Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerwen
Form
What I've been specifically arguing against is the claim that this particular tale is so radically different from the rest of Tolkien's work that it can only be properly understood out of context... even that it is somehow "wrong" to keep the rest in mind while reading it.
Okay, so the rebelling Noldor have absolute personal certainty that the Valar exist. (Proof rather than faith, really.) However, as the rebels have explicitly put themselves beyond their help, and as, apart from Ulmo, the Valar seem to be pretty comfortable with this state of affairs (really, what do you mean, 'active'?), I'm not clear how much of a comfort it would be to them, or why they would have any more reason to believe things would turn out all right in the end.
??? "Complicit"? Meaning...?
|
To take your points here in reverse order:
The Children of Hurin is not about the Noldor at all, it is primarily about the struggles of humanity in a blighted world. The Noldor have reason to think the Valar will not intervene, yes, but the Men of CoH did not participate in the Kinslaying. Furthermore, they die and go where they know not whither: in other words, they don't have any answers. Yes, the book is set in Middle-earth; yes, there are elves. But once again, there is no guiding star, there is no "chance, if chance you call it", no providential assistance. It is therefore an atheistic world, in the sense that the gods are so absent as to remains practically redundant. How do Men cope in such a world? That is the question CoH seems to be asking, and we are never afforded a complete answer. LOTR is set in a qualitatively different place: divine assistance is available to the faithful, and to those who have been awarded a special part to play.
I am not claiming that CoH can
only be understood "out of context". I'm arguing for a more nuanced understanding of the the context of Tolkien's work in the first place; a wider understanding that encompasses the very different worldview postulated in the Children of Hurin. I'm not saying CoH and LOTR are diametrically opposed, but as Davem has noted in the past, they contain starkly contrasting approaches to the canvass of Middle-earth.
In the Mieville thread,
Puddleglum posted a quote from the
Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth dialogue found in
Morgoth's Ring:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Puddleglum;
There is the thing that men call "Hope", an expectation of good which has some foundation in what is known. Elves call this "Amdir" which signifies "looking up"
But there is another thing, which is founded deeper. "Estel" that is called by elves, meaning "Trust". If we (elves and men) are indeed the Eruhin, the Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves. This is the uttermost foundation of "Estel".
|
This seems to encapsulate the theology that underpins
the Lord of the Rings. Although Eru is never explicitly mentioned, Gandalf is confident that there is some force working for good that drives events so that Frodo is
meant to possess the ring. As Davem asked in the first post in this thread:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem;
Is Garth right? Is this work a reflection of Tolkien the Somme veteran, while LotR, it could be argued, is the work of Tolkien the Catholic? LotR presents the orthodox Catholic view, that God is watching over us all, & that while there may be suffering & loss, in the end God will bring good out of evil, & that, in the end, 'All shall be well, & all shall be well, & all manner of thing shall be well'. CoH seems to present a vision of a world where God won't - where he doesn't actually care enough to bother
|