The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I don't follow how you get from your 'if' to your 'then'. Please explain.

Simply that if we decide that in Tolkien's world that evil means something is missing then as a world with an omnipotent creator God, we must also assume that this creator left something out of Melkor's creation. Everything comes back to him, even the gaps.

To use a metaphor, Melkor is rather like the talented son of a supremely talented father, but the talented son who the father has failed to give any guidance to; he has had all the gifts money can buy, and has had the best schooling, but the father did not guide him. Eventually, this son saw all the power his father had and decided for himself he wanted to have that. The good thing to come out of this situation though is that the eldest son's lack of guidance and his thirst for power has made all the younger siblings work all that harder (by and large, they aren't perfect) not to make the same mistakes. Nobody can say if the father intended this all along, but he was the father, nothing can take that away.

Originally Posted by SofN

Tolkien's Middle-earth is a self-contained, completely rational model of reality. It is not a metaphor for an ideology or a statement about some Supreme Unknowable. It has nothing to say about the world you live in: it is a metaphor for the individual - for you.

I agree, I don't think it is a 'lesson' or anything of that type - it is to me primarily Art.

But...

Originally Posted by SofN

It was testament to nothing more than the word-thoughts which arose in him as he experienced reality unfolding, yet in it each of us can find our entire lives reflected.

...this does not mean I think it has no structure or internal meaning. It has a lot of this, and it is good mental exercise to argue about that. And no matter how much I simply relax into the poetics of it all and like to speculate (it is after all fantasy, which encourages this sort of thing like no other literature can, apart from Poetry, which is perhaps even more like that), it is about a whole other world and there are boundaries, rules and frameworks.

But then who is to say that even what we read is correct if we choose to fully immerse into the concept of the secondary world? Like in the real world, how do we know that what we are told is the truth?

But that way madness lies...

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

...this does not mean I think it has no structure or internal meaning. It has a lot of this, and it is good mental exercise to argue about that. And no matter how much I simply relax into the poetics of it all and like to speculate (it is after all fantasy, which encourages this sort of thing like no other literature can, apart from Poetry, which is perhaps even more like that), it is about a whole other world and there are boundaries, rules and frameworks.

But then who is to say that even what we read is correct if we choose to fully immerse into the concept of the secondary world? Like in the real world, how do we know that what we are told is the truth?

But that way madness lies...

The funny thing about Tolkien is we have access to such a wealth of words about his personal life, and we have three major works which exist as part of self-contained, utterly paradoxical cosmology. But that's not all we have. We also have access to other maddening pieces of information:

1) The finished product of the Trans-moral (Silm) was tampered with by people other than J.R.R. Tolkien
2) Tolkien himself was furiously revising major principles of the cosmology (orc - immortal Elf or Man doomed to die?) until his death - as well as offering seemingly contradictory statements about the books (i.e. it is fundamentally Catholic but is only an adventure story)

The question to ask is this:

How does a Trans-moral Cosmology give birth to a children's Faerie Tale and a Moral Epic, and how do the Faerie Tale and the Moral Epic force their Creator to revise the Trans-moral Cosmology?

Where you see madness I see Keanu Reevers saying, "Whoa!"

[Lalwendë]

I'm personally quite happy with the Sil as it is. I fully trust Christopher to have produced the work as his father would have wanted it. And then there's the not very small point that the Prof appointed Christopher to have full control over his work (including to burn it all, should he so wish) which demonstrates his own level of trust.

But as for ancillary works - such as Letters, we have to use those more carefully as they are secondary texts only; they can only serve to illuminate (or confuse) what we gather from the primary texts. Even so, the status of such documents can change over time. From reading the Companion & Guide it becomes apparent that even Humphrey Carpenter's Biography was flawed, as for example it gives the impression of a mousish, overly-studious man when he was quite the opposite, very outgoing and fond of pranks.

Anyway. Now when I ask if what we read is the truth - I mean that what we read is only one point of view of Middle-earth, most of it in fact seen through the eyes of either high ranking Elves or Hobbits. We don't see much through the eyes of Men or Dwarves or Wood Elves or Woses or Wizards or Orcs...not apart from reported speech and inserted documents. Heading down that path where we examine if what we read really is the truth of Middle-earth really is tempting madness...all kinds of questions about authorship, and not least maybe going over the edge of the fact that this is still just a book.

