Does Eru care?

[TheLostPilgrim]

In The Silmarillion it is said that the entire history of the world is the product of the music of the Ainur, and they helped to shape the world and it's history through the Music they made, whose utmost source was the Theme given to them by Eru; The Ainur are the offspring of Eru's thought; Each Ainur being part or understanding only of that part of the mind of Eru from whence he or she came...So, logically, would it not be that the vanity and pride of Melkor came from a part of Eru's mind? What Melkor understood--vanity, a desire for power, a creative urge at best--would that not have come from some part of Eru's thought?

And also logically following, would not all the horrors (and beauty) of Middle Earth's history be, indirectly, the product of Eru's vision, of His music?

Also, from what I remember, Eru did not seem to intervene much in the affairs or woes of Arda or his Children, but instead, the Valar and Maia seemed to be more responsible for Arda...Eru seems to have sort of taken a distance to the world he created, whereas the Valar (of both kinds) seem to be more involved and hold more a care to it.

But even the Valar--Did they not cease intervening and helping directly in the affairs of the Children of Illuvatar after Aman was attacked? In their last action, they sent the Istari--but only to act as messengers or as guiding figures to the Children; Not to use their might to contend with Sauron and defeat him and set the world to right, and also they placed strict limits upon the Istari's use or display of their power.

It's obvious some of the Maia and Valar did care; Gandalf being perhaps the best, most direct example...But what of the Valar as a whole? Or Eru? What regard do they hold for the fate of Arda and it's peoples?

A last off topic question but: Who would be more responsible for Arda's creation? Eru or the Ainur? Eru laid the Foundation--the Theme--for them to play and by which create and shape the World, but it was their Music--each intricate, individual part which they themselves crafted based on Eru's theme--which directly shaped the world.

[Inziladun]

I think the example of the Istari you give is enough of an indication that the Valar (and by proxy, Ilúvatar,) "cared".

No, the Valar did not choose to directly confront Sauron, and that was a deliberate effort to avoid past mistakes. They thought the defeat of Sauron important enough, though, that they asked their own servants, the Maiar, to become truly embodied peers of the afflicted Children of Ilúvatar and commit themselves to a long-term exile in Middle-earth, enduring its pains, discomforts, and dangers.
In order to do this, the Valar had to ask, and did receive permission from the One. It could be argued that Ilúvatar himself put the idea into their heads, or at least knew that it would occur to them.

The "caring" of the Valar was directly connected to the "caring" of the One, for the Valar were merely the Governors of Arda, not themselves rulers. They were charged with overseeing the world and accomplishing Ilúvatar's will, making them the "hands" to his "brain".

The larger theological issue is a question of why the One allowed evil to exist, and what was the connection to his Music. Good luck with that one. If one accepts Eru as the Creator of Arda, one must also accept his carte blanche to order his creation as he willed, though I think that his ultimate benevolence is in evidence in the books.

[Morsul the Dark]

NOTE: A Lot of this post is from memory I've done my best to make sure it's coherent and not rambling...

Eru does not intervene because everything has its purpose even evil.

Because without evil there is no good.

For example, apples to oranges if you'll allow me, in "The Invention of Lying" the world doesn't seem better off because of a lack of lying(something most consider wrong). Alternatively it's impossible trully to consider one side evil and another good. Consider a Goblin for a moment would you dub them evil for being against the dwarves? Possibly, we are afterall following their tale in The Hobbit. But from the Goblin's view the dwarves are trespassers and consider the wielder of Glamdring a villain.

While it can and usually is argued Melkor's desire for power is evil or at least very wrong, it could also be countered that it's simply ambition. After all we don't consider Manwe as desiring power yet when challenged by Melkor he defends his crown, surely if he had no desire to rule he would have surrendered the crown.

Also we consider Melkor's destroying the trees as eviul yet without it the balance of the world's night and day do not exist. We considered it evil but it was neccessary.

