The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[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.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

If you take it like this, then I'd say the secondary world is no-theistic (I don't want to say "atheistic", because this is not the right term nor it is true), because the Valar hardly intervene even during the First Age, much less after the departure of Noldor (not including the War of Wrath), and after the Fall, they lay down the rulership over Arda and then they just send the Istari (quoting Tolkien: "and perhaps with calling Eru for advice?").
But it is also about what you call "polytheistic": there are fourteen different powers, but they all stand together. Like the colors which make a rainbow, if I am to use a metaphore.

Originally Posted by davem

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

As a character in a story, well, why, he might be, for someone. But since we spent this whole thread speaking mostly about him, I wouldn't consider him as boring and gap filling as you say. And as Lal said, "he is". I don't suppose a Creator would fill his time in running around Beleriand and make Legolas-movie-like stunt moves.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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:

Well, "trick" is such an awful word. But I know, I know. However this might be "trick", in the end Aulë has more joy than he'd possibly have if everything went fine and Eru agreed rightaway. I always considered this part to be a very beautiful part, since I first read it (and I was about... eh... 10 years old?), I always almost feel the joy of Aulë when his creation was not only allowed, but blessed.
I think also this "trick" has a good reason for it to be done:
Aulë is driven to make a choice, like Melkor did: Melkor wanted to have things of his own, but he did not come before Eru with them. I mean: when it was realized that he has his secret plans, he kept them to himself and "so what, I'm gonna sit on them like a hen on its eggs". Aulë chooses to admit he did something against Eru (please note now that I am now leaving out all the points about that Eru of course had this in plan, because it comes from him etc., but we are talking about Aulë as independant being - HE does not know, it seems). This is, I think, really about the learning which has been very nicely pointed out by some people here. Aulë is left to discover himself that Eru knows even about his secrets (for those who were interested in it, possibly proof that Eru is omnipotent!), and more important, he has to discover that Eru wants Aulë to surrender his works to him. Meaning: when Aulë surrenders the Dwarves to Eru, like "I will even destroy them if you wish", Eru tells okay, you gave them to me, you didn't want to make them just for yourself and hide them from me (which, if you admitted it to yourself, is impossible: "That you all know that I am Eru... no one can play any theme against me"). So you see, had Melkor asked Eru "could I tear down this mountain", "could I destroy these Lamps", Eru might even told him "yes, you can" (but more likely "no, you cannot", but then, when Melkor asked, he'd accept it and instead go and for example help Manwë with the winds, or sit and do nothing, or think of another thing to do).
Okay pals, now when I stop at what I just wrote, I think that I accidentally resolved the debate about what is or what is not "allowed" in M-E. I think this is pretty clear now. The dischord could have been OK, had Melkor not tooth and nail held it to himself. This is the slight difference, and it is really a slight difference, but I think it is important and I hope I hit the nail here: the definition of what is "good" and what is "bad" is defined by Eru; since he is All, he defines it. And I daresay he defines it on the basis of many factors, and the main is if the one goes with his plan = not that Eru had any plan like "Manwë goes there and Ulmo comes to him at 3 AM" but "can I go to Manwë at 7 PM? I want to make one more river here". In certain points, Eru might say "no" (for example, I think, to a question "Can I kill Manwë?" According to what I am able to guess from Tolkien's works, the latest possible answer would be "Ask him first", unless, of course, there was any reason why Manwë would have to be killed). As I said, I quite stand with the opinion that it is about learning. The reason why Eru has let the dischord and the evil to take place is, that he gives everyone (no "evil ones" or "good ones" distinction here during the process) a chance to learn. And on this basis the "good" and "evil" are defined. So Eru says: If you know what you are doing, I will bless it. (I know this sentence is quite simple and can be interpretated in many ways, but applying this Secondary World thesis on us here, who wants to learn, will find the right meaning in it. Who wants not, might argue until the end of this thread )

One last example for illustration: the all-known Gollum case. He had the possibility to learn, seemingly he did not take it. By the way, from this it also seems that learning has its time (in the mortal world).

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

But it is also about what you call "polytheistic": there are fourteen different powers, but they all stand together. Like the colors which make a rainbow, if I am to use a metaphor.