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I'm personally quite happy with the Sil as it is. I fully trust Christopher to have produced the work as his father would have wanted it. And then there's the not very small point that the Prof appointed Christopher to have full control over his work (including to burn it all, should he so wish) which demonstrates his own level of trust.

But as for ancillary works - such as Letters, we have to use those more carefully as they are secondary texts only; they can only serve to illuminate (or confuse) what we gather from the primary texts. Even so, the status of such documents can change over time. From reading the Companion & Guide it becomes apparent that even Humphrey Carpenter's Biography was flawed, as for example it gives the impression of a mousish, overly-studious man when he was quite the opposite, very outgoing and fond of pranks.

Anyway. Now when I ask if what we read is the truth - I mean that what we read is only one point of view of Middle-earth, most of it in fact seen through the eyes of either high ranking Elves or Hobbits. We don't see much through the eyes of Men or Dwarves or Wood Elves or Woses or Wizards or Orcs...not apart from reported speech and inserted documents. Heading down that path where we examine if what we read really is the truth of Middle-earth really is tempting madness...all kinds of questions about authorship, and not least maybe going over the edge of the fact that this is still just a book.

"It's all just a book until someone gets bonked over the head with a wizard's sceptre."

Oh, but I am feeling fey today. I may be trying to see things that don't exist - as luck would have it I've snuck into Far Harad and the Blue Wizards have got a hold of me.

[littlemanpoet]

Okay, let's say the Eru caused Melkor to bring discord into the Music after Eru propounded it himself; why would he do that? And why would Eru then proceed to blame Melkor for having malice toward Eru as part and parcel of the discord, which Eru himself made Melkor do? The only answer is that Eru is evil; not that he is both good and evil, but that he is more evil than Melkor, more evil than Sauron.

I reach this conclusion because Eru has propounded the Music to the Ainur in the first place as flawless, and then blames Melkor for introducing flaw that Eru himself has caused Melkor to introduce. That is trickery. "Even though I made you do it, I'm not to blame because you hate me."

If Eru is capable of such trickery, then he is more devious and evil than any evil figure Tolkien presents in any part of his legendarium. If this really were the case, we should expect to see that Manwë gets tricked, that Aulé gets foisted, that Elbereth gets shammed, that every last Elf can expect to die in some horrible and tragic and tortured way, and that any beauty is mere trickery too.

But we don't see that.

[Lalwendë]

Firstly, you have to consider what Melkor does. Is it evil? I'll come to that later. But even if it is evil, and he was made that way by his father Eru, it is Eru's perogative to do what he likes. That's why the Why is so interesting.

And secondly, does Eru put the theme of the Music as a flawless thing?

Iluvatar called together all the Ainur and declared to them a mighty theme, unfolding to them things greater and more wonderful than he had yet revealed; and the glory of its beginning and the splendour of its end amazed the Ainur

The theme has might, wonder, glory and splendour. Is it flawless? We can only assume that if we want to read it that way. Now if we assume it is all good, then it's worth considering what Eru later says:

'Behold your Music! This is your minstrelsy; and each of you shall find contained herein, amid the design that I set before you, all those things which it may seem that he himself devised or added. And thou, Melkor, wilt discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind, and wilt perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary to its glory

This reveals that Melkor's discordancy is futile as it will not result in the things he assumes it will, only in things which in the end, will contribute to glory (for example snow and ice will result from his creation of cold). So what does Melkor assume his discordancy will result in? Now that brings me back to whether what Melkor does is 'evil'.

Melkor has all the powers of all his kindred, but instead of joining with them he seeks to follow his own path. This is interesting. He is the Mightiest and was made as the First of the Ainur, and it seems he decided he was going to challenge his Maker and have his own power. This is his 'sin', to attempt to seek his own way, not doing evil. There is nothing to say that Eru did not decide that 'evil' things like cold or despair or sadness were to be part of the theme; look at the words when he creates the vision of the Children:

The one was deep and wide and beautiful, but slow and blended with an immeasurable sorrow, from which its beauty chiefly came.

The Children are created with essential sorrow, which is also beautiful. So what we perceive as 'evil' can indeed be beautiful in Eru's eyes. All of Tolkien's stories are filled with strange combinations of sadness and joy, death and glory. It seems that Eru knew there needed to be Darkness in order for the Light to be all that more wonderful.

