Well the basis for this reasoning is the "causal" reasoning of the ... (well, I originally wanted to write "pre-Christian", then I decided that from the overall perspective it won't be true so I wanted to write "ancient", and then I realised that some "enlightened modern" people operate under such thoughts even up to now, so whatever), where of course there is some basic supernatural chain of effects and the supernatural has as much power as the natural. It works on similar mechanics as let's say simple physics, with the only difference that it's not "seen".
Fundamentally, we could say that - however Tolkien denies it - there was something like "magic" in Middle-Earth working exactly in this sense. (I think "magic" is the best word for that anyway.)
There is also this famous quote from Thorin from the beginning of the Hobbit:
Quote:
|
We still mean to get [our gold] back, and to bring our curses home to Smaug - if we can.
|
Although of course we can just speculate as to what did the author mean by this in particular.
Basically I think the thing is that it has to be "meant seriously", and also, it probably needs to have some "logical grounding". The first thing, in my opinion, would disqualify the quote presented by
Inzil about Thorin, as there it was definitely spoken in affect and Thorin did not really sort of mean it. Or: he would probably say it differently had he not been in affect. Whereas many curses of course are spoken in affect - looking into old tales, that's actually when they are usually spoken - however I would think that at least in M-E, they might be disqualified if the person who spoke them would
not say the some thing after it has calmed down. I.e. Mim would still want Andróg to die, but Thorin won't probably want his beard to wither (if nothing else then also for that it won't be a very effective punishment. If Thorin really hated Gandalf for what he did, he'd probably wish to Gandalf to get an apprentice who would prove as useless as Bilbo did to him, or something like that).
That's of course pure speculation on my part. But I am trying to find some logic in that. I am stemming also from the fact that we don't know to what extent these curses could be misused. I mean: if it was easy for any random Mordorian to say "may Gondorian crops die this year", it probably would add quite a complicated dimension to the overall struggle, wouldn't it? That makes me think that there is something to the thought of "just" curse, so that it's not there just for the sake of it, but it is somehow "in tune with the karmic balance", to use a term which I hope would make clear what I mean
In other words: Mim died, so in fact, it was "fair" that his murderer was punished - so if somebody actually
wanted to have him punished, it was more likely to happen. Similarly with Isildur. There is also this quite clear "eye for an eye" or "compensatory", we might say, character to the curses - Mim's curse is fulfilled when Andróg dies just like his son did, Oathbreakers are freed when they "compensate" for their cowardice. Of course, this compensatory mechanic seems really strictly mechanical - mere causal law, not much chance of avoiding it by simply being sorry for what you did. You have to compensate (e.g. Andróg - with his own life for Khim's life). I would dare to propose a daring statement, that had Andróg for example saved a life of another of Mim's sons, he would have been saved from the curse (eye for an eye, life for life, again this compensatory mechanic). Of course, the problem was that there were not many chances remaining to save some sons here.