I think this is a valuable point. Tolkien has created a polytheocracy (pardon my word construction) in which all of the major deities but one remain 'holy', or good, while just one rebels. This is in marked contrast to the many and varied polytheisms of our world's history in which there is constant jockeying for power, and frequent changes of alliance. The very stability of "sides" in Aman is notable. Where does such stability issue from? Well, it seems rather obvious from the narrative itself: Eru.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

What you're doing, davem, is promoting through your analysis of Tolkien and his Legendarium an atheist worldview.

The fact remains that there is one thing missing: you do not know J.R.R. Tolkien. You know his words through whatever media you've read them or had them repeated to you, the words of others about him, and you know yourself. Your reasons for posting this analysis are basely illogical and a disservice to a deceased man.

I was attempting an analysis of the Character of Eru - I don't see where any 'athiest worldview' (actually I'm not an athiest but an agnostic with Pagan leanings) comes into what I posted. I was trying to explore the nature of the character Eru, the role he plays in the narrative & the reason for his existence. I find the character superfluous in the main, serving little purpose.

I don't see what is gained by challenging my knowledge of Tolkien. I have studied & loved the works of Tolkien for 30 odd years. I cited a letter from Tolkien's own hand to his son in which he clearly stated that for the whole of the 1920's he neglected his faith, & pointed out that this is exactly the period when the Legendarium undergoes a major transformation towards the form in which we know it. I further pointed out that during the whole of the development of the Legendarium, from its early fairystory form in BoLT, through Tolkien's 'faithless' period of the 20's, & on through the period of development in the 30's when his faith returned, the role of Eru is very much that of a secondary character.

In short, my analysis was logical, backed up with source evidence, & an attempt to make sense of the role & purpose of the character Eru. I can't see a single shred of evidence for your assertion that anything I said constituted the promotion of an athiestic worldview (something which is entirely legal anyway). I avoided any comment on religion at all, merely noting that Tolkien's own faith (or lack of same) seemed to play no part in the depiction of of the character of Eru.

In short, I'm confused by what you say, but have a slight forboding of where this all may end......

[Lalwendë]

Do I get you correct SoN in that you mean we cannot 'know' Tolkien as we are not Tolkien? Yes I can see that of course (I often say it myself), but to counter it, biographical detail is one of the few things we do have to go on for a solid grounding in understanding, which is why it remains so popular today in literary analysis, like it or not.

Couple of relevant quotes from anarticle in today's Guardian about an art show by the Chapman brothers:

I have to admit to a thought crime. I found my own response to the work - moved, shocked, impressed by its craft - far more appropriate. I'm aware that this is not the right attitude. Artists have more or less given up thinking about what response a work might get. We live in more democratic times, in which the artist just makes the work, and the public make whatever they want of it.

So I should learn to relax. When the Chapman brothers' work comes to London, I plan to see it again, and this time I'll try to follow the dictums of postmodern art appreciation. Art is what you make it. I shall have my response to the work. And other people - even little people aged about seven - will have their response. All of our responses will be equally valid. I just hope I don't get that nagging feeling that, when it comes to works of art, some responses are more equally valid than others.

Gets you thinking this. Is there really a democracy inherent in Reader Response or is it a fraud? Does it actually have any qualitative purpose? Or is it just hot air leading to the need to democratise and intellectualise the opinions of seven year olds? Will it lead ultimately to utterly meaningless and trivial Art? We've already seen that happen in television, will literature go that way?

Anyway....

Onwards and upwards...

An atheist reading of Lord of the Rings would not only be permissible but it also works and the text supports that view too. Without any forcing. I'll do something on it one day. I've been tempted to do a Marxist reading. I know someone who has and it also works.

Of course now I'm going to say that this is all grist to the mill that Tolkien's work is in fact Universal, but that is not a popular opinion with everyone. Whereas Universal is correct to me - even under SoN's triple analysis theory, including the effect that the text has on many and diverse peoples. Universal also supports both Reader Response and paying close attention to text only (now before someone jumps in, I'm talking Lord of the Rings here). Universal stops fights, stops claimings and also has everyone skipping about merrily and holding hands. What could be better?

[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.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

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.

