Quote:
|
Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli
This sort of collectivism is I think inevitable in Tolkien's mythological mode, where peoples often stand in for characters. The Doom of Mandos destroyed a lot of Noldor (and Sindar and Men) who weren't even born at the time of the Kinslaying.
|
Accepted....but we don't think in 'mythological mode'. We are 21st century readers with a 21st century perspective. The problem is, we could accept Morgoth or Sauron indulging in mass slaughter because that's the kind of thing the do - they are 'evil' & slay indiscriminately. Eru is supposed to fall into the other camp.
LMP's statement that Eru cannot be flawed makes the whole thing so much more difficult - we are required to accept that an omnipotent, omniscient deity will commit an act of horrific destruction without even questioning it. Eru did it so it is 'good'. But what standards are we applying - what constitutes 'good' - is it
whatever Eru does? If so then Eru could go around hurling thunderbolts at all & sundry, good, bad, old, young, black, white & it would be 'good' simply because Eru does it. Yet no reader would accept that. The reader can only accept that Eru is 'good' if his behaviour conforms to some objective standard of 'good'. But does Eru's destruction of Numenor conform to this standard?
EDIT
Edit removed because not everyone watches The Catherine Tate Show & it seems they didn't get the joke.