As to the why, I think it is Melkor's independence that rankles Eru. Melkor is filled with shame when he is 'found out' by Eru, presumably he has attempted something futile; his ongoing 'sin' then is to forget this lesson and continue, when he is in Ea, to pursue his goal of power and independence. If Eru wanted to create Ea with Darkness and Light, then it would have to be carefully balanced; I see that Melkor's discordancy puts that 'out of balance'.

It might in fact help to consider Tolkien's cosmology/theology not in terms of our Earthly Good/Evil axis but in terms of Light/Darkness, certainly that seems to be the way Eru intended them.

And just one more thing. Eru does trick Aule. He makes him think that he has smote down his Dwarves even before they have been given the Flame, but he hasn't:

Then Aule took up a great hammer to smite the Dwarves; and he wept. But Iluvatar had compassion upon Aule and his desire, because of his humility; and the Dwarves shrank from the hammer and were afraid, and they bowed down their heads and begged for mercy. And the voice of Iluvatar said to Aule: Thy offer I accepted even as it was made. Dost thou not see that these things have now a life of their own, and speak with their own voices? Else they would not have flinched from thy blow, nor from any command of thy will.' Then Aule cast down his hammer and was glad, and he gave thanks to Iluvatar, saying: 'May Eru bless my work and amend it!'

[davem]

One must be careful in one's analysis of Eru. Clearly Eru is not an 'interventionist' deity in the beginning. Apart from Ainulindale he is not present in BoLT (one might suggest that Tolkien introduced him because he needed a Creation myth & as a monotheist himself he uses such a figure. Interestingly, Illuvatar is translated 'All Father' a title of Odin).

Whatever. Once the story proper begins Eru plays no real part. In fact his main intervention is in Akallabeth, where he appears as a kind of weapon of mass destruction unleashed by the Valar.

Eru, it seems, is only 'necessary' to the story as an explanation of how things originated (as far as BoLT is concerned) & in practical terms the Secondary world is not monotheistic, but polytheistic. Which leads to an interesting digression.

The period in which Tolkien's creation takes on a new life & energy is the 1920's, where there is a movement away from the 'fairystory' world of much of BoLT, to a much 'higher' & more mythic world - yet this decade is one in which Tolkien turns away from his religion - he tells Michael in a letter that 'he ceased to practice his religion while at Leeds & at 20 Northmoor Road'. This period covers the whole of the 1920's & we must remember that for Tolkien the heart of his faith was the Mass & the Blessed Virgin, so that for him to cease to practice his religion was effectively to forget the whole thing.

Yet during this period the Legendarium is transformed, the Silmarils become the dominant theme & the Legendarium we know finds much of its form. Yet during this whole time Eru remains a very distant figure, & only really becomes an active participant in Arda with the appearance (& destruction) of Numenor. He's there, but basically passive all through. One can speculate he was responsible for this or that (Gollum's fall (even perhaps his Fall), but there is little evidence for direct interevention by Eru.

So, taking what we are actually given in terms of factual statements about Eru's nature we have very little to go on. He announces the themes to the Ainur, stops & starts the Music, & creates the Children. He effectively lights the blue touch paper & retires. Then, a very long time later, he totals Numenor - something Ulmo could have done - & reshapes the world - something the Valar could have done (at least in their early days).

In short, he is actually far, far less 'necessary' (in practical terms) to the plot than old Tom. What he does is add 'depth' & 'flavour' to the story. Yet he would hardly be missed - which one would expect given his secondary importance in BoLT. In fact, he is not necessary to the story at all, & a polytheistic M-e would work just as well.

As a character we know next to nothing about Eru beyond his talent for composition & we cannot, it seems to me, speculate too deeply on his morality, desires or intentions. Eru is a cypher, playing the part assigned to him & then disappearing till he is needed to drive the plot forward again (though it would not take very much rewriting to get rid of him altogether).

Eru, actually, is the most two dimensional character Tolkien created & the least necessary from a literary perspective. He appears first in the fairy world of BoLT, continues through the transformation of the Legendarium when Tolkien has little (practical) interest in religion at all (& thus probably only continued as part of the story because Ainulindale worked as a creation myth).

Speculating about who or what Eru is may lead to some interesting theories, but given the actual statements within the text, & avoiding as far as possible, conflating Eru with God, we have too little to go on.

As I said, Eru is the least important & certainly the least interesting character Tolkien invented. He's basically two dimensional & exists only to serve a purpose - making something happen to start things off & then disappearing. He is, effectively, equivalent to the impersonal source one finds in many myths. There is so little to the character that virtually anything one attributes to him in terms of motives & intentions is going to come from the reader rather than from the text.