Of course there is the 'opposite', that's the way Eru makes it as it's part of his own all-encompassing, omnipotent nature. Eru is the All Father. Who makes the opposite to Light if Eru does not create it? Even if it is an absence of Light then Eru also causes the rules which allow voids and absences.

Originally Posted by lmp

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.

Melkor could not have achieved them within the will of Eru unless of course his path towards Darkness was all part of Eru's will. As it was Melkor's darkness and Evil which resulted in the formation of such terrible beauties as snow and frost, mist and clouds. This of course depends upon whether you can accept that part of Eru's creation and intention was Darkness. If you cannot accept that Eru intended there to be Darkness, that Melkor stemmed from Eru himself, then there would never have been any way possible for Melkor to make these things within a 'wholly perfect' version of Eru's will. Of course, Melkor could have made them independently of Eru, but then we come back to who made Melkor again...

How Melkor makes the snow and ice and so on. This passage is where Eru shows to the Valar before creation what Ea will be like:

And Iluvatar spoke to Ulmo, and said: 'Seest thou not how here in this little realm in the Deeps of Time Melkor hath made war upon thy province? He hath bethought him of bitter cold immoderate, and yet hath not destroyed the beauty of thy fountains, nor of thy clear pools. Behold the snow, and the cunning work of frost! Melkor hath devised heats and fire without restraint, and hath not dried up thy desire nor utterly quelled the music of the sea. Behold rather the height and glory of the clouds, and the ever- changing mists; and listen to the fall of rain upon the Earth! And in these clouds thou art drawn nearer to Manwe, thy friend, whom thou lovest.'

So, from this, did Melkor merely do that which was set out for him anyway?

Following on from that in the Sil is the following interesting passage:

But even as Ulmo spoke, and while the Ainur were yet gazing upon this vision, it was taken away and hidden from their sight; and it seemed to them that in that moment they perceived a new thing, Darkness, which they had not known before except in thought. But they had become enamoured of the beauty of the vision and engrossed in the unfolding of the World which came there to being, and their minds were filled with it; for the history was incomplete and the circles of time not full-wrought when the vision was taken away. And some have said that the vision ceased ere the fulfilment of the Dominion of Men and the fading of the Firstborn; wherefore, though the Music is over all, the Valar have not seen as with sight the Later Ages or the ending of the World.

Note here how the Valar are shown Darkness. This is the first time they see it, though they have thought of it before now. If you like, this is when Eru shows them what Darkness will look like as a living thing, rather than as a concept. It has always existed, but here it is shown to them given life. Interesting that even though they see this, and they see a little (but not all) of the history of Arda into the Third Age, they do not stay Eru's hand. He doesn't give them much of a chance anyway (he's quick to get creating is ol' Eru ), and says "Well I'm going to make it anyway, Darkness or Not!"

Then there was unrest among the Ainur; but Iluvatar called to them, and said: 'I know the desire of your minds that what ye have seen should verily be, not only in your thought, but even as ye yourselves are, and yet other. Therefore I say: Ea! Let these things Be!

Hmmm, that also brings on another thought...there are many things within Arda that must have been created by unknown and unknowable members of the Ainur, as some stayed behind. What might these be?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Since I am sort of getting lost in all these arguments, I'll just post one thing which I realized in reading Valaquenta. I think (or: I SINCERELY HOPE) it will make an end to the disputation of whether Melkor's =>evil<= deeds were planned by Eru (for him) or not.

Originally Posted by Valaquenta

The mightiest of those Ainur who came into the World was in his beginning Melkor; but Manwë is dearest to Ilúvatar and understands most clearly his purposes.

Manwë understands most clearly Ilúvatar's purposes. So Ilúvatar has some purposes, and whatever they are, Manwë understands them (and acts according to them) and Melkor does not (mostly). Thus, if for example Ilúvatar's purposes with Melkor were to destroy the lamps and battle with Valar, then according to what we know, actually Melkor would NOT destroy the lamps and battle with Valar (what Ilúvatar wanted) but he'd do something different (like not destroy the lamps or even help building them). Thus, in the reality, it was not Ilúvatar's will that Melkor destroys the Lamps - although, as with the snow, he could alter his primary plan and "make even greater things of it" (possibly later).

