatched all his opponents in military or technological terms (in his use of 'The Machine'), and indeed Frodo was ultimately enslaved by the one ring. Yet evil, manifested in ambition and paranoia, was self-defeating.

I have problems with the idea of complete predestination, either technically or as part of a specific Christian context. A teleological interpretation of the narrative that assumes necessary and inevitable causality simply gives rise to too many "what if" and "why" questions. Especially so if one posits an ultimately good, perfect and omniscient guiding force. I also think that it makes for bad storytelling [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. And it takes us back to the old 'free will vs fate' chestnut (don't go there, I hear you cry [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]).

Bill Ferny has, I think, very accurately (and usefully) made the subtly point that a tension exists between the Christian and other elements in Tolkien's work. The unresolved and contradictory is simply part of the author and the work, yet are fulfilled within our literary experience both through the skill and imagination of his writing, and our ability to intuitively accept the nature of his world (and, I suppose, ours).

The narrative is thrilling precisely because the sympathetic characters are outmatched and the outcome uncertain. Otherwise, the sacrifice would be worthless. The self-sacrifice undertaken safe in the knowledge that it is his/her God's will, and everything will be alright in the end, is of a different order to that which is undertaken simply because it is the right thing to do, an act of conscience and hope (of course the two can be seen as interlinked, but not necessarily so - remember, Frodo, Eowyn and so on do not go about worshipping Eru). I don't say that any assumptions or 'confidence' borne of religious faith is a bad thing in our world, but it seems to me the altruism or heroism in the books is more about those personal choices made against overwhelming odds and with no certainty of eventual triumph, and is a reflection of the personalities and morality of the characters. This is realistic, I would suggest, and something we can all empathise and identify with.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin

[ January 11, 2003: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

01-11-2003, 08:58 PM	#13
Kalessin Wight Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Earthsea, or London Posts: 175	Doug, you have a knack of starting interesting threads [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I don't think "success through failure" is the right term for the eventual consequences of those setbacks experienced by the heroes and heroines in the narrative. I think the key point was that described by Tolkien, of "evil defeating itself". This is highlighted many times throughout the narrative - for example, you could strongly argue that it was Sauron's misjudgments, and his focus upon Gondor, that allowed the destruction of the ring. Of course, the forces of good did their best to make that happen, but in desperation and faint hope rather than great confidence and optimism. There are many other examples, as Sauron outmatched all his opponents in military or technological terms (in his use of 'The Machine'), and indeed Frodo was ultimately enslaved by the one ring. Yet evil, manifested in ambition and paranoia, was self-defeating. I have problems with the idea of complete predestination, either technically or as part of a specific Christian context. A teleological interpretation of the narrative that assumes necessary and inevitable causality simply gives rise to too many "what if" and "why" questions. Especially so if one posits an ultimately good, perfect and omniscient guiding force. I also think that it makes for bad storytelling [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. And it takes us back to the old 'free will vs fate' chestnut (don't go there, I hear you cry [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]). Bill Ferny has, I think, very accurately (and usefully) made the subtly point that a tension exists between the Christian and other elements in Tolkien's work. The unresolved and contradictory is simply part of the author and the work, yet are fulfilled within our literary experience both through the skill and imagination of his writing, and our ability to intuitively accept the nature of his world (and, I suppose, ours). The narrative is thrilling precisely because the sympathetic characters are outmatched and the outcome uncertain. Otherwise, the sacrifice would be worthless. The self-sacrifice undertaken safe in the knowledge that it is his/her God's will, and everything will be alright in the end, is of a different order to that which is undertaken simply because it is the right thing to do, an act of conscience and hope (of course the two can be seen as interlinked, but not necessarily so - remember, Frodo, Eowyn and so on do not go about worshipping Eru). I don't say that any assumptions or 'confidence' borne of religious faith is a bad thing in our world, but it seems to me the altruism or heroism in the books is more about those personal choices made against overwhelming odds and with no certainty of eventual triumph, and is a reflection of the personalities and morality of the characters. This is realistic, I would suggest, and something we can all empathise and identify with. Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Kalessin [ January 11, 2003: Message edited by: Kalessin ]