Quote:
|
Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
I think this is a valuable point. Tolkien has created a polytheocracy (pardon my word construction) in which all of the major deities but one remain 'holy', or good, while just one rebels. This is in marked contrast to the many and varied polytheisms of our world's history in which there is constant jockeying for power, and frequent changes of alliance. The very stability of "sides" in Aman is notable. Where does such stability issue from? Well, it seems rather obvious from the narrative itself: Eru.
|
Melkor is conflicted, the others are not. Melkor is like Feanor on the Divine level, & its no coincidence that they become foes - they are virtually mirror images of each other, & lets face it, they are the great tragic heroes of the Sil. The fate of both is self-wrought & heart-breaking. Without the two of them the story would have been boring - by which I mean if the Music had been sung according to the desire of Eru it would have been the equivalent of 'middle of the road 'pap & bored everyone to tears. Its the 'jockeying for power' that makes the myths interesting & its the rebellions of Melkor & Feanor that introduces conflict, struggle & the possibility of self sacrificing love.
How interesting do we think the story would have been if Melkor had sung what he was told? It would have produced the equivalent of 10,000 years of The Waltons....