And:

Originally Posted by Valaquenta

Both [Aulë and Melkor] also desired to make things of their own that should be new and unthought of by others, and delighted in the praise of their skill. But Aulë remained faithful to Eru and submitted all that he did to his will.

I posted some post involving the part of creation of the Dwarves here some time ago, and as I can see, I could've saved me time by posting just this. Clear as day, in my opinion. But Aulë remained faithful to Eru and submitted all that he did to his will. Melkor did not remain faithful to Eru: not that he did remain faithful to some codex of morality or whatever, but did not remain faithful to his purpose given to him by Eru. Cf. above the example with lamps. So, even if Eru would've had evil in plan in the creation of the world, he didn't want Melkor to perform them. Which means, he possibly didn't have the evil in plan at all. When the evil came, yes, he dealt with it, after all, he was the omni-creator; and sometimes he made "even greater things" from evil that came. But he did not intend it in the first place.

Huh. And one last, general thought for this topic. I think it is important, when speaking about someone like Eru, to consider that he was "far above" and, even though just a book character, above our, human thoughts. I think I could use a parallel with the real-world theology: we also are not able to reach God in any way (if you think he is), just look around, you don't know even from what atoms your table is made from and he'd create all of this. So the only way you can reach him is not by your reasoning (humanly limited), but only if he himself wanted to present to you. Thus, we are restricted to what he could possibly have let us know from his own intent (hence the term "revelation"). Why I am telling that is, that I want to show on this that we cannot polemise what and how Eru is in "real" (whatever it might be), since you can 99% bet this does not show the truth at all. We can only rely on that how he's revealed to us: and this means, here, via Ainulindalë, Valaquenta, Silmarillion, Akallabëth etc.

Just to make some things in this topic clear.

[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.

[Raynor]

I find myself in agreement with lmp's post.

Originally Posted by davem

Once the story begins Eru plays no part.

I disagree:

Originally Posted by Ainulindale, Silmarillion

Yet some things there are that they cannot see, neither alone nor taking counsel together; for to none but himself has Iluvatar revealed all that he has in store, and in every age there come forth things that are new and have no foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past.

Originally Posted by Of Aule and Yavanna

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

Originally Posted by Of Aule and Yavanna

Then Manwe sat silent, and the thought of Yavanna that she had put into his heart grew and unfolded; and it was beheld by Iluvatar. Then it seemed to Manwe that the Song rose once more about him, and he heeded now many things therein that though he had heard them he had not heeded before. And at last the Vision was renewed, but it was not now remote, for he was himself within it, and yet he saw that all was upheld by the hand of Iluvatar; and the hand entered in, and from it came forth many wonders that had until then been hidden from him in the hearts of the Ainur.

Originally Posted by Atrabeth Finrod ah Andreth

He must as Author always remain 'outside' the Drama, even though that Drama depends on His design and His will for its beginning and continuance, in every detail and moment.

Originally Posted by Letter #156

[Gandalf] was sent by a mere prudent plan of the angelic Valar or governors; but Authority had taken up this plan and enlarged it, at the moment of its failure. 'Naked I was sent back – for a brief time, until my task is done'. Sent back by whom, and whence? Not by the 'gods' whose business is only with this embodied world and its time; for he passed 'out of thought and time'.

Originally Posted by Letter #192

Few others, possibly no others of [Frodo's] time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named' (as one critic has said).

As lmp has mentioned, there are various refferences by the characters in the story to things that were meant to be, or inspirations (Gildor, Frodo, Gandalf, Elrond, etc).

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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.

Have to admit that those statements struck me as referring to something along the lines of 'wyrd' when I first read LotR, & that is how I tend to read them now.

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.

I was talking about the way his intervention comes across to the reader. As for it being 'rather offensive to theists' I would hope everyone here can distinguish between criticism of an invented character in a work of literary fiction & the Creator of the Universe - 'cos I'd be seriously worried about anyone who couldn't. Eru is a character invented by Tolkien, just like Frodo, Gollum, Wormtongue & the fox in the Shire. I will not treat him with any more 'awe' & reverence than I would treat any other character, or place him above criticism. Eru is a poorly drawn & undeveloped character who plays a minor part in the story.

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

Or chooses not to

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.

