The Quenta Silmarillion Eucatastrophe-less

[Imladris]

Yes...I know that the Quenta Silmarillion is part of a larger story, yet I also think that it is a myth in and of itself. It has a beginning, middle, and at the end everything is neatly tied. The story of the Silmarils is done...so, as a myth, it is also deserving of a eucatastrophe. Yet, in my opinion, it does not have one.

The Silmarils are all safe and sound, yes. Yet, what of Maedhros and his brother? They who kept their oath even though hated it...what do they get? They finally regain their father's Silmarils, and it burns them. In my mind, the jewels should not haved burned them, for they kept their oath against all odds.

And at the very end, they are denied the Silmarils (I guess the Valar forgot about that oaths are binding), Maedhros throws himself into a lava pit with the Silmaril, and his brother throws his into the sea and wanders alone full of angst. How is that happy -- it's not even a happy disaster. Why? There is no joy. Only one Silmaril is regained. The Light of the Trees is only partially recovered. So many people die.

Fingolfin died, Thingol died, Turgon died, and countless others. And for what? Where is the eucatastrophe?

[Firefoot]

I agree very much - there is really no joy in the Quenta Silmarillion. In fact, a lot of the time it is downright depressing. The whole book is basically fighting the long defeat. The conclusion just cements it:

Here ends the Silmarillion. If it has passed from the high and beautiful to darkness and ruin, that was of old the fate of Arda Marred; and if any change shall come and the Marring shall be amended, Manwë and Varda may know; but they have not revealed it, and it is not declared in the dooms of Mandos.

I think a part of the eucatastrophe is an essence of hope. The end of the Sil does not possess that hope, in my opinion. Morgoth is banished to the Void (not even destroyed!) and his hate and other seeds of evil live on. This does not present an option of redemption for Arda Marred. The sense of eucatastrophe is much stronger in LotR than in the Sil, and I think this is largely because of the hope that exists in LotR.

According to Tolkien, eucatastrophe is the 'piercing joy that brings tears' - a bittersweet type feeling. Well, the Sil can certainly be bitter, but there isn't a lot of sweet. The story that perhaps comes closest is that of Beren and Lúthien: they are in the end reunited in their love, but Lúthien becomes mortal and the fairest of all the Elves passes away for ever. I don't know that this is poignant enough to be considered eucatastrophe, however.

Maybe part of the reason for the lack of eucatastrophe (aside from the plot itself) is the style in which it is written. In many places, it is much more 'documented' than LotR is. For many people, it is much easier to sympathize with Frodo than with Turgon, for example. Character development is still there in the Sil, but it is more stark, for lack of a better word. The Quenta Silmarillion can and does evoke emotion in many places, but it tends to be more devastating than anything else.

So yes, I would tend to agree that the Sil tends to be lacking in eucatastrophe. While it is a great book, it doesn't have the hope and joy along with the sorrow to produce a state of eucatastrophe.

[Kuruharan]

I think you are focusing on the wrong thing.

The eucatastrophe was that Earendil won through to the West, the Valar came and defeated Morgoth, Morgoth's body was executed and his spirit cast out. On the face of it the odds of this happening were at least as bad as Frodo making it to Mount Doom and casting the Ring into the Fire.

The end of the Sil does not possess that hope, in my opinion. Morgoth is banished to the Void (not even destroyed!) and his hate and other seeds of evil live on.

Neither was evil destroyed at the end of LOTR. Sauron was overthrown, but other seeds of evil lived on.

Maybe part of the reason for the lack of eucatastrophe (aside from the plot itself) is the style in which it is written. In many places, it is much more 'documented' than LotR is.

I think this has a lot to do with it. The description of Earendil's journey could (generously) be called detached. We don't know what they went through. If the rendering of the story had been more personal the effect would have been quite different.

[EDIT] Also note that Earendil and Elwing paid a price for the accomplishment of their quest, similar to Frodo.

[Imladris]

No offense, but the fact that Earendil made it through to the west only after he regained a silmaril is not much of a eucatastrophe. I suppose that I am mainly upset with the unforgiveness of the Valar...you know what I mean?

What I'm saying is that that one small victory is not enough to make it a Eucatastrophe.

[mark12_30]

When Turgon led his hosts out of Gondolin, I stood up and cheered.

Of course, it was short-lived, and they got trounced shortly thereafter. But it was a glorious moment.

[Imladris]

Yes it was...but could it be considered a eucatastrophe?

There are so many cheering moments...but it's all for nothing. No eucatastrophe...

[Kuruharan]

I still think you are looking at this from the wrong perspective.

The War of Wrath was not a small victory. It was a far larger victory than the overthrow of Sauron.

I suppose that I am mainly upset with the unforgiveness of the Valar...you know what I mean?

Actually, I'm not sure I do.

It is a funny thing about the Curse of the Noldor, but it was a necessary thing to teach the Noldor the value of what they had before. They refused to obey the Valar, but the Valar had to let them go. It was the Noldor themselves who did not want to stay. Afterwards, they had to be prepared to return in their new forms to Valinor and not cause another riot.

And the Valar forgave them in the end.

Besides, eucatastrophe can be found in small things as well as great. Take Finrod. (Everyone loves Finrod.) He had a specifically mentioned happy ending that nobody could take away from him (unless, of course, one thinks that being in Valinor for all time is boring, but that is a topic for another time.)

[Aiwendil]

Imladris wrote:

The story of the Silmarils is done...so, as a myth, it is also deserving of a eucatastrophe. Yet, in my opinion, it does not have one.

And Firefoot:

I agree very much - there is really no joy in the Quenta Silmarillion.

I must disagree strongly. I would say that there is joy in the Silmarillion and indeed that there is eucatastrophe. And I would not call the Quenta Silmarillion as a whole a tragedy, though it does have tragedy within it.

Is there no joy in Valinor before the making of the Sun? Is there no joy in Doriath during the same time? Is there no joy in the story of Beren and Luthien?