If you remove sin from the equation(as it may be argued a mere perception) you'd have to consider sickness and drought and winter, perhaps even Death itself as evil. But without these neccesities overpopulation and mass famine would occur which perhaps is even worse.

[Puddleglum]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

everything has its purpose even evil.

Manwe, upon hearing the final choice of Feanor to rebel (and do deeds to live in song), put it this way.
"Thus, even as Eru said to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into being, and evil yet be good to have been." To which Mandos added "And yet remain evil."

Which is a difficult concept for (at least) Western thought since we tend to want either:

• Evil deeds to DE-justify any results <or>
• A good end to (in some manner) justify the steps taken to get there.

But Tolkien suggests (and, I think validly) that Evil can produce good results while still remaining evil and, therefor, UN-justified.

He also proposes that Eru is great such that even EVIL deeds will always result in eventual and greater good results - because that's the way Eru is managing it.


I think the key idea to consider in approaching this conundrum is that we do not see the final end results, and so cannot accurately judge whether the "evil" that we see is worth it to have gone through.


Tolkien described the history of Middle Earth as Eru's "Drama". Think in terms of Shakespeare, or Homer, or Mark Twain writing a story or play.

• The memorable ones, the ones worth watching or reading - especially over and over - ALWAYS include what we would call "evil" in some form.
• And, if you lived in the story only in the midst of the evil, you might be tempted to think the author had gone off his rocker to allow such to continue.
• So it is with Tolkien's drama. Evil is present in the mix, by the design of the author - whether you think of that as Tolkien (at one level) or Eru (at another, interior, level) - until, as Ulmo put it "until the Full Making, which Ye call The End."

[TheLostPilgrim]

Tolkien was truly a genius. It's actually sad, in a way, that he is most known for The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. Those works, while beautiful, are shallow compared to The Silmarillion and his other writings. They pigeonhole him as simply a writer of fantasy works, which aren't taken seriously by some, or are dismissed as childish whimsy simply because they are fantasy works. He has an amazing, inspiring, beautiful cosmology and philosophy within those lesser known works, something truly inspired and beautiul. He created more than simply "fantasy" works--He created a universe, which I believe he on some level himself believed in.

If Tolkien had lived and had written The Silmarillion and his other works in ancient times, we'd probably consider them holy scripture today. That's how beautiful it is, and how much of a brilliant, insightful, gifted man he was.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

Those works, while beautiful, are shallow compared to The Silmarillion and his other writings. … He created more than simply "fantasy" works--He created a universe, which I believe he on some level himself believed in.

Tolkien disagreed with you.

See Morgoth’s Ring (HoME X), page 370 (emphasis mine):

This descends from the oldest forms of the mythology – when it was intended to be no more than another primitive mythology, though more coherent and less ‘savage’. It was consequently a ‘Flat Earth′ cosmogony (much easier to manage anyway): the Matter of Númenor had not been devised.

It is now clear to me that in any case the Mythology must actually be a ‘Mannish’ affair. (Men are really only interested in Men and in Men’s ideas and visions.) The High Eldar living and being tutored by the demiurgic beings must have known, the ‘truth’ (according to their measure of understanding). What we have in the Silmarillion etc. are traditions (especially personalized and centred upon actors, such as Fëanor) handed on by Men in Númenor and later in Middle-earth (Arnor and Gondor); but already far back – from the first association of the Dúnedain and Elf-friends with the Eldar in Beleriand – blended and confused with their own Mannish myths and cosmic ideas.

Tolkien’s story of Elvish kings and nobles is not supposed to be true even within his imaginary world. Fëanor presumably really existed in this imaginary world, but much that is told of him in these Manish tales were deeds of other folk that were later “personalized and centered” on Fëanor.

Tolkien certainly knew that in reality Fëanor was invented by him.

Tolkien tried to rework his Silmarillion material to fit with scientific findings, which Tolkien himself really believed. However, in trying this, he found that he was destroying most of the basis of the Silmarillion story. So he ended up accepting it as yet another false Mannish mythology. Occasionally in his later writing Tolkien refers to what must have supposedly really happened.

