Quote:
Originally Posted by Boromir88
I think with LOTR, he was trying to remove the Eru factor as much as possible, but the point still since Eru is unrivalled, and he is good, good will win in the end ,so it really does take away Frodo's (or anyone else's) ability to decide the fate of the world.
|
And the removal of Eru - or his inclusion - depending whether you read LotR as a stand alone work or in the light of the Sil, actually changes your experience of the story profoundly. Without Eru one is in Eddings/Pullman territory, where one's acts can determine the fate of the world as well as the fate of one's soul. Hence, the quest is given infinitely greater significance & meaning. So, the presence of Eru actually lessens the drama but increases the hope of the reader.
What's interesting is that for over twenty years people had to read LotR in one way, but now can read it in another way entirely (though its still not the case that all readers of LotR will read (or if they do, will take into account) the Sil. Without the Sil LotR can be read from an 'Eddings-esque'/Pullman-esque' perspective. Yet, what's interesting to me is that the idea of 'good' as self- sacrifice, love, compassion, making oneself imperfect,& 'evil' as seeking self-perfection, self-containment, rejection of weakness & attainment of some kind of Nietzchean ideal, is shared by all the authors. The real difference between Tolkien's & Eddings/Pullman's worlds is the presence of Eru (& the quality of imagination, of course).