Quote:
|
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...
|
I disagree. Firstly, the music Eru gave to the Ainur was itself "a mighty theme, unfolding to them things greater and more wonderful than he had yet revealed; and the glory of its beginning and the splendour of its end amazed the Ainur, so that they bowed before Iluvatar and were silent". Of the music the Ainur themselves made from this theme, it is said "never since have the Ainur made any music like to this music". Is this a trifle, a small thing, something to be disconsidered?
The Ainur are the greatest beings, in majesty and status, created by Eru. Howevr, when they beheld the Eruhini and their habitation world, "then many of the most mighty among them bent all their thought and their desire towards that place". Were the Ainur just stupid in not seeing how prosaic all this world is? And the greatest of them even? I also doubt that any of the ainur who decided to go forth had in their minds thoughts like "man, am I goona kick some behind there or what?",
Aman it is said to be as Arda Unmarred would have been. There, arts of all sorts were created freely, marvelous things. There, art would have been Art, a way for even the lesser creatures to rise above their condition and catch in their work a splinter of the wonder of creation. For don't the easterners say that creativity in humans is their divine aspect?
Is figthing the corruption of creation the only worthy challenge? How about exceeding your own limitations, with using your aptitudes and skills to their best? Doesn't human kind even nowadays prides itself with great technological, scientifical and cultural achievements? We see a perennial archetype which continues to inspire: the theme of Eru, the music of the Ainur, the Art of the elves, the art of the humans. Perhaps each and everyone thus achieved their greatest potential; perhaps some exceeded their initial condition.
There are challenges in coming and working together while still respecting and celebrating our uniquenness. To argue that the lack of corruption makes the world uninteresting is first of all a logical fallacy: we only know a corrupted world (here or in the books); to say how would a fundamentally different world would be to us is, imo, presumptuous. You can’t start with a hypothesis that is not true and then draw any supportable conclusions from it. I for one don't cherrish the dimming of one's faculty because of his/her inner corruption, or the world's. Violence is defined by Gandhi as the difference between one's actual status and one's potential. Corruption in the world increases that difference; in and of itself, it is not laudable. Countless of Einstein's, Francis's d'Assisi, Plato's and Mozart's have died horribly worthlessly due to the corruption of the world, without coming ever close to their calling and potential. Even if corruption presents a nice challenge, who is willing to celebrate their deaths and lost works? No one, I hope.