I don't think I did that at all - though I note in passing that the later works like the Athrabeth with its 'supposed' closeness to Christianity in the passing reference to Eru's incarnation is often dragged up to support the theory that the Legendarium is an 'essentially' Christian work (even though Tolkien expressed his discomfort with it as being too close to a parody of Christianity). I've stated the reason why I think Eru was kept in the story - to keep it monotheistic. It is a monotheistic universe - my gripe is that the 'God' Tolkien presents us with is a shallow, undeveloped & not very interesting character.

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

Well? Some may do - I don't see it as any more of a problem than wishing any character in any literary work had been written out.

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

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.

Well, I thought we were here to debate. I also thought it was pretty clear that I was expressing my opinion. How 'choices in literary analysis' can be ''dangerous' though, is beyond me. Its characters in a book we're discussing here.

[Lalwendë]

Whoa! Just put the baggage down on the floor and walk away from the vehicle!

Originally Posted by lmp

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.

These 'fate' references could be to just about anything because Tolkien 'never stated baldly' what was turning the wheels of his created world. If we then say "oh well it must be this" we are the ones 'doing violence' to the story as it unravels the whole complexity of reference and meta-reference and reduces the leaf mould of the mind to sterile mushroom compost. Tolkien, well versed in Literature and myth of all kinds weaves in things which could come from the Eddas, from Beowulf, from Celtic myth, from his won belief, from other fantasy....he does not wish to pin the text down to meaning one thing or have events pinned down to originating from one source. In this way he builds mystery (and a work of such complex genius none of us could ever repeat it). And to say that if we don't accept that Eru pushed Gollum into the cracks of Doom or Eru made Bilbo go off on his adventures (etc.) that we are wrong is to reduce the starnge and wonderful events of the text to having One Meaning Only and makes it just a dull old text book, one in which we have no capacity to stand back when a Hobbit falls into the cracks of Doom in awe and go ".....wow...."

Originally Posted by lmp

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.

Why? Has it come to pass now that Eru=God? Where did that happen? I thought we were discussing a work of literature not a holy scripture?

Sorry I do not like the way that this is headed. If other people dissecting a literary creation causes offence it's maybe time to accept that people read books in many different ways? Point of fact for me. Eru is an oddball. He creates a world where there is evil, he creates a world knowing that its not perfect and never can be. He creates evil beings like Melkor. That's not how I see my own world (but can perfectly accept it in a literary creation). Maybe its not how Tolkien saw his own world, but nevertheless that's what's in the text. And on top of all of this, Eru stands right back and does not get involved until the Valar muck around with things that they ought not to done and Dad has to come in and sort out the kids' mess - he does it by grabbing everything and hurling into a big cosmic bin bag and then goes back to his study to resume smoking his pipe in peace.

I can't say I like Eru at all. There are some kind of rules it seems but he never tells anyone what they are. Cheers. You can fear Eru but there's nothing to love in him. The people may love Varda or Manwe or Melkor but nobody particularly loves Eru. And you've got to wonder why. Thank goodness I don't live in that world - I can do without some omnipotent creator who can squish me at any time for no discernible reason and doesn't even give me the respect due of providing me with some 'rules'.

[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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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.

Which it was. But that's not the issue.

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.

No - its like saying the Police are not being 'fair' or reasonable if they decide to deal with the knife-wielding criminal by employing tactical nukes to take out half the State the criminal is in. Its to accuse the Police of over-reaction & psychopathic tendencies

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.

Poetic justice. However, I don't think your analogy is ideal. If impersonal nature (the 'Dragon') had brought down the Numenoreans it would have brought home Man's insignificance & his ultimate tragedy far more profoundly than Eru's hissy fit.

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.

'With great power comes great responsibility' as Uncle Ben said. Eru psychopathically over-reacts in the case of Numenor, because while the Numenoreans may have disobeyed the Valar they were no threat. It would have been better if the cause had been a natural cataclysm, because Eru doesn't come off well as a character in this incident. In short, I still feel it was a mistake on Tolkien's part to have Eru do something so terrible - we can never think of Eru as a loving creator again without also having to acknowledge he is also a monster. The only acceptable interpretation is that it was a natural cataclysm which post-deluvian inhabitants of M-e wrongly attributed to Eru.

