The Quenta Silmarillion Eucatastrophe-less

[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