The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Kalessin · 05-13-2002, 07:16 PM

Ancalgon's Fire, you are asking good questions, but I just don't think Tolkien rationalised this area in the way in which we are trying to do.

First of all, please let's stop talking about "the dark side". It constantly brings to mind the words "I am your father, Luke" , and a rather spurious moral framework [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] .

We have to start with the assumption that Good and Evil exist in Tolkien, as primary underlying elements that we can all readily understand, intuitively and/or on the basis of our faith or culture. If Tolkien was attempting, or intending, to actually outline in a philosophical (or rational) sense exactly 'what' Evil was, and precisely how it came into being, he obviously failed (as this thread shows). But I think he was taking as read that our grasp of these concepts might be in line with common assumptions, or perhaps more explicitly with his own beliefs. As he said, the nature of divinity in the Silmarillion would be broadly accessible to anyone with an appreciation of the Holy Trinity. And, as I posited earlier, the question about what Evil is and how it comes to be is not really addressed in a scientific way in The Bible.

Remember, whilst Tolkien attentively constructed an imaginary mythos, he was not creating an all-encompassing 'system' like Plato, Leibnitz, Kant etc. He likened the many appendices and 'filling out' of the narrative with contextual details to the creation of a game. This was years before the RPG scenarios that we all understand now, but I guess similar in some ways. A set of rules, some kind of consistency, and a reasonably straightforward narrative causality. Philosophy and philology are pretty distinct disciplines when it comes to explaining existence, and given Tolkien's imaginative vision and narrative skill I'm willing to spare him a Cartesian onslaught [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

However, you rightly identify where Tolkien perhaps glosses over the issue in relation to Yvanna and Melkor. I suppose that's where suspension of disbelief, or just a willingness to 'go with the flow', as readers, should take over in order to get us through those early chapters. Personally there was a lot of 'going with the flow' for me, and I only just made it to Beren and Luthien [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I agree with you that the personification of Evil as opposed to Good is something worth exploring. Perhaps a trite answer is to say that it is necessary for the story, but there is probably more to it than that. We're partly back to the "how do I know God(or Eru) is good?" question that I do find interesting philosophically.

But I'm guessing that, again, given Tolkien's culture and worldview, he found it relatively intuitive to construct a causal narrative with a particular identifiable element of discord in contrast to a more abstract generality of 'perfection'. Even removing the religious aspect, one can perhaps imagine him looking out at the English countryside, and seeing the harmonious beauty of nature 'ruined', or compromised, by ugly man-made artefacts of industrialisation.

You could take a slightly postmodern angle to the question and acknowledge that 'villains' as such, have traditionally and often appeared more interesting and rounded characters in all narrative art forms. Against a background of accepted morality, artists delineate the destructive non-conformist with relish (just as actors play those parts with relish). These characters make things happen. And thus are the catalyst for the ebb and flow of narrative.

I would summarise by saying Tolkien doesn't 'prove' that Eru is good, or fully explain why and how Melkor is or becomes evil. But like him, most readers have an intuitive acceptance of the conceptual framework (however unsound it might be empirically), and in our different ways we can work through the tortuous opening chapters and pretty much end up where Tolkien wants us to be when the real storytelling begins (not before time).

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

05-13-2002, 07:16 PM	#42
Kalessin Wight Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Earthsea, or London Posts: 175	Ancalgon's Fire, you are asking good questions, but I just don't think Tolkien rationalised this area in the way in which we are trying to do. First of all, please let's stop talking about "the dark side". It constantly brings to mind the words "I am your father, Luke" , and a rather spurious moral framework [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] . We have to start with the assumption that Good and Evil exist in Tolkien, as primary underlying elements that we can all readily understand, intuitively and/or on the basis of our faith or culture. If Tolkien was attempting, or intending, to actually outline in a philosophical (or rational) sense exactly 'what' Evil was, and precisely how it came into being, he obviously failed (as this thread shows). But I think he was taking as read that our grasp of these concepts might be in line with common assumptions, or perhaps more explicitly with his own beliefs. As he said, the nature of divinity in the Silmarillion would be broadly accessible to anyone with an appreciation of the Holy Trinity. And, as I posited earlier, the question about what Evil is and how it comes to be is not really addressed in a scientific way in The Bible. Remember, whilst Tolkien attentively constructed an imaginary mythos, he was not creating an all-encompassing 'system' like Plato, Leibnitz, Kant etc. He likened the many appendices and 'filling out' of the narrative with contextual details to the creation of a game. This was years before the RPG scenarios that we all understand now, but I guess similar in some ways. A set of rules, some kind of consistency, and a reasonably straightforward narrative causality. Philosophy and philology are pretty distinct disciplines when it comes to explaining existence, and given Tolkien's imaginative vision and narrative skill I'm willing to spare him a Cartesian onslaught [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] However, you rightly identify where Tolkien perhaps glosses over the issue in relation to Yvanna and Melkor. I suppose that's where suspension of disbelief, or just a willingness to 'go with the flow', as readers, should take over in order to get us through those early chapters. Personally there was a lot of 'going with the flow' for me, and I only just made it to Beren and Luthien [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I agree with you that the personification of Evil as opposed to Good is something worth exploring. Perhaps a trite answer is to say that it is necessary for the story, but there is probably more to it than that. We're partly back to the "how do I know God(or Eru) is good?" question that I do find interesting philosophically. But I'm guessing that, again, given Tolkien's culture and worldview, he found it relatively intuitive to construct a causal narrative with a particular identifiable element of discord in contrast to a more abstract generality of 'perfection'. Even removing the religious aspect, one can perhaps imagine him looking out at the English countryside, and seeing the harmonious beauty of nature 'ruined', or compromised, by ugly man-made artefacts of industrialisation. You could take a slightly postmodern angle to the question and acknowledge that 'villains' as such, have traditionally and often appeared more interesting and rounded characters in all narrative art forms. Against a background of accepted morality, artists delineate the destructive non-conformist with relish (just as actors play those parts with relish). These characters make things happen. And thus are the catalyst for the ebb and flow of narrative. I would summarise by saying Tolkien doesn't 'prove' that Eru is good, or fully explain why and how Melkor is or becomes evil. But like him, most readers have an intuitive acceptance of the conceptual framework (however unsound it might be empirically), and in our different ways we can work through the tortuous opening chapters and pretty much end up where Tolkien wants us to be when the real storytelling begins (not before time). Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]