And one suspects it would not have been necessary to include the event at all in the final redaction of the Legendarium, in which Tolkien attempted to make Arda conform to 'current' scientific thinking. The Sun & stars were to pre-exist the earth, which would inevitably have had to be spherical from the start - hence, no need for a re-shaping of the world, so no requirement for Eru to wreak such devastation.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

Which would mean that evil is indeed inbuilt by Eru and is not a result of Melkor's rebellion! In fact Melkor would not be necessary whatsoever as evil would still be manifest in Arda simply by dint of it being created by Eru.

While I believe that the moral possibility of evil is necessary in order to have true free will, Melkor is not necessary as an agent of evil. With free will, there will be plenty of agents around. However, him not present, or at least he not corrupted, would mean that the greatest power that ever entered Ea wholly will not bent almost each and every spiritual and physical entity towards evil. Most such encounters are beyond one's power to resist, as Tolkien commented for example on Frodo's struggle against the corruption of the ring; that sort of thing you just can't fight ["There exists the possibility of being placed in positions beyond one's power."] On the other hand, there is also the general case of Gollum, who doesn't want the good path, no matter the circumstances [I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'".]. This later case would still appear in Arda Unmarred, and rightly so, I almost dare say; for this is indeed the test of one's faith and standing; Aule's initial dwarves would have been the most marvelous stones in the world, if it weren't for Eru breathing true life and sentience on them.

Originally Posted by Lal

I interpret it as Pride. He is driven by his own desire.

I think you are playing with words here. There is difference between pride, and desire and gift; his special gifts are specifically stated, he was naturally gifted. I doubt that anyone, no matter his level of motivation, could have achieved what he did, Artistically speaking. In Ea, the fire of one's spirit is a real spiritual trait, not just a figurative manner of speech; esspecially with elves, this was consuming their body, for one thing. I would very much link this fire to the imperishable flame, the creative aspect of Eru, or the living essence of creation if you will. Pride is something more.... wordly; anyone can have it. I would say the positive aspect of pride is nobility, acknowledgment of one's special connection with the creator, prohibiting thus one from falling; the negative, much more common, is reffering ourselves not to the creator, but to others, in which case.... bring on the fight, competition, envy, superiority, etc. Feanor enjoyed both the fire in its creative aspect, and the pride, which brought about the downfall, not his Art.

Originally Posted by Lal

That depends if it is. For the majority it is not.

Then again, if we talk about the elves, one of their most important qualities concern sub-creation, the Art as defined previously. This type of Art, and these sub-creative qualities, have the most fertile ground on Valinor, from most, if not all, points of view. The inhabitants of M-E enjoy sub-creativeness too, but how much time do they have to develop it, what with all the wars, departing of the most gifted, the elves, and lack of continuity of culture, due to social decay or social extinsion.

Originally Posted by Lal

This is profound and sad, and the sense of urgency, of having just One Chance to get it right, that drives mortals is beyond the understanding of Elves.

I don't deny that Men represent a full half (if not more) of the problem of Death, treated by Tolkien in his work. It should also be noted that Men more often that not deserve to be looked upon not with admiration, but with sadness; they do not make the most of it. They are too caught up, for better or for worst, most of the times for the worst - the grip of Melkor is too strong on them.

Originally Posted by Of the beginning of days, Silmarillion

Yet the Elves believe that Men are often a grief to Manwe, who knows most of the mind of Iluvatar; for it seems to the Elves that Men resemble Melkor most of all the Ainur, although he has ever feared and hated them, even those that served him.

True enough, Eru also said that "these too in their time shall find that all that they do redounds at the end only to the glory of my work"; yet Tolkien commented:

Originally Posted by Letter #181

Their 'damnability' [of those who persist in wickedness] is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.

Originally Posted by davem

No - its like saying the Police are not being 'fair' or reasonable if they decide to deal with the knife-wielding criminal by employing tactical nukes to take out half the State the criminal is in.

I disagree; the numenoreans were not wielding a knife, they had "the greatest of all armadas"; they were able to wreak havoc in Valinor and they subjugated a good part of Middle Earth, enslaving, torturing and sacrificing people to Melkor. Maybe they were worst under Sauron's corruption than Men were under Melkor's.

