[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

In the end I don't know how different the two authors are philosophically - if at all."

Hugely.

I don't think Eddings is different, really, if one looks simply at his descriptions of how good guys behave versus the baddies. Certainly, regarding teamwork, consensus, and general compassion as opposed to selfishness, the paradigms of virtue in LotR would seem to fit, as would Sauron as the arch-paradigm of evil. It DOES occur to me, however, that in a sense this could be argued as not true for Tolkien at all--the "good guys" really don't get along at all: Boromir regarding the Ring, Denethor towards Gandalf and even Rohan, Elves and Men in general, Elves and Dwarves in general, all these seem to indicate a fractiousness on the part of the good guys, whereas--though we know, I suppose, that they work out of fear and dread of their dark lord, we don't get much intra-Evil quarrelling, except where the Orks are concerned, and that's quite far down the food chain, and somewhat muted.

However, the argument that Eddings is off there is a weak one, and I'm not making it--though I put it out there insofar as it certainly can be made. However, to return to philosophy.

Eddings' philosophy is laid out, really, right at the beginning of the quoted piece:

In short, what Eddings describes is a conception of good and evil where there is no "balance", but the lack thereof. Instead of the world being in perfect continuous harmony, where evil is a necessity, in order to validate the existence of good, he paints a portrait where good and evil are really nothing more than alternate natures that cannot both be true. They are each the "soul" of the universe, and this reality isn't big enough for the both of them.

Perhaps I'm a bit too convinced that the mentality underlying Tolkien's worldview (in ME as well as "real life") is Catholic, but... really... can you get any farther from Tolkien?

Eddings rejects the idea that good and evil can balance, but this doesn't mean that he doesn't take a fundamentally dualistic approach to Good and Evil as opposing forces. In Christianity, this is known as Manichean heresy, and it is certainly not what either Tolkien or Catholicism would present. Perhaps the only thing really distinctive about Eddings as opposed to Manicheans in general is that his stories tell of the triumph of one side (good) over the other, but perhaps I shouldn't give away the ending...

I apologise if this becomes yet another religion debate, but if one holds religion, it is at the heart of one's philosophy, and Tolkien's philosophy is precisely what we're talking about here, and very much influenced by his faith.

The idea that evil is an alternative plan for the world that cannot coëxist with good, suggesting that evil has a plausible chance of winning--indeed, even an equal chance of winning--is not at all borne out by the Ainulindalë. Quite the contrary! If I may quote Eru's words to Melkor:

Originally Posted by Ainulindalë

Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shall see that no them may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'

This passage, one of my absolute favourites and one of the beautiful gems of the Ainulindalë, doesn't leave any room for an Eddingsesque view of Good and Evil. Perhaps, it is true, Good and Evil aren't compatible, and if Evil had it's way, Good would be destroyed. But Evil hasn't the slightest chance of ever actually winning. From all of his works on the subject, it should be splendidly clear that Morgoth is going to lose the Dagor Dagorath, and there isn't a thing he can do about it. What's more, Evil only gets its chance to fight Good because Eru lets it--because Eru let Arda be created according to flawed music of the Ainur. The implication in the passage is that NOTHING could come to pass, had Eru not permitted it.

With Eddings, evil always has a fighting chance. Indeed, what makes him philosophically different comes right down to the fact that Evil could, in fact, win the day. Good NEVER has the certain edge of victory that it has in Middle-earth, backed by Eru and the promise of Arda Remade or in Christianity. Evil, in both Middle-earth and Christianity, is the rebellion of created beings against an unimaginably greater Creator, whereas in Eddings' worlds it is just as potent an original force, only likely to fail, well, because Good has hit on the "better" tactics, or got luckier.