The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

So assuming that there really was a need for all this to stop, what would the alternatives have been short of drowning the island? Swallowing up the ships would not have done the job in my opinion, since there was still Sauron sitting with the Ring on top of his little hill. Taking out Sauron somehow? That would be a possibility, but could Sauron be gotten rid of so easily since he had the Ring? (Would it have been possible for the Valar to destroy the Ring while leaving everything outside the Temple boundaries nice and tidy?) And even if you took out Sauron and the fleet, the whole infrastructure of the Temple system would exist. The people of Numenor had the knowledge and resources to remake the ships. I doubt their behavior would change. Could anything effective be done short of what was actually done? What I am asking us to do is to look beyond the question of who does the punishment and ask if there were alternatives as to what was done.

I did look at such alternatives earlier in this thread, and also failed to come up with any good ones; I too believe the story is about how a people painted themselves into a very bad corner, chiefly because they were proud and thoughtless and had no idea what they were getting themselves into by bringing Sauron to their island. If we want to read it in moral terms, we can almost view Eru's actions as merciful in that they fulfilled Amandil's wish for Men to be "delivered from Sauron the Deceiver". There was no easier way, and it's because the Númenóreans brought this upon themselves and their children. Foolishness kills. The only reason I don't hugely bother to see it this way is because I myself do not see Eru as a moral figure, and so don't bother to explain his actions in that light. But I did offer that sort of answer earlier for those who do see it that way.

Originally Posted by davem

Of course. The problem I have with the character is its 'primitiveness' & 'simplicity' (in a bad sense). The character lacks the necessary depth & complexity to sit well in the developed Legendarium. I still feel this is Tolkien's motivation in the Athrabeth - not to bring the Legendarium into line with Christianity, but to try & salvage the character. To go back to the edit in my last post - if Tevildo had not evolved into Sauron he would either have had to be removed from the Legendarium altogether, or take on a role like Shelob.

Tolkien puts no real effort into developing the character because he doesn't need to - Eru's role is so minor that he might as well not exist other than as something that prevents things sliding into dualism. As long as there's something there which stops that happening (even though most readers will not care one way or the other, being caught up in the story) it doesn't really matter what that thing is - call if Eru & forget it. Yet it still becomes a problem as the Legendarium outgrows such simplistic figures & so Eru has either to be forgotten altogether, replaced, or changed into something else. The Athrabeth seems Tolkien's attempt to do just that.

Odd. Because when I reread the earliest version of the Ainulindalë some time ago, my breath was taken away by how different Eru's character was. If anything, Ilúvatar was the character who changed the most over the varying traditions of that story. In the first version, he preached long messages about how Melkor's "ugliness" would bring forth "beauty" and that it would be the thing that made the Music most worthwhile. We are basically given a long sermon on theodicy in the first version. But as time goes on, Tolkien takes out huge sections of Eru's dialogue, making him a much more aloof figure whose motives are far more unclear. If Eru seems one-sided and overly mysterious, it's fairly obviously because Tolkien came to want him to be that way. He was actually more like the Christian God in the beginning than he afterwards became. Eru became more unique of a figure, not less of one.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

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).

If I understand you correctly, I agree. And the reason it is good, bad, right, wrong, etc. in Eru's eyes seems to be whether it is possible according to his Will or not. Melkor and Aulë tried to pit themselves against the impossible, whether they knew it or not. If, like Aulë, Melkor had been willing to acknowledge the impossibility of his deeds, there would have been no problems for himself or anyone else, I think; or they would be quite lessened (there was, after all, still strife between the Dwarves and the Elves). But at least the Dwarves had been made into a coherent creation, and did not remain a vain imagining like Melkor's plans. If you go the route of vain imaginings, you will have to take a very long, hard road to get back into right thinking. This was the journey Melkor chose to take. Perhaps, in the long run, the fullness of his experience would give him more insight into the Will of Eru than he otherwise could have had, but it had to be bought with his own suffering and that of others.

Moderators: considering how off the main topic this thread has gone, it would probably be a good idea to split it now and name the new thread "Eru Ilúvatar" or something.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

Odd. Because when I reread the earliest version of the Ainulindalë some time ago, my breath was taken away by how different Eru's character was. If anything, Ilúvatar was the character who changed the most over the varying traditions of that story. In the first version, he preached long messages about how Melkor's "ugliness" would bring forth "beauty" and that it would be the thing that made the Music most worthwhile. We are basically given a long sermon on theodicy in the first version. But as time goes on, Tolkien takes out huge sections of Eru's dialogue, making him a much more aloof figure whose motives are far more unclear. If Eru seems one-sided and overly mysterious, it's fairly obviously because Tolkien came to want him to be that way. He was actually more like the Christian God in the beginning than he afterwards became. Eru became more unique of a figure, not less of one.

.

What it seems to do is make him more of a cypher than he originally was. If Tolkien is trying to distinguish Eru from God (& as I noted before these changes seem to correspond exactly to the period of the 20's when 'out of wickedness & sloth' he almost ceased to practice his religion) then we have him seeking to produce a non Christian deity who will keep the mythology 'monotheistic' & stop it being 'dualistic' while removing him to such a distance that he effectively becomes little more than a get out of jail free card.

The myths Tolkien loved are effectively both polytheistic & dualistic & the myth he creates is, in fact, exactly the same. Its as if he feels for philodsophical reasons he must keep a 'God' figure, but he wants to remove him as far as possible from the work. He wants to have his cake & eat it. I suppose a more complex Eru would have required him to be a more active participant in the story. Yet at the end (Athrabeth) he seems to want him to be just that.

Ok, in other words, I accept that what you say is correct - except I'd argue that he doesn't so much develop the character as remove the little 'character' that he seems to have. After that he seems to lose interest in him at all. I wonder whether the changes are for philosophical or narrative reasons?

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Neurion

In a historical sense, such things are VERY dull. A brief interlude of blind nature interfering in the vastly more interesting sphere of human affairs. Not even worthy of notice, really.

This will be a short comment, where I pour some water on Lal's mill.

I think that Pompeii shows that natural disasters is/can be very interesting. . .not only has there been made countless documetarys on this subject, but it is also one of Italys leading turist atractions.

And on a personal note, I think the story of Krakatoa is ever so facinating.

[davem]

It seems to me that natural disasters are more profoundly moving simply because they are both inevitable & unavoidable. Unlike acts of an angry God, who can be pacified by obeying his rules, a nature cannot. They bring home to us our essential transitoriness - whatever we do, however moral our behaviour. From that point of view they require courage of us, simply to live & look the 'Dragon' in the face. Avoiding the wrath of an angry deity merely requires us to do as we're told.

To read LotR from a 'secular' perspective makes the display of courage far more moving. Imagine there is no eternal reward, that Frodo is giving up everything for others knowing that there is nothing beyond the life he is sacrificing, no healing in the West, because going into the West is simply to die. Not Tolkien's intention, certainly, but still a possible reading - does that make it more or less affecting?

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by davem

It seems to me that natural disasters are more profoundly moving simply because they are both inevitable & unavoidable. Unlike acts of an angry God, who can be pacified by obeying his rules, a nature cannot. They bring home to us our essential transitoriness - whatever we do, however moral our behaviour. From that point of view they require courage