[davem]

Feeling uncertain about adding anything after Squatter's masterful analysis, I shall still dive in (another example of ofermod?)

There is an interesting essay in the collection 'Tolkien's Legendarium': Turin's ofermod by Richard C West.

West analyses Tolkien's understanding of ofermod, as set out in the Homecoming, in relation to the Turin saga. He points out first of all, though, that Tolkien's interpretation is not universally accepted:

Tolkien's views in this regard have had a decidedly mxed reception from other critics of Maldon & of Beowullf. There are many who argue that this sort of heroic excess was considered highly admirable by the Ango-Saxons & by other medieval peoples both before & long after the time of the poem. this may be typified by the assertion of Ralph WV Elliott that heroes such as Beortnoth 'court disaster magnificently, with their eyse wide open, &, according to their lights, rightly'. Many others feel that Tolkien's close reasoning & his sensitivity both to nuances of language & to aesthetics have provided a very persuasive reading. Some say it is too ppersuasive. TA Shippey, himself an eminent scholar both of the Middle Ages & of Middle earth, rejects Tolkien's reading as 'tendentious & personal to a marked degree', & notes that its wide acceptance is due to 'Professor Tolkien's fatal skill iin rhetoric!'

West, however, goes on to point out that none of that is important for an understanding of Tolkien's 'own ambivalent view of the heroic ethos, & he was free to use it in fiction of his own devising.'

The essay focusses on Tolkien's exploration of ofermod in the Turin saga. To what extent can Turin's suffering be put down to Morgoth's curse, & how much does Turin bring it on himself? 'Can Morgoth's baleful influence penetrate even the Girdle of Melian?' West asks. 'The story of Turin is replete with this musing of Tolkien on the pros & cons of the heroic ethos. A hero's valiant deeds are never without cost even when they also benefit people, & they may not even do that if undertaken rashly & without serious thought' 'The same sort of overmastering pride that Tolkien discerned in Beortnoth consistently overmasters Turin'. 'Turin's story is tolkien's speculation on the limits of heroism, & how the mightiest hero, who achieves feats at which everyone marvels, nevertheless needs humane values.'

The difference between father & son is clearly set out by Squatter's description of Hurin's self sacrifycing stand with his brother. We could also compare Turin's building of the bridge over the Narog, enabling the Elves more easily to make war on Morgoth's forces, with his cousin's construction of an escape tunnel from Gondolin - descretion clearly being, in Tolkien's view, the better part of valour. Who knows, though, how the son would have turned out if not deprived of the father?

But, was Turin's pride entirely a bad thing? Would he have gone to face Glaurung if not driven by his ofermod? How many were spared by his reckless heroics?

Which brings us to the question - was there some part of Tolkien which admired ofermod? Was he perhaps 'protesting too much? Turin comes to a bad end, yes, but he comes there heroically. Even at the last, he will not crawl. The WW1 veteran cannot glory in warfare, because he knows the human cost, yet he never entirely cast aside the original ending of Turambar:

but Turambar indeed shall stand beside Fionwe in the Great Wrack, & Melko & his drakes shall curse the sword of Mormakil

Would a Turin free of ofermod have earned such a place? Did Tolkien retain a sneaking admiration for the reckless hero? Ofermod - he could warn against it, because it is certainly a dangerous thing, but maybe he was enough of an Anglo Saxon not to entirely disapprove of it. His reckless heroes tend to end heroically, making the world a little better, for all their faults. (Boromir springs to mind).