If Tolkien had lived and had written The Silmarillion and his other works in ancient times, we'd probably consider them holy scripture today. That's how beautiful it is, and how much of a brilliant, insightful, gifted man he was.

Who are this we you mention? Do you mean the exclusive we, which means yourself personally and some others but not everyone you are posting to. Or do you mean the inclusive we which means yourself and everyone you are posting to? European languages avoid making it easy to make such an obvious distinction in simple speech. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clusivity .

I personally resent being told by anyone what I would believe, especially when it is something I very much do I not believe. Speak for yourself only and for others who you have reason to believe agree with you, and speak clearly.

As to people who believe in religions, there are thousands of differing contradictory religious beliefs in the world. It is possible that somewhere there are some people who believe in Manwë and Varda as non-fictional entities, just as occasionally one discovers that some people believe that Sherlock Holmes is real. I don’t find either belief at all uplifting. I very much doubt that Tolkien would.

Tolkien often makes it clear that he knew quite well that he was inventing, though at times he hoped that his inventions would prove pleasing to God. Tolkien certainly believed his fictional creations were in some way true, in the same way that almost every writer believes that his or her fictional creations are true in some way when they are writing them.

But the same writers also know that their creations are fictional.
Tolkien himself when writing about his fiction often appears to take it less seriously than some obsessive fans.

Tolkien was no different from most writers. Sometimes he was very into playing the game and sometimes he was not. But he knew at some level that it was a game.

From an interview with Henry Resnik, published in Niekas 18, page 38 (http://efanzines.com/Niekas/Niekas-18.pdf ):

T:  Yes I do. I shouldn't call it a fad; I wouldn't call it underground. I'd call it a game.
R: A game?
T:  Yes, because there is a whole lot of stuff that amuses people -- alphabets. history, etc.
R: Then I take it you approve of the game?
T:  I don't mind it, as long as it doesn't become obsessive. It doesn't obsess me.
R: Have you noticed any similar widespread game-playing in England?
T:  No, I don't think things catch on like that here quite so much.
R: I wonder if you have any suggestions about why it has caught on so widely in America; could it be anything other than the paperback edition, which came along logically?
T:  Why I've even had letters from children who have saved up, you know, who have gone to some work to get the hardback edition. I think it is, if you really want to know my opinion, a partly reactionary influence. I think it's part of the fun after so much more dreary stuff, isn't it?
R: What sort of dreary stuff are you referring to?
T:  I should say the Lord of the Flies, wouldn't you?
R: Many people I've spoken with here told me they enjoy the sheer fun of being in Middle-Earth.
T:  It's meant to please; it doesn't horrify.

Christopher Tolkien, who should know, writes in The Children of Húrin, page 7:

It is undeniable that there are a great many readers of The Lord of the Rings (as previously published in varying forms in The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and The History of Middle-earth) are altogether unknown, unless by their repute as strange and inaccessible in mode and manner.

It was Christopher Tolkien’s hope that by publishing The Children of Húrin in full for the first time, with little commentary, he might present some of this “inaccessible” material more accessibly.

Other fantasy writers have created what one might call universes in more than one book before Tolkien: William Morris, George MacDonald, James Branch Cabell, Lord Dunsany, Robert E. Howard, Mervyn Peake, E. E. Eddison, and probably others.

I do not think it does the works of Tolkien or any of these writers any favours to compare them with numerous books that disagree with one another: the Qurʼan, the Book of Mormon, the Mahabharata, the Gathas of Zarathusta, any of the Christian Bibles, Jewish scriptures, Buddhist scriptures, the Norse Eddas and so on.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

He has an amazing, inspiring, beautiful cosmology and philosophy within those lesser known works, something truly inspired and beautiul. He created more than simply "fantasy" works--He created a universe, which I believe he on some level himself believed in.

.