As for a eucatastrophe - the success of Earendil is in my view the quintessential eucatastrophe. Imladris writes:

No offense, but the fact that Earendil made it through to the west only after he regained a silmaril is not much of a eucatastrophe. I suppose that I am mainly upset with the unforgiveness of the Valar...you know what I mean?

What I'm saying is that that one small victory is not enough to make it a Eucatastrophe.

But it is not "one small victory". The ultimate evil being is defeated. All the lands and people that were under his rule are freed. The slaves come forth from Angband. And it is all unforeseen and unexpected. The Valar are not unforgiving - that's the point. It is precisely the mercy of the Valar that defeats Morgoth.

Yes, people die. That shouldn't be too surprising, considering that the subject of much of the tale is a six hundred year long war. And the ending is certainly not unmitigated cheerfulness. But neither is the end of LotR. Personally, I think that the moment when Earendil appears in the sky and battles Ancalagon is the most piercingly eucatastrophic moment in Tolkien's writing.

Edit: Cross-posting with Kuruharan, who makes the same points that I do more concisely.

[Imladris]

The Valar are not unforgiving - that's the point. It is precisely the mercy of the Valar that defeats Morgoth.

Actually, I'm not sure I do.

Because Feanor was a spoiled brat, the entire family was doomed. I don't know...but that sounds a wee bit unforgiving to me.

And it is said that in that time Ulmo came to Valinor out of the deep waters, and spoke there to the Valar of the need of the Elves; and he called on them to forgive them, and rescue them from the overmastering might of Morgoth...But Manwe moved not; and of the counsels of his heart what tale shall tell? The wise have said that hour was not yet come, and that only one speaking in person for the cause of both Elves and Men, pleading for pardon on their misdeeds and pity on their woes, might move the counsels of the Powers

.

Even through all the bloodshed, the sorrow of Maedhros and his brother Maglor, the death of all the brave and noble men of Middle Earth because of the stupidity of Feanor, Manwe couldn't be bothered to forgive them. "The hour not yet come" -- why? No free will...horrid. On top of all that, they put a stipulation that one must come pleading for both elves and men -- and even then it was only a might.

Two purposes grew in his [Earendil's] heart, blended as one in longing for the wide Sea: he sought to sail thereon, seeking after Tuor and Idril who returned not; and he thought to find perhaps the last shore, and bring here he died the message of Elves and Men to the Valar in the West, that should move their hearts to pity for the sorrows of Middle Earth.

After everything they're not full of pity...

Erendil found not Tuor no Idril, nor came he ever on that journey to the shores of Valinor, defeated by shadows and enchantment, driven by repelling winds

Emphasis mine of course. Earendil who wanted to plead his case wasn't even allowed to come near the Valinor -- it's almost as if the Valar didn't even want to be moved to pity unles that one had a Silmaril.

and the wise have said that it was by reason of the power of that holy jewel that they came in time to waters that no vessels save those of the Teleri had known; and they came to the Enchaned Isles and escaped their enchantment...and at last they cast anchor in the Bay of Eldamar...

The Valar say they won't forgive them until one comes to plea, yet the one can't get to the Shores without a Silmaril.

When I was reading the Voyage of Earendil and the War of Wrath, I was twitching with joy. Finally the Valar had gotten their act together and were going to finish Morgoth once and for all. They had decided to forgive the Noldor for the foolishness of one man six hundred years ago. And Morgoth was defeated....and then we hear the dialogue of Maedhros and Maglor -- they are bound by their oath, and they don't know who can release them.

It's not even said here that the sons of Feanor were forgiven. They were merely told to give up the Silmarils and to wait for judgement. That does not sound like forgiveness, and they were both sorrowful for their oath. They did not want the Silmarils for their beauty, they wanted the Silmarils to fulfill their oath.

The end of the Silmarillion is victorious. However, it is tainted with sorrow, with the foolishness of the Valar, with the folly of Feanor, and the sorrow of the unforgiven sons Maedhros and Maglor. It is not a Eucatastrophe. It is a victory that should have happened long ago (one Vala can outsmart nine?) -- I can hear the choruses of "then there would be no story" and that is what I myself would have done a long time ago. But that isn't good enough for me. A story is made up of characters, and if the characters are incompetent, childish Vala who wait for "the hour" because there is no free will...that does not add up into a Eucatastrophe.

[Kuruharan]

Because Feanor was a spoiled brat, the entire family was doomed. I don't know...but that sounds a wee bit unforgiving to me.

No. The entire family was “doomed” because they followed him of their own free will (except for Finarfin who turned back).

the sorrow of Maedhros and his brother Maglor

I’m not certain that the suffering of those two children of their father really counts for much. Actions matter.

On top of all that, they put a stipulation that one must come pleading for both elves and men -- and even then it was only a might.

Literary convention.

Even through all the bloodshed…the death of all the brave and noble men of Middle Earth

Here is a part of your argument that I don’t understand. There was plenty of slaughter in the War of the Ring, but you seem to feel that it was more eucatastrophic.

I believe you feel this way because the LOTR focused more personally on specific characters. If you read the account of the exact same thing in “Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age,” you probably don’t get that same feeling of eucatastrophe that you do from reading LOTR. This is because the style is different.

After everything they're not full of pity...

They’d been grossly offended, something the defenders of Feanor tend to gloss over.

Emphasis mine of course. Earendil who wanted to plead his case wasn't even allowed to come near the Valinor -- it's almost as if the Valar didn't even want to be moved to pity unles that one had a Silmaril.

That is what makes it eucatastrophic. Earendil overcame greater odds than Frodo because Earendil was contending with a greater force.

they are bound by their oath, and they don't know who can release them.

It's not even said here that the sons of Feanor were forgiven. They were merely told to give up the Silmarils and to wait for judgement. That does not sound like forgiveness, and they were both sorrowful for their oath. They did not want the Silmarils for their beauty, they wanted the Silmarils to fulfill their oath.

Their oath was wrong. They should have chosen to accept their disgrace. If they really were past the point of saving themselves, they could have worked to help others and have caused less damage.

The end of the Silmarillion is victorious. However, it is tainted with sorrow, with the foolishness of the Valar, with the folly of Feanor, and the sorrow of the unforgiven sons Maedhros and Maglor. It is not a Eucatastrophe.