Originally Posted by davem

If impersonal nature (the 'Dragon') had brought down the Numenoreans it would have brought home Man's insignificance & his ultimate tragedy far more profoundly than Eru's hissy fit.

I doubt that for such a profoundly corrupted people this dragon would have been more than an accident - if it lacked conscious will behind it. They would have gone at it again, while continuing to oppress the Children of Eru in the name of Melkor.

Originally Posted by davem

Eru psychopathically over-reacts in the case of Numenor, because while the Numenoreans may have disobeyed the Valar they were no threat.

To disprove with quote:

Originally Posted by Letter #131

Faced by this rebellion, of appalling folly and blasphemy, and also real peril (since the Numenoreans directed by Sauron could have wrought ruin in Valinor itself) the Valar lay down their delegated power and appeal to God, and receive the power and permission to deal with the situation; the old world is broken and changed.

Originally Posted by davem

And one suspects it would not have been necessary to include the event at all in the final redaction of the Legendarium, in which Tolkien attempted to make Arda conform to 'current' scientific thinking. The Sun & stars were to pre-exist the earth, which would inevitably have had to be spherical from the start - hence, no need for a re-shaping of the world, so no requirement for Eru to wreak such devastation.

I doubt that the changing of the world was the main reason for the Akallabeth. I actually have serious problems picturing Arda flat, what with the skies and what not (was all Ea a tube with Arda at the bottom? Was it a sphere with Arda on the inner surface? Was it an ever widening cylinder, with Arda at its "lowest", smallest circumference? Someone help me out .)

[davem]

I think we'd have to question how 'helpless' the Valar were in the face of the Numenoreans. Such devastation as Tolkien posits could have been avoided by striking while the fleet was at sea, & I'm sure Ulmo could have done serious damage. Tolkien's statement in the letter strikes me as one of the infamous 'reflective glosses'. The problem was bringing about a change in the shape of the World & removing the Undying Lands from the world. This required a divine intervention of some kind. However, the form & nature of that intervention is the issue, & what it says about Eru's nature. I still say he doesn't come off well.

[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.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by lmp

I have been aware throughout this debate that some of us may be equating Eru with Yahweh.

So has Tolkien in his 1971 BBC interview

Dennis Gerrolt: Where is God in The Lord of the Rings?

Tolkien: He's mentioned once or twice.

Dennis Gerrolt: Is he the One?...

Tolkien: The One, yes.

Take care lmp

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I doubt that he saved Gandalf or helped finnish the ring's quest for aesthetic considerations. I am curious what considerations you were having in mind.

I don't see that we're ever told what his motivations are, why he does what he does or what the point of anything is as far as he's concerned - his main concern seems to be his own 'glory' & making sure everyone does as they're told.

What do you mean? That for Eru to be convincing for you, Tolkien has to explain his omnipotence?

No - that he has to explain his character, motivations & provide convincing justifications for his actions.

We don't even know the mystery of Men, but you require to know the mystery of Eru himself. Or judge him by not knowing that. Judge him if you will, but your analysis will be marred by its partiality of data, and thus, most likely, logically flawed.

The only 'data' is the data Tolkien has provided us with. Eru is not a 'mystery'. Eru is an invented character within a fictional world. This 'mystery' you perceive in him is your own addition. What I know from the data supplied is that Eru is an undeveloped figure whose behaviour is not properly explained & that is what I'm judging.

What would be one such illogical action?

I think the knots Tolkien ties himself in over Manwe's treatment of Melkor (as set out in Osanwe Kenta) shows that he realised that Manwe's behaviour made absolutely no sense (& I have to say that the 'explanation' he comes up with didn't convince me for a minute)

I disagree; I was addressing your statement that "Numenor requires Eru's incarnation into Arda" by discussing the necessity of it due to Melkor's immense power which he invested in corrupting Arda. You can backtrack that yourself.

...which 'backtracking' lead me back to my point:

Originally Posted by me

Only in the beginning. Its clear that by the time of his fall he was far from superior.

Therefore, I see no problem with Arda being free for a while from the strong corruption of Melkor it later has.