Gets my vote for the most boring & gap filling character Tolkien created.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lal

Firstly, you have to consider what Melkor does. Is it evil?

It depends on whether Eru is.

Originally Posted by Lal

Melkor has all the powers of all his kindred, but instead of joining with them he seeks to follow his own path.

This is the epitome of evil, for his own path is against the will of Eru.

Originally Posted by Lal

There is nothing to say that Eru did not decide that 'evil' things like cold or despair or sadness were to be part of the theme; look at the words when he creates the vision of the Children:

Precisely the point. Eru planned ice and snow, and Melkor could have achieved them within the will of Eru; but he achieved them according to his own will instead, which achievement can nevertheless be used as a tool in Eru's hands to become what Eru intended in the first place.

Originally Posted by Lal

It seems that Eru knew there needed to be Darkness in order for the Light to be all that more wonderful.

Well, try to imagine Light without its opposite. Everything good thing automatically has its opposite, both in the Legendarium, and in real life. It's just the nature of reality. The good is made, and its opposite is as a rule always possible. There is no other way. It is not a necessary corollary that Eru must be the opposite as well as the original of what he has created; rather, he has created the good, and its opposite is necessarily possible for those who choose other than Eru's will. And Eru uses that opposite to achieve his will anyway.

Originally Posted by Lal

As to the why, I think it is Melkor's independence that rankles Eru.

Tolkien's word for it is 'rebellion'.

Originally Posted by Lal

his ongoing 'sin' then is to forget this lesson

Or perhaps it is to perversely continue in what cannot be forgotten because to repent is an unacceptable alternative.

Eru's compassion may be called a trick if you like, but it seems rather that Aulë is blinded by his remorse and determination to obey, and therefore does not see or recognize what Eru has already done, which reads more like an amazing grace than a trickster's prank. And here's as good an example as can be found of Eru revealed by Tolkien as good and not evil.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Once the story begins Eru plays no part.

This is debatable. There are numerous references in LotR to things that are "meant" to be; by whom? It is never stated baldly that it is Eru, for to do so would do violence to the story the way Tolkien intends to tell it, but the reference is there nonetheless; regardless of whether one agrees that this is Eru, the burden of proof is on those who would argue that it is not Eru.

Originally Posted by davem

The one time he intervenes he is a weapon of mass destruction.

To suggest that Eru is a weapon of mass destruction wielded by the Valar doesn't work, for then one is saying that the Valar control Eru, which cannot be. Thus the analogy breaks apart. Eru is more than a mere weapon. Point of fact, this is a derogatory statement that is rather offensive to the theists amongst us.

Originally Posted by davem

Eru is only 'necessary' to the story as an explanation of how things originated.

Only if one fails to accept that Eru can be perceived behind the scenes all over the legendarium.

Originally Posted by davem

In fact, [Eru] is not necessary to the story at all, & a polytheistic M-e would work just as well.

If this is the case, why does Tolkien insist on keeping Eru in the story? Why does Tolkien redact theism back into the story that has achieved a 'much higher, more mythic' atmosphere? Why is he not satisfied with that which he produced in the 1920's? If one were to posit that anything Tolkien wrote after the 1920's, is unnecessary, what does that remove? Are we sure we would want to live with such a reduction? It is a very dangerous game to play (and rather foolish, frankly), picking a particular period of an author's writing (especially an early period!), and saying, this is the real thing.

Originally Posted by davem

Eru is a cypher, playing the part assigned to him & then disappearing till he is needed to drive the plot forward again (though it would not take very much rewriting to get rid of him altogether)

One is left wondering if this is the desire of certain readers.

Originally Posted by davem

Eru is the most two dimensional character Tolkien created & the least necessary from a literary perspective.

Highly debatable again. It depends on what a reader is willing to acknowledge is Eru in action, and what is not.

Originally Posted by davem

Gets my vote for the most boring & gap filling character Tolkien created.