The big question is what you mean by believe. For myself, what I love about Tolkien and possibly why I am not much interested in other fantasy, is the detail and plausibility about it, but it is necessary to remember that Tolkien was deliberately creating a mythology (for England). Also that he was throughout his life a devoted and devout Catholic and that he commented that some of his fans were involved in his works in a way that he wasn't. I think he loved his world but he knew it was a creation - or subcreation at a fundamental level. However I suppose there could be an argument for "a Velveteen Rabbit" style of reality about it (the kind of reality existing in the relationship between a child and a beloved toy). I will try to post more but am reliant again on library computers and my time for now is up!.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Puddleglum

He also proposes that Eru is great such that even EVIL deeds will always result in eventual and greater good results - because that's the way Eru is managing it.


I think the key idea to consider in approaching this conundrum is that we do not see the final end results, and so cannot accurately judge whether the "evil" that we see is worth it to have gone through.

Indeed, and that idea is well expressed by the Elves of Eressëa in speaking with Tar-Ciryatan and Tar-Atanamir of Númenor.

'Hope rather that in the end even the least of your desires shall have fruit. The love of Arda was set in your hearts by Ilúvatar, and he does not plant to no purpose. Nonetheless, many ages of Men unborn may pass ere that purpose is made known; and to you it will be revealed and not to the Valar'.

Silmarillion Akallabêth

If Eru does not "plant to no purpose", neither does he capriciously allow the "crop" to be wantonly destroyed for no reason.

[Draugohtar]

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

In The Silmarillion it is said that the entire history of the world is the product of the music of the Ainur, and they helped to shape the world and it's history through the Music they made, whose utmost source was the Theme given to them by Eru; The Ainur are the offspring of Eru's thought; Each Ainur being part or understanding only of that part of the mind of Eru from whence he or she came...So, logically, would it not be that the vanity and pride of Melkor came from a part of Eru's mind? What Melkor understood--vanity, a desire for power, a creative urge at best--would that not have come from some part of Eru's thought?

No, Eru understands Evil, but in Tolkien's universe he is in no way the source of it, in anything other than 'his' status as first cause. The Ainur have free will, as all creations in the Tolkien world. For example whilst there is much talk of 'high dooms' being upon people, it is also clear they could choose to step aside from that path. The 'flame imperishable' imbues creatures with true creativity.

It's important to note as well that Melkor does not begin 'Evil' nor are his first steps on that path neccessarily 'evil.'

Of Melkor:

He had gone often alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame; for desire grew hot within him to bring into Being things of his own, and it seemed to him that Ilъvatar took no thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness.

It was from this impatience, pride and arch-ambition, that all of his evil came. Similiar traits in Aule, came out differently, all as a matter of fortune and personality.

And also logically following, would not all the horrors (and beauty) of Middle Earth's history be, indirectly, the product of Eru's vision, of His music? ...

I will answer this with the familiar lines:

Then Ilъvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilъvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'

Essentially Ero ensures that all things will end in uttermost good, and that all evils are only a different path that matters can take before arriving at that conclusion.

It's obvious some of the Maia and Valar did care; Gandalf being perhaps the best, most direct example...But what of the Valar as a whole? Or Eru? What regard do they hold for the fate of Arda and it's peoples?

The Valar are responsible for the removal of Morgoth Bauglir from Arda. That alone would leave everyone in middle earth in their debt. Plus they sent the Istari, having learned from their mistakes in the past, when it came to provinding aid of too lofty a standard to the Numernorians. The Valar understand the Elves, but not so much man, who is ultimately an enigma to them. They still do their best though.

A last off topic question but: Who would be more responsible for Arda's creation? Eru or the Ainur? Eru laid the Foundation--the Theme--for them to play and by which create and shape the World, but it was their Music--each intricate, individual part which they themselves crafted based on Eru's theme--which directly shaped the world.

The 'shape' of the world appears to be mainly a product of the Valar 'group mind,' but the flame imperishable that renders beings truly 'alive' is a gift only Eru can bestow, and the 'Children' (even the Dwarves by adoption) are ultimately his creation.