The end of The Lord of the Rings is also victorious and tainted with sorrow, with the failing of the elves and dwarves, the inability of Frodo to be healed, and the continued diminishing of the Dunedain since Elessar was their last great flowering. Why is this a eucatastrophe and the Sil not?

Again, I think the answer lies in the style of the respective works.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Here is a part of your argument that I don’t understand. There was plenty of slaughter in the War of the Ring, but you seem to feel that it was more eucatastrophic.

This to me seems to me to be the essence of this question. It is not the "facts" themselves, but the manner in which they are recorded that inspires eucatastrophe in the reader.

[Son of Númenor]

If Imladris in her reading did not feel something that she can (honestly, based on her knowledge of Tolkien's intended meaning of the word) describe as eucatastrophe, then the Quenta Silmarillion was 'eucatastrophe-less' for her.

But...

I, on the other hand, had a profound emotional experience during my first reading of the Silm - I was overwhelmed by the depth of the tragedy and beauty in the tale of Arda's Marring and the War of the Jewels. I experienced in the completion of my reading, right down to and summed up in the last sentence, what I can only describe as eucatastrophe.

Reading a work of fiction is inherently a very subjective thing, and one cannot simply say in universal terms that something is or isn't eucatastrophic.

[mark12_30]

Aye.

And in repeated readings, who knows what will happen?

My first time through the Sil, seemed to me little better than reading sections of the encyclopedia; informative, but little more. My second time through was quite different.

And I've read the LOTR numerous times, at least a dozen; and I am not sure i can pinpoint one single area that is eucatastrophic for me every time through.

[turgon]

I have to agree with mark 12_30 and son of numenor.
yet if your perspective is that the Sil is "eucatastrophic-less" would that not add to the realism of the tale? Isn't life after all full of tragedy and ecstasy; with no clear idea of what may come next except the glimmer of hope?

[Kransha]

Eucatastrophe...eucatatastrophe...An interesting word, that.

I believe that the Silm is riddled with events that are somewhat glossed with a eucatastrophic hue of "paint" shall we say, but bears the true, deep-rooted bittersweetness of a Shakespearean tragedy. Myths do not require eucatastrophe, so the inevitable search for one may be flawed. Yes, I'll admit, many myths do have an overall morale, or an extra that is earned in the end. The Egyptian, Nordic, and Greek pre-polytheistic pantheons, those with the most well-recorded myths, besides the Hindu and Mesopatamian pantheonic faiths, ooze eucatastrophe, though not always on a grand scale. All myth generally has eucatastrophe in it, but sometimes it is a complete misdirection of the actual story. The Silm bears a similar trend, though the -eu- part of the catastrophe is somewhat lacking in vigor, or happiness.

The Quenta Silmarillion always intrigued me - almost always. I'm very much in the same boat as mark12_30, though I try not to admit the fact publicly. But, upon rereading and rereading, as a Tolkien lover simply must attempt, I've learned more. I was fascinated by the story of Túrin Turambar, the Master of Doom, Blacksword, Mormegil, Gorthol, Glaurung's Bane, and whatever his other names may be. I have not memorized, nor have I studied the tale in profuse detail. Túrin fascinated me because he bore the role of a tragic hero, and his tale lacked eucatastrophe in almost every regard. There is no silver lining for Húrin, Túrin, and Nienor Níniel. Túrin and his sister/accidental-wife end up doing something that no one else (of great importance or note) does. They simply kill themselves, albiet for understandable reasons. One could say that Maedhros and Denethor, from LotR did the same thing, but they were merely trying to alleviate a cumbersome and agonizing pain, mentally and physically. Túrin was cursed to a greater doom, one which he could not escape. Similarly, the Kinslaying at Alqualondë does not seem to have much of an upside. Feanor and his kin betrayed their brethren and massacred the Teleri. Then, they leave, and swear an oath that dooms him as well, along with his sons. Upside? No. Eucatastrophic? Apparently not.

But, what about OVERALL eucatastrophe? That's pretty evident. The Quenta Silmarillion does end on a heavy note, which is a no-no in orchestral organization, but not necessarily in storytelling. The Silmarillion is the life and lives that were lived before the happenstances we are familiar with, and bear both a darker and lighter side. It is creation, birth, and the first prosperings of Eldar and Edain. It has many moments where shadows loom, but what story does not? The grandiose Nordic acopalypse myth: that of Ragnarok, the World's Ending (ending pending...hey, that rhymes!), holds eucatastrophe, but one that is not exactly evident. At the end, everyone's dead, except two people. They're job is start the world anew. Will the world go on a be happy? Well, yes, but everyone's still dead, good guys and bad. The Silmarillion is much less drab than that, not that I would accuse the Nordic mythos of drabness. There are still people alive and not flooded with Gothic angst. That's basically one up on a lot of other legends, myths, and old spouses' tales.

So, one must consider what is eucatastrophic.
~The Trees (Laurelin and Telperion): Semi-eucatastrophic. Trees down, Silmarils still around. ~Thingol and Melian: Semi-eucatastrophic: Thingol's dead, but he got to hang with a Maia. ~The Flight of the Noldor:.....well, at least they got to Middle-Earth, right? ~Sons of Fëanor: Non-eucatastrophic. All dead. ~Beren and Lúthien: Definately eucatastrophic. Bad things happen, people die, but the two lovers end up together in the end, even if Lúthien Tinúviel lost her voice serenading Mandos and probably dislocated her hip after all that dancing. ~Túrin: Non-eucatastrophic. All dead. ~The Fall of Gondolin: Semi-eucatastrophic, solely because people are still alive. ~The Voyage of Eärendil: The finale of the Silmarillion, and the most eucatastrophic part in it. There is plenty of preternatural beauty to be had in this tale of love and of triumph, overall, which is followed by a war that functions pretty much as a deus ex machina, which Tolkien used aptly in this case. The final words, epilogueish, though they are not composed as such, basically state that the non-eucatastrophe of the Quenta Silmarillion should be taken at face value, as stated above.

