The Quenta Silmarillion Eucatastrophe-less

[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...

[Aiwendil]

Bethberry wrote:

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

This is interesting. I had always considered the compromise between mythology and theology to be one of the strong points of the Silmarillion, that which elevates it above both the purely mythological (i.e. ancient) and the purely theological (i.e., in this case, Christian). I suppose one person's profound satisfaction is another's insatiable frustration.

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

Which is to say (and please forgive my pedantry) that it is subjective and dependent on the reader (for in either case it's dependent on the text). Certainly there is some event that occurs in a reader's mind on reading the relevant text. We may as well call this "eucatastrophe". But that definition does not answer the question: is there an object in the text itself that we could define as the "eucatastrophe inducer" for lack of a better term (i.e. if we reserve "eucatastrophe" itself for the event between the book and the reader)?

[Imladris]

is there an object in the text itself that we could define as the "eucatastrophe inducer" for lack of a better term (i.e. if we reserve "eucatastrophe" itself for the event between the book and the reader)?

Yes, the glimpse of joy, the glimpse Evangelium. In other words, the ultimate Myth -- the Christian story. That's how Tolkien defines it I believe.

This is interesting. I had always considered the compromise between mythology and theology to be one of the strong points of the Silmarillion, that which elevates it above both the purely mythological (i.e. ancient) and the purely theological (i.e., in this case, Christian). I suppose one person's profound satisfaction is another's insatiable frustration.

I find no joy in the Christian/Silmarillion story, thus this glimpse of "joy" is not an euctastrophe for me I suppose. I love the way that Tolkien weaved mythology and theology together. The fact that he did that, though, doesn not make the ending of this story a eucatastrophy, but a doom with no hope.

Of course, as I believe that Bethberry touched on, we may not know Tolkien's true feelings, as the book was not finished before his death.

[ivo]

I'm new here: I came upon the word eucatastrophe and had to react on one of the comments.

I read somewhere that the eucatastrophe in LOTR was the crumbling of the Black Gate.

Of course the eucatastrophe is the destruction of the ring, which was against all odds.
By doing it, you change the world you wanted to save. That is the logic of terror, either way you lose. By fulfilling your task, you undo the reason for your task (because the One is bond to the powers of the Three).

More precise: the eucatastrophic element is the moment when Frodo finds out about the ring. Once he knows the facts, he can't deny them. That is the terrifying power of a vocation.
It's in the knowledge: things will never be the same...(sacrifice and resurrection in one, like Christ)

[Encaitare]

Good points, ivo, and welcome to the Downs!

Any thoughts on the topic here, eucatastrophe (or lack thereof) in the Silmarillion?