I think an important thing to remember here is that Tolkien's works are stories.
Trying to assign (or define) a logical or empirical concept of fate, something that 'stands up' in Tolkien's world in the same way in which Newtonian physics work (or, recently, not) in our own real world, is perhaps over-egging the cake.
As illustrated by the intense and thoughtful analyses on this and other threads, the issue of predetermination of any sort brings with it major philosophical and technical problems. There is nothing explicit in the Bible that exactly addresses these intellectual challenges. And neither in the history of western philosophy or science is there a definitive and satisfactory resolution of the free will / cause and effect paradox. I could go into this at extreme length (I know no other way [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ) but I hope you'll trust me on this.
Rather than look at the Middle Earth mythos as something that has to be both as profound and complete as our own world, I prefer to accept it as epic narrative. I'm not expecting every aspect of what you might call 'continuity' issues to be resolved ... there is enough of an inner logic or worldview to give the story coherence and mythical credibility (hm, a possible oxymoron there) - it is "acceptably unreal", if you follow me.
Ancient myths and fairy tales from all over the world often have a sense of inevitability in their conclusion. It is the storytelling, the ingenuity and symbolism, that give them potency. In the Ramayana, for example, the Indian deities rejoice when the demon Ravana kidnaps Sita from Rama, for this is the catalyst to the prophesied destruction of Ravana by the mortal Rama (as it is willed that Ravana cannot be killed by another god). Yet the tale itself is a tragic adventure. In Norse myths the day of Ragnarok signals the end of creation, yet the gods of Valhalla will nevertheless ride out to battle.
These and other myths don't absolutely stand up to close scrutiny in terms of causal integrity. Neither does LoTR. Neither, in fact does our own world. We just have to choose and/or accept whatever variations or combinations of theories or faiths on offer and get on with day to day living.
I'm not trying to end this discussion, but just saying that as a writer, Tolkien was probably more interested in having a vague and poetic backdrop of prophecy, destiny, and the ultimate triumph of good over evil, against which the epic struggles and characters could be narrated. He may have also attempted to develop as extensive and integral a mythos as possible, but I see THAT process as something different to the storytelling in LoTR. Arguably, the former is a little narcissistic, as it doesn't necessarily enhance our experience of the narrative. On the other hand, it is something that sets his works apart.
Writers such as Philip K D1ck and others have attempted to address the deep philosophical implications of predetermination (for example, using the vehicle of time travel). But in D1ck's case, the bottom line was generally "the ups and downs of the little man".
And I think that, rather than using narrative to simply illustrate an artificial theory of existence, LoTR is a narrative that justifies itself - because it is a story, and what stories do is entertain, enthrall and move us.
Anyway, anyone who wants to hear the definitive refutation of cause and effect (ie. how it can never be observed or proved), or why there is no such thing as coincidence in empirical science, let me know (or read Hume!) ... alternatively, do what I do now and immerse yourself in works of poetic fantasy like LoTR, far more fulfilling.
Peace
[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]
|