My 2 kopeks, take 'em or leave 'em.

[Kuruharan]

I think that we are approaching this from two different perspectives.

Son of Númenor
If Imladris in her reading did not feel something that she can (honestly, based on her knowledge of Tolkien's intended meaning of the word) describe as eucatastrophe, then the Quenta Silmarillion was 'eucatastrophe-less' for her.

Reading a work of fiction is inherently a very subjective thing, and one cannot simply say in universal terms that something is or isn't eucatastrophic.

mark12_30
And I've read the LOTR numerous times, at least a dozen; and I am not sure i can pinpoint one single area that is eucatastrophic for me every time through.

Yes, perhaps, but that is not what I was driving at. My point was to defend that within the context of the story itself something eucatastrophic happened. I don’t believe that it is necessary for the eucatastrophe to be experienced in the feelings of the reader, it can be present in the context of the story itself.

Does that make more sense now?

[Firefoot]

I think Mark12_30 and Son of Numenor have hit on good points about individual experience. Something that I find eucatastrophic may not be what someone else considers so. Especially in the Sil, the first and second times are almost more getting the storyline down (whatwith all those characters!) than getting involved emotionally with the characters. It is a difficult book to grasp at the first reading, and I admit my initial reaction having finished it was "Everybody dies!" I have been wanting to reread it again for a while now (when I have time) and I think that it may prove to be more eucatastrophic now that I know who is who and what's what.

To clarify some issues raised in my former post: I wasn't saying that the Sil did not evoke emotion - deep emotion even - but the particular element of eucatastrophe I felt was lacking.

I don’t believe that it is necessary for the eucatastrophe to be experienced in the feelings of the reader, it can be present in the context of the story itself.

I understand what you are trying to say, but I disagree. An event in the story may be designed to be eucatastrophe, but not all readers will likely interpret it that way, as has been proven by this discussion.

[Aiwendil]

I only have time for a brief comment, but something caught my eye.

Son of Numenor wrote:

If Imladris in her reading did not feel something that she can (honestly, based on her knowledge of Tolkien's intended meaning of the word) describe as eucatastrophe, then the Quenta Silmarillion was 'eucatastrophe-less' for her.

An interesting point comes up - is "eucatastrophe" only definable in relation to an individual, or is it an objective quality of a work, definable in terms of plot alone (or plot and other intrinsic attributes of the work)?

I have to say that I have always thought of it in the latter way - as a literary object that does not depend on anyone's personal reaction to it.

[mark12_30]

We had plenty of argument on either side in this thread, in which Kuruharan was a noted contributor:
eucatastrophe: piercing joy that brings tears

[Son of Númenor]

Ideally eucatastrophe would be an objective quality. Viewing a tragic play or movie or reading a tragic novel, however, there will be some who cry at the end and some who won't; it is not somehow less tragic for those who cry because there are some who don't. The same, I think, applies to a eucatastrophic piece of literature.

[Bêthberry]

This discussion raises several questions about Tolkien's art, which is why, I think, we are generating strong feelings and posts here. I would like to make several observations in the hope of clarifying some definitions. Please bear with me if this seems plodding.

1. To question the existence of eucatastrophe in The Silmarillion is to examine seriously, analytically, critically, a fundamental claim Tolkien makes not only of his art but of all fairy/fantasy. Tolkien states a very profound case for fairy stories in his 1938 lecture which we know as "On Fairy-Stories". He makes the claim there that at the heart of fairy (fantasy) is a profound consolation:

But the 'consolation' of fairy stories has another aspect than the imaginative satisfaction of ancient desires. Far more important is the Consolation of the Happy Ending. Almost I would venture to assert that all complete fairy-stories must have it. ... The eucatastrophic tale is the true form of fairy-tale, and its highest function. (my bolding)

This raises an important issue: if The Silm does not have Eu (no pun meant about Eru), does that mean either that Tolkien was wrong about fairy, or that The Silm is in fact not a fairy tale but something else? For instance, is it more fitting to describe it as myth rather than as fairy? Are the two terms interchangeable?

This should not be regarded as a heretical question, but as an honest matter for discussion.

2. To discuss 'eucatastrophe' means that we must be very precise in our understanding of the term. It is salutary to remember that Tolkien does not mean any happy ending. (In fact, he claims that fairy stories do not have an ending per se). And he does not mean mere delight or simple romance and he distinguishes it from Tragedy in drama. He means something which helps free us from human limitations. And he means something altogether unexpected, unanticipated, even undeserved. The words Tolkien uses suggest the rarity of this effect.

the sudden joyous 'turn' (for their is not true end to any fairy-tale): this joy, which is one of the things which fairy-stories can produce supremely well, is not essentially 'escapist', nor 'fugitive.' In its fairy-tale - or otherworld--setting, it is a sudden and miraculous grace: never to be counted on to recur. It does not deny the existence of dyscatastrophe of sorrow and failure: the possibility of these is necessary to the joy of deliverance: it denies (in the face of much evidence, if you will) universal final defeat and in so far is evangelium giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief.

This is something profoundly special and unique. A string of petit morts would seem to lessen its profundity. (Well, maybe not....)

Tolkien also suggests that the experience is very much a readerly experience.

It is the mark of a good fairy-story, of the higher or more complete kind, that owever wild its events, however fantastic or terrible the adventures, it can give to child or man that hears it, a beat and lifting of the heart, near to (or indeed accompanied by) tears

Note Tolkien uses the word "effect," a consequence or result rather than "affect," an inward disposition.

Tolkien becomes even more serious in the Epilogue.

But in the 'eucatastrophe' we see in a brief vision that the answer may be greater--it may be a far-off gleam or echo of evangelium in the real world. The use of this word gives a hint of my epilogue. It is a serious and dangerous matter. It is presumptuous of me to touch upon such a theme; but if by grace what I say has in any respect any validity, it is of course only one facet of a truth incalculably rich....