Some posters sometimes reveal more about themselves than they do about their subject. All in all, this particular post is loaded with unsubstantiated opinion that is debatable at best, uses dangerous and unwise choices in literary analysis, and lacks basis in evidence.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

The reason the Akallabeth seems like an 'attrocity' is that what happens is essentially unfair because Eru is too powerful & its not a fair fight. He shouldn't have done what he did. The Numenoreans basically didn't want to die (who does?) & that's what drove them. If the Fall of Numenor had been a natural disaster it would have been awe-inspiring & humbling - man brought down by impersonal nature. As it is an overwhelmingly powerful being obliterates them with malice aforethought & in the end it seems vindictive because for all their 'power' they are weak mortals with no chance. One cannot rationalise the behaviour of Eru & make it equal 'good'. Once more we come back to Eru as a two dimensional 'Old Nobodaddy'.

Derogations aside, the essential complaint here is that Eru should not have punished the Numenoreans for disobeying his viceroys because it wasn't a fair fight.

Clarity first: Tolkien is the one who describes Eru's action as punishment for disobedience, which is rebellion.

Second: to accuse Eru of 'not being fair' because he is too powerful is like saying that police are not being fair when they arrest someone who has committed a crime because they have guns and the criminal only has a knife.

Further, to assert that it would have been better if impersonal nature had taken out the Numenoreans instead of Eru, is like saying that it would be better if the knife wielding criminal would take a wrong turn in his escape such that he winds up in a prison cell, than that police should arrest him and bring him in.

The point: those in authority have the right to use power to enforce laws. This is true regardless of whether one is talking about local police, or about a transcendant deity.

The issue of Eru's so-called "boring" role in Tolkien's legendarium has already been addressed.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Is M-e monotheistic or polytheistic? It can't be both. the simple answer is that it is monotheistic - except Eru doesn't do very much after Ainulindule, & the world is effectively ruled by the Valar. So for 99% of the Sil we have a polytheistic world.

Yes, M-E is monotheistic. But it is incorrect that Eru "doesn't do very much after Ainulindale". A transcendant deity, by definition, upholds the entirety of the creation 'It' has made; keeps it running, as it were. I have already addressed the issue of "polytheistic" by pointing out how this polytheocracy is unlike the typical ancient mythological polytheocracies.

Originally Posted by davem

Even in the destruction of Numenor he is not necessary - the Valar could have destroyed the Numenorean fleet.

One would expect a good reader, having had this insight, to ask the next obvious question: "Then why does Tolkien have Eru there at all?" If Tolkien had no reason, then he cannot have been much of a writer. Since we do not accept such a conclusion, the question deserves an answer. So, "What, in Tolkien's legendarium, is Eru there for?" Why does Eru do the deed when the Valar could have done it (if they could have)? The key is in that the Valar lay down their authority. Why do they do this? Because the violators of the Ban are the Second Children of Iluvatar. In other words, the Valar recognize and acknowledge that they do not have final authority regarding the Second Children of Iluvatar breaking the Ban. Thus they must lay down their authority.

Originally Posted by davem

In short, we don't need Eru as part of the story.

On the contrary. We do very much need Eru as part of the story, precisely because he has final authority over the Children of Iluvatar. The Children of Iluvatar are themselves, as a matter of fact, proof of the fundamental necessity of Eru to the plot of the entire legendarium. They are called by his own name.

Originally Posted by davem

Eru is a character who Tolkien attempts to make use of, & he is never more than a plot device. He can't be used without devastating effect, so he is hardly used at all & when he is used he replaces the Valar.

No. Quite simply, no. This misunderstands the nature of Eru. Eru is a constant part of the entire legendarium, behind the scenes (most of the time). If there were no transcendant deity, the entire legendarium would not adhere the way it does. This is fundamental.

Originally Posted by davem

What he does display is pride, lack of compassion & brute force.

If this is the extent of one's understanding of Eru as the character functions in the legendarium, then this character is fundamentally misunderstood.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

To say that Tolkien's Eru is some how a picture of his beliefs of God is a dangerous thing to do because here we have Eru placed in a legend that had nothing to do with the Jewish God and so to pin ideas of 'God is a meanie' or 'The Numenorians had every right to do such and such' is not a good road.

Yours is a valid caution. I have been aware throughout this debate that some of us may be equating Eru with Yahweh. It is hard not to do, regardless of one's personal beliefs and leanings. My own approach has been to take what Tolkien has written as the basis for understanding his use of the transcendant deity in his works, namely Eru, and applying logic in order to arrive at hoped for reasonable conclusions. One does best to avoid attempting to create a full-blown theology for a fictional world. Nevertheless, questions are asked, and reasonable answers may be arrived at.

Good-bye for now, I shall return in approximately 41 days.