Quote:
Originally Posted by tumhalad2
The Children of Hurin fails to mirror the metaphysical world that is built throughout the text of The Lord of the Rings. That is my basic thesis; my basic point. I contend that this holds true regardless of whether or not one considers the story as a standalone work, or as a part of The Silmarillion as a whole. Whether Tolkien intended it to be or not, the Children of Hurin certainly forms a ‘counterpoint’ to LoTR, if not a ‘repudiation’. CoH differs in certain central thematic ways from its cousin, LoTR, and I find this to be an interesting area for exploration.
|
I knew you were going to get back to this -- inexorably, like the returning waters of a tidal basin. That is your thesis? Then I disagree, like during the last several reiterations of this same argument.
CoH has the same elements of Greek tragedy that suffuse many separate stories in Tolkien's canon, expect for one major difference. Many aspects of Turin's life are directly lifted from the Kalevala, from unintended incest with his sister, right down to the talking sword ending his life. There also is no eucatastrophe at the end if the tale, but then things didn't work out so swell for Eol's family either. Or Feanor's family (right down through another age and a 2nd generation). Is CoH bitter? Certainly. Is it unprecedented in Tolkien's canon? Not necessarily.
Speaking theoretically, if Tolkien had managed to write the Feanorian saga from the point of view of his family, then I am sure you would be saying it repudiates LotR, and you'd be equally wrong. Look at the events surrounding that family and their irrevocable oath: rejection of the Valar, kinslaying, deception, internicine war among Elves, kidnapping, infanticide, rejection of redemption, suicide. There is no eucatastophic event that saves the sons of Feanor, the eucatastrophe that occurs eludes them altogether. It is a Greek tragedy with reversals of fortune, hamartia, recognition of fate or doom, and ensuing pathos. Just like CoH.
From a different standpoint, CoH, like most of the stories in the Silmarillion (including the Akallabeth), are Old Testament Tolkien as opposed to LotR being New Testament Tolkien. Even the tenor, syntax and presentation of the disparate Ages are highly distinct. But I don't see the story as a "repudiation" of anything. You insist on looking at things in a microcosm, and that's you prerogative; however, your argument is rather like the old adage "Not seeing the forest from the trees."
I'm out of this circumlocutionary debate. Chasing one's tail may be enjoyable momentarily, but in the end one gets a headache.