So when Tolkien stated that Arda was created with the potential for, if not the inevitability of, a fall inherent in it, he meant it was created without that potential for a bit & then the potential was added in after that - so Eru not only could, but actually did, create Arda without that potential, but then introduced it in? Sorry, but i'm not sure that stands up...

Your generalisation is unwarranted; the initial quote didn't say "any" of his own, while clearly stating a difference between his own and the Enemy.

So to say

"He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves. ".

is an entirely different thing to saying "He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of any of His own?

Are hairs not being split here?

So has Tolkien in his 1971 BBC interview

Oh, come on - the simplest & most obvious interpretation of Tolkien's response is that he was referring to Eru, the 'God' of M-e.

[Raynor]

I don't see that we're ever told what his motivations are, why he does what he does or what the point of anything is as far as he's concerned - his main concern seems to be his own 'glory' & making sure everyone does as they're told.

We are told, but you disregard my quotes. I don't know if this is going anywhere.

No - that he has to explain his character, motivations & provide convincing justifications for his actions.

You genuinely expect that from a religious person? To put God in a frame? May I ask if you are theist?

I think you lose sight of spiritual meaning the myth has for Tolkien, that of returning us to an un-fallen state, of a more special communion. I hardly see how this can be achieved by rationalising God. Of course, that may not suit some critics. They way Eru is presented is not a literary flaw, but a religious necessity; I would venture so far as to say even a philosophical one - who can put transcendence into words?

What I know from the data supplied is that Eru is an undeveloped figure whose behaviour is not properly explained & that is what I'm judging.

How come you hold on so much to judging, in a case where you also state that there isn't enough information? What sort of validity would your conclusion have? At most, literary; you can reduce the reality of this work's Creator to a finite character, and state that he is underdeveloped, and could be fine, to someone who could swallow this reduction (which I consider impossible). But you cannot draw conclusions, moral or otherwise, if you don't know enough; to do so seems, to me, to be an empty exercise.

I think the knots Tolkien ties himself in over Manwe's treatment of Melkor (as set out in Osanwe Kenta) shows that he realised that Manwe's behaviour made absolutely no sense (& I have to say that the 'explanation' he comes up with didn't convince me for a minute)

You mean Manwe would have made more sense if he would have kept Melkor indefinitely, despite the initial judgement? What sort of justice is that?? What could have justified such an arbitrary change of thought? Please explain.

Only in the beginning. Its clear that by the time of his fall he was far from superior.

Which doesn't address in the least my (then) previous argument and my explanation, hence my feeling it is a red herring: the amount of power he had at the end of the first age has no relevance to the amount of power he had at the time, far superior to the valar's, which he used it to corrupt Arda. To reiterate my argument, that corruptive power could not have been annihilated by the valar, only by Eru.

So when Tolkien stated that Arda was created with the potential for, if not the inevitability of, a fall inherent in it, he meant it was created without that potential for a bit & then the potential was added in after that - so Eru not only could, but actually did, create Arda without that potential, but then introduced it in? Sorry, but i'm not sure that stands up...

I don't know why you feign you don't know the difference between a potential and actualising that potential. The corruption of Arda existed as a potential, as a possibility, ever since the music, and it became a reality of Arda, with the coming of Melkor and the making of Utumno.

is an entirely different thing to saying "He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of any of His own?

It is not entirely different, but is not logically sound. You cannot use unwarranted generalisation in a debate, esspecially when in the quote, and in the story, "his own" and enemy are qualitatively different, on all grounds, esspecially the moral one. To introduce such a qualifier requires more than a personal desire for it to be accepted.

Oh, come on - the simplest & most obvious interpretation of Tolkien's response is that he was referring to Eru, the 'God' of M-e.

G: Now this seems to me to be somewhat like Tennyson's "the old order changeth, yielding place to new, and God fulfills himself in many ways". Where is God in The Lord of the Rings?

T: He's mentioned once or twice.

G: Is he the One?...

T: The One, yes.

G: Are you a theist?

T: Oh, I'm a Roman Catholic. Devout Roman Catholic.

If you really believe that God here is reffered to by Tolkien only as Eru, I really don't know how to convince you; you seem to disregard again the spiritual underlying of his myth making.