I happen to think that here Tolkien provides a justification of his faith through his understanding of fairy ("approaching the Christian Story from this direction") (rather than vice versa, as many others do). However, this is less germane for my purpose here, which is simply to remind us of some particulars. We need to be precise and specific about what we say Tolkien said. And we need to remember that we are not all called in the same way. We might, in fact, reach a better understanding of The Silm if we ask whether Tolkien's ideas about fairy were something he came to after the main body of his Legendarium was written, or if in the writing and reworking he came to understand something which his text initially did not demonstrate.

There! I think that is enough pepper in the pot for one post.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

does that mean either that Tolkien was wrong about fairy, or that The Silm is in fact not a fairy tale but something else? For instance, is it more fitting to describe it as myth rather than as fairy? Are the two terms interchangeable?

Glad you brought this up; I am not sure they are. I don't necessarily associate Beowulf with faery-tale (I've been going back and forth with this most of the afternoon) but rather heroic epic, or something like that. (I am no expert in this, I assure you.) To me the Silm is more like Beowulf than it is like Smith of Wooton Major (A superb faery tale.) Do I expect a eucatastrophe from Beowulf? Should I? I do not know. I have read it three times, and the first time did not grasp much; the second and third times, I understood more, but I was still getting used to the style of telling the story. Would someone familiar with the storytelling style experience a eucatastrophe hearing the tale told? I do not know. Are there other Downers who have and if so, can you please discuss it briefly?

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

...he does not mean mere delight or simple romance and he distinguishes it from Tragedy in drama. He means something which helps free us from human limitations. And he means something altogether unexpected, unanticipated, even undeserved. The words Tolkien uses suggest the rarity of this effect.

Here you take Kuruharan's stance (I think) in making the eucatastrohe primarily a story element, rare, islolated and one-per-story. (I can respect that.)

However in the other thread, we discussed that LotR (for instance) is not one story, but many stories woven together; and each of those stories may have a eucatastrophe within them. (I should add that Kuruharan was never comfortable with this as far as I can recall.)

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Tolkien also suggests that the experience is very much a readerly experience. Note Tolkien uses the word "effect," a consequence or result rather than "affect," an inward disposition.

Thanks for pointing that out.

We need to be precise and specific about what we say Tolkien said.
And we need to remember that we are not all called in the same way.

Precisely and specifically, Bb, what are you getting at here in terms of Eucatastrophe? I agree that we are all not called in the same way, but I don't think you and I mean the same thing when we say it! :P

[Imladris]

Oof so many things to comment on (forgive me for not quoting some of you).

Fairy Tales and Myth: I was told by my Modern Mythology teacher (who is a rabid Tolkien/Lewis fan and has studied their works and the other Inklings in depth) said that Lewis and Tolkien viewed myth/fairy stories as the same thing. In essence they were the same -- they just used different words.

I was reading through these posts and came across something that I had missed on my first rebuttal post:

It is a funny thing about the Curse of the Noldor, but it was a necessary thing to teach the Noldor the value of what they had before. They refused to obey the Valar, but the Valar had to let them go. It was the Noldor themselves who did not want to stay. Afterwards, they had to be prepared to return in their new forms to Valinor and not cause another riot.

This is exactly my point. Who was behind the riot? Who put the sparks to the wood? Melkor after he was released. Melkor lied to the Noldor...told them that they were the Noldor's thralls. This is another thing that makes me angry: the Valar should have been on their guard...they should not have let Melkor run loose...only Ulmo (unsurprisingly) seemed to know that Melkor was up to no good. Feanor was doomed before he was even born.

I believe that either Tolkien or Lewis mentioned that eucatastrophe was, indeed, a part of the reader's perspective...however...but..I don't remember where.

I've been told by various members that both LotR were tainted with sorrow, to which I agree. However, they are vastly different endings.

LotR was full of mercy. Gandalf, Frodo, and Faramir were all merciful. The Valar were not (see my quotes below). And that, to me, is a huge difference.

You are looking at actions -- I am looking at the principles behind that action. The Valar should not have been so unforgiving...they should not have made it so that one needed a Silmaril to get to the Blessed Realm. Just that he had to have one makes it seem as if he had to buy the forgiveness.

More later once I get my thoughts more organized.

[Aiwendil]

Bethberry wrote:

To discuss 'eucatastrophe' means that we must be very precise in our understanding of the term.

We certainly must. Which is why I think an important question is whether eucatastrophe is to be understood as a response on the part of the reader or as a property of the work itself. Can we point to something and say "that is a eucatastrophe" just as we can point to something and say "that is a subplot" or "that is a character" or "that is suspense"? I would suggest that we can. And though different readers will undoubtedly respond differently to the eucatastrophe, that does not invalidate it's independent nature, any more than the fact that different people respond to suspense in different ways invalidates suspense as anything other than a purely subjective object.

Tolkien also suggests that the experience is very much a readerly experience.

Yes, but notice what he says - it "can give to child or man that hears it, a beat and lifting of the heart, near to (or indeed accompanied by) tears ". Not must or does. A climax can elicit excitement, but it is no less a climax if some people fail to be excited.

Mark12_30 wrote:

To me the Silm is more like Beowulf than it is like Smith of Wooton Major (A superb faery tale.) Do I expect a eucatastrophe from Beowulf?

I agree that the Silmarillion is much like Beowulf in some regards. And I also do not see a eucatastrophe in Beowulf. However, I think that that is precisely where the Silmarillion is at its least similar to the poem. The Silmarillion is a work in high contrast and is infused with the most powerful joy and the most powerful sorrow (I think it is this that gives rise to the incorrect argument that Tolkien's work is absolutist, morally black and white). Tolkien points out that eucatastrophe does not deny the existence of dyscatastrophe. I would say further that dyscatastrophe does not deny the existence of eucatastrophe. The sad fate of Maedhros and Maglor does not erase that moment when Ancalagon falls and breaks Thangorodrim.

[mark12_30]

If there is only one eucatastrophe per story--

Then for LOTR, what is it?

If there is only one, then everyone should give the same answer.

For the Hobbit-- what is it?

And for the Silm-- What is it?

[Imladris]

To me, there is only one eucatastrophe. Why? Because in Fairy Stories he said the "happy ending." You cannot have a eucatastrophe without dyscatastrophe. However...maybe there is an Ultimate Eucatastrophe (which the Sil is lacking imo) with Sub-Eucatastrophes.

Ultimate Eucatastrophe in the Hobbit: Eagles.
Silm: -_-
LotR: when the Black Gate crumbles

Sub-Eucatastrophes in the Hobbit: escaping the Goblin Caves, etc.
Sub-Eucatastrophe in the Silm: Earendil, etc.
Sub-Eucatastrophe in LotR: Helm's Deep, etc.

[Firefoot]

If there is only one, then everyone should give the same answer.

If we are looking at eucatastrophe from an objective perspective, then yes, this is true. I'm still not sure it is objective - in theory, perhaps, but that doesn't change that what I feel to be eucatastrophic could be different from what others think. Anyway, Imladirs said:

Ultimate Eucatastrophe in ... LotR: when the Black Gate crumbles

If I were to say what the Ultimate Eucatastrophe in LotR was, I would say that it is Frodo's departure into the west. To me, this is the most eucatastrophic event in the entire legendarium. I think that this would dispute the claim that there is only one per story. In fact, I see no reason why there should only be one per story.

In light of Bethberry's clarifications on eucatastrophe, I think I have been judging the Sil too harshly. The elements of eucatastrophe are certainly there; they just aren't as poignant (to me) as the examples that I could readily come up with from LotR. And again, I think that the style of writing has a lot to do with this. Right on the cover of my copy of the Sil it reads: "The Epic History of the Elves in the Lord of the Rings". I have not read Beowulf, but what others have said on this makes sense. I'm no expert, but the Sil seems to me to be written very much like an Epic. This is not exactly very conforming to the essence of eucatastrophe, and from this perspective I think Tolkien did a good job bringing it into the Sil. I think the eucatastrophe would be much more readily seen if the Sil was written like LotR (not that I'd want it to).

On the whole, very interesting posts by everyone here.

[Kuruharan]

I have a question to ask to see if anyone has any response to it.

From the beginning of this thread I’ve maintained that part of the cause for the differing reactions to The Lord of the Rings which I assume is generally viewed as being the positive case of a eucatastrophe being present (although perhaps I have been mistaken in this assumption) versus the reactions to the Silmarillion, which I am certain is viewed by some as lacking a eucatastrophe, is a matter of the style in which it is presented.

My question is: “Does story style make the eucatastrophe?”

Take Beowulf for example. I admit that I never had a feeling of particular joy at any point when I read the story. I would say that perhaps, in order for me to be a consistent and clear-thinking individual (tee hee), I should view the slayings of Grendel, Grendel’s Momma, and the dragon as each being eucatastrophic events.

(Yes, I realize this sounds like I am undermining my own position, but I have a follow up question to ask after I see what others have to say about the first. Hopefully, that will make it look less like I am talking out of both sides of my mouth.)

However, as I will explain further below, there is a certain repetition to Beowulf that makes me squirm, at least as far as looking for eucatastrophes is concerned.

I should add that Kuruharan was never comfortable with this as far as I can recall.

Well, sort of. My problem was not so much with the idea of multiple eucatastrophes as it was with a eucatastrophe happening the same way twice. I lay particular stress on Tolkien’s statement that it “can never be counted on to recur.” I don’t suppose that there is a limit to the number of eucatastrophes a tale could contain. However, I do feel that it is a fundamental principle that they never happen the same way twice and they must be unexpected. Perhaps part of the reason why Beowulf does not seem to hold a eucatastrophe because the events are not unexpected. Everyone expects Beowulf to kill his opponents by main force (or something closely equivalent) so in that way his victories are no surprise. He is fighting against the odds in some respects, but Gollum does not pop out of a crevice and push the dragon off a cliff and then fall down with it.

However, moving back to my original question, is this all only a response to our lack of “intuitive” (if I may use the expression) familiarity with that particular idiom.

If the story of Beowulf were presented in a different style (by someone truly qualified to do so, and I can’t think of anyone right of the top of my head that I’d like to see do it, perhaps someone has a suggestion?) would it have a more eucatastrophic quality?

(Now, I join in mark12_30’s hope that somebody with a greater familiarity with Beowulf lore than myself will weigh in because I think the reply would be quite interesting.)

This is exactly my point. Who was behind the riot? Who put the sparks to the wood? Melkor after he was released.

Yes, but the Noldor accepted his ideas to some extent and acted upon them. They were still culpable.

The Valar should not have been so unforgiving

They were not unforgiving toward Melkor and look how that turned out.

Feanor was doomed before he was even born.

There is a school of thought that says all elves were, but that is probably a discussion for another time.

[The Saucepan Man]

My problem was not so much with the idea of multiple eucatastrophes as it was with a eucatastrophe happening the same way twice. I lay particular stress on Tolkien’s statement that it “can never be counted on to recur.” However, I do feel that it is a fundamental principle that they never happen the same way twice and they must be unexpected.

Does that mean that one can only experience eucatastrophe once per occurence?

[Kuruharan]

The character or the reader?

If you mean the reader, I suppose you could "feel it" more than once when re-reading the story.

If you mean the character then they could only experience the particular eucatastrophe once since they can't go back and relive parts of their life (unless they are on Star Trek).

However, just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, I don't mean to say that a particular character is limited to one eucatastrophe per story (although a character participating in eucatastrophic experiences left and right would kind of diminish the rarity of the event). I just mean that it can't be expected and can't happen the same way twice.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I suppose you could "feel it" more than once when re-reading the story ... I just mean that it can't be expected and can't happen the same way twice.

But once the reader has experienced it, and is therefore expecting it, isn't it diminished the second and third etc time round?

[Imladris]

Just a quick note -- one of the definitions of myth is that it never gets stale. You come back to it again and again and again.

[mark12_30]

...But let's double check just to make sure, Kuruharan .....

He is fighting against the odds in some respects, but Gollum does not pop out of a crevice and push the dragon off a cliff and then fall down with it.

And if, each time, a Gollum popped out of a crevice and somehow vanquished Grendel, Grendel's mom, and the dragon-- then it would be repetitive, going against Tolkien's "Never to be counted on to recur." Am I getting close...?

However (if I understand you) it is okay, when we reread LotR, to be amazed again and again that sparing Gollum allowed him to bite Frodo's finger off and thus save the world. If I had to choose *one* eucatastrophe, I would choose that-- (not the havens, not the Morannon--) even though that's not what "gets" me each time. But it would still be eucatastrophe if it did get me every time? Because the "never to be counted on to recur" applies to the character, not to the reader?

So--

the horns of Rohan will never interrupt the Witch-King's speech at the gate again;

Sam will never see another star above the Ephel Duath that affects him quite like that one;

Aragorn will never unexpectedly unfurl his banner from a corsair ship again;

the Morannon will never fall again;

A wounded ringbearer-hobbit sailing west cannot be counted on to happen again;

...but we, in rereading these things, may still catch a glimpse of

evangelium giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief

...?

[Kuruharan]

But once the reader has experienced it, and is therefore expecting it, isn't it diminished the second and third etc time round?

Well, actually, the two parts of my previous statement were intended to be taken separately. The first part referred to the reader and the second to characters in the story.

I suppose in re-reading the readers experience might diminish but the reader can obviously re-read a particular passage as often as possible.

The part about not happening the same way twice is specifically intended as a comment on the construction of the story itself.

And if, each time, a Gollum popped out of a crevice and somehow vanquished Grendel, Grendel's mom, and the dragon-- then it would be repetitive, going against Tolkien's "Never to be counted on to recur." Am I getting close...?

Repetitive and strange.

the horns of Rohan will never interrupt the Witch-King's speech at the gate again;

Sam will never see another star above the Ephel Duath that affects him quite like that one;

Aragorn will never unexpectedly unfurl his banner from a corsair ship again;

the Morannon will never fall again;

A wounded ringbearer-hobbit sailing west cannot be counted on to happen again;

...but we, in rereading these things, may still catch a glimpse of…evangelium

Yes, exactly.

[Aiwendil]

Kuruharan wrote:

Take Beowulf for example. I admit that I never had a feeling of particular joy at any point when I read the story. I would say that perhaps, in order for me to be a consistent and clear-thinking individual (tee hee), I should view the slayings of Grendel, Grendel’s Momma, and the dragon as each being eucatastrophic events.

I'm not so sure. Eucatastrophe, even defined objectively, does not equal a fortunate event or a happy ending. When Merry and Pippin escape from the Orcs, for example, that's not eucatastrophe. Eucatastrophe is, I think, a very specific sort of fortunate event. It's in a way the positive aspect of the old "deus ex machina". The requirements, I think, are, very broadly speaking, hopelessness or near hopelessness initially, then a sudden and unexpected turn for the better which, nonetheless, can be seen to follow naturally from what has gone before. And not just a turn for the better - a profound turn for the better. It's easy to see how such a thing can cause "piercing joy", and in my opinion the War of Wrath fits this account perfectly.

[Guinevere]

I wish I had noticed this thread earlier...! Imladris takes up an issue that has bothered me as well for a very long time.

When I first read the Silmarillon I was struck with the deep sadness of it. The whole mood is so very different from the one in the LotR !
In LotR the sadness is mixed with hope, and overall I get a feeling that there is a meaning behind it all, a merciful providence that will guide everything to the ultimate best. The sacrifices that are made, are not meaningless, courage and loyalty and pity are rewarded.
It's just this balance between melancholy and hope that makes me love LotR so much.

In contrast to LotR, the Silmarillon seems so sombre and pessimistic! To be sure, there are some glimpses of joy, some instances where the Valar interfere with mercy , as in the story of Beren and Luthien, or in the instance where the eagle comes to bear Fingon up to rescue Maëdhros.
The story which depressed me most is of course the tale of Túrin.
After having read the "Narn i hîn Húrin", where the characters are more developped, the tragedy and injustice of the fates of this family touches me even more. I just can't get over it. Whereas I can see that Túrin (and Morwen) in some measure brings trouble on himself by his pride and rashness, I can see no such character flaws in Húrin. He is only valiant and faithful and has in no way deserved such a terrible fate: to be forsaken by everybody and to end his own life in complete hopelessness.
I kept asking myself why Tolkien would write such an utterly discouraging story ?
Was it an expression of his bleakest and most depressive mood ??

I have read this whole discussion with interest, and I found several points with which I agree very much.

Saucepanman wrote:

This to me seems to me to be the essence of this question. It is not the "facts" themselves, but the manner in which they are recorded that inspires eucatastrophe in the reader.

Turgon wrote:

yet if your perspective is that the Sil is "eucatastrophic-less" would that not add to the realism of the tale? Isn't life after all full of tragedy and ecstasy; with no clear idea of what may come next except the glimmer of hope?

Quite true: After all, real life is like that: one cannot expect justice.

Bethberry wrote:

quoting Tolkien:

This raises an important issue: if The Silm does not have Eu (no pun meant about Eru), does that mean either that Tolkien was wrong about fairy, or that The Silm is in fact not a fairy tale but something else? For instance, is it more fitting to describe it as myth rather than as fairy? Are the two terms interchangeable?

"LotR is a fairy-story, but one written for adults" Tolkien said in letter 181.
In my opinion the Silm is something different, as Bethberry here suggested above - more like a myth or an epic tale like "Beowulf".

Bethberry wrote:

We might, in fact, reach a better understanding of The Silm if we ask whether Tolkien's ideas about fairy were something he came to after the main body of his Legendarium was written, or if in the writing and reworking he came to understand something which his text initially did not demonstrate.

I think you're on the right track here! I feel this might be the answer to my nagging questions .

[Imladris]

Regarding Eucatastrophe:

I will be using On Fairy Stories definition because I think that that is the way Tolkien meant it to be used -- that is how he defines myth, or as he calls it, Fairy Stories.

But the "consolation" of fairy-tales has another aspect than the imaginative satisfaction of ancient desires. Far more important is the Consolation of the Happy Ending. Almost I would venture to assert that all complete fairy-stories must have it. At least I would say that Tragedy is the true form of Drama, its highest function; but the opposite is true of Fairy-story. Since we do not appear to possess a word that expresses this opposite -- I will call it Eucatastrophe. The eucatastrophic tale is the true form of fairy-tale, and its highest function.

The consolation of fairy-stories, the joy of the happy ending: or more correctly of the good catastrophe, the sudden joyous "turn" (for there is no true end to any fairy-tale)...it denies (in the face of much evidence, if you will) universal final defeat and in so far is evengelium, giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief.

So ecuastrophe is a glimpse of Joy. What is Joy?

The peculiar quality of the "joy" in successful Fantasy can thus be explained as a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality or truth. It is not only a "consolation" for the sorrow of this world...but in the "eucatastrophe" we see in a brief vision that the answer may be greater -- it may be a far-off gleam or echo of evangelium in the real world.

So, a eucastrophe contains Joy -- the Joy fo the Christian story, the Christian myth become fact.

...such joy as the very taste of primary truth...It looks forward (or backward the direction is unimportant) to the Great Eucatastrophe. The Christian joy, the Gloria, of of the same kind; but it is pre-eminantly (infinitely, if our capacity were not finite) high and joyours. But this story is supreme, and it is true...it has followed them, especially the "happy ending."...

I believe that it is very clear that Eucatastrophe happens at the end of a story. First, it is defined as the happy ending. Second, it is Eucatastrophe not Eucatastrophes. Thus I must eat my words about sub-Eucatastrophes.

Style has nothing to do with Eucatastrophe -- in fact a badly done story with a Eucatastrophe is often the redeeming grace of such a story.

Joy, I believe, is relative. If you see the fleeting glimpse of Joy -- the reflection of the Christian myth become fact, then there is eucatastrophe. I see the Christian Story in the Silmarillion -- in fact I see it all too clearly -- not even as a mere reflection. Do I see joy in the Christian story/Silmarillion? No, I do not. Thus...do I have Eucatastrophe?

[Kuruharan]

Style has nothing to do with Eucatastrophe -- in fact a badly done story with a Eucatastrophe is often the redeeming grace of such a story.

So if style has nothing to do with eucatastrophes then it is something built into the story and is not tied to the reaction of the reader.

[Bêthberry]

Catching up here, but perhaps the catching up has its value, in putting several posts into perspective.

It is well to remember that the text of The Silm which we have is not like other literary texts. It does not come down to us with the impremature of the man who conceived it. It was compiled and published postumously. And in so being, parts of it arise from the hand of its editor. It is not a uniformly coherent text the same way that many modern stories are. But then neither are our forms of ancient myths.

Another point it is well to ponder is that the events of The Silm were constantly being reconsidered by that primary author. ChristopherTolkien tells us (in the Foreward to my edition) that "considered simply as a large narrative structure, [The Silm] underwent relatively little radical change; it became a fixed tradition, and background to later writings." Then, then, he goes on to describe it what changes and variants it did undergo. HoMe and UT shows us just how various and variable were those changes.

Christopher's most important comment about those changes refers to how Tolkien's own persective on the narrative changed.

In his later writings mythology and poetry sank down behind his theological and philosophical preoccupations: from which arose incompatibilities of tone.

I wonder if there is more than just 'incompatibility of tone" however. I wonder if Christopher does not put a gloss on the changes and so distract us from some of the possibilities here.

This, at least, is my way of understanding The Silm. It is a book which reflects multiple intentions and perspectives, begun with the delight in philology and mythology. And later emended to reflect Tolkien's theological interest, "consciously so in the revision." (I'm relying on memory here when quoting it.)

So we have an author who believed that his story reflected something at first unconsciously which he then worked to make more consistent. This is Tolkien's later explanation of his intention. But, for me, for the book we now have, that reading back into the story as well as his memory obscures some of the very intriguing points of the book. Please note I am not saying Tolkien was wrong. What I am saying is that we can read The Silm for its earlier, incoherent "intention". And by intention I mean that we can see the seams of the story as it first began rather than, always, as theology it became. This is not to denigrate Tolkien's personal beliefs or to deny the philosophical aspects.

We have two versions of the creation in Ainulindale and Valaquenta--in itself a reflection of the two versions of creation in Genesis. But to me, particulalry in Valaquenta I have always imagined the Valar similar to the stories of the ancient Greek and Roman gods and goddesses which I read as a child, particularly in the way they are ascribed different aspects. And then in their bickering and rivalries and sometimes unsympathetic responses to the elves. The ancient divinities I have seen as amoral, selfish, petty and petulant. Then add to that other mythologies and legends. Thus, in The Silm I see a palimpsest (a piece of paper on which the original writing was partially or incompletely erased and then overwritten by other writing). It shimmers to me with these possibilities, that the less philosophical or less theological still can be glimpsed. This is, to me, what accounts for the kind of frustration which Imladris has identified here. (And I apologise in advance if this misrepresents her perspective.) And also accounts for how the book can be read in so many different ways, as Helen suggested here when she said she first read it as encyclopedic but then had a different experience on rereading. Or Son of Numemor's experience.

It will be obvious that I bring to my reading of The Silm everything that I have read before reading it--as we all do. And that everything I have read is itself subtly changed by reading Tolkien's work. This is why, for me, the question of whether the eucatastrophe 'exists' in the text or in the reader is a fruitless dichotomy. It exists where the reader brings his or her mind to bear on the story, in that eighteen inches or so between the book and our eyes. And then in our memories.

[Imladris]

This is, to me, what accounts for the kind of frustration which Imladris has identified here.

*nods vigorously*

This is why, for me, the question of whether the eucatastrophe 'exists' in the text or in the reader is a fruitless dichotomy. It exists where the reader brings his or her mind to bear on the story, in that eighteen inches or so between the book and our eyes. And then in our memories.

I have never thought of it that way...

Thank you, Bb, for posting that post. I had never considered that the Sil had morphed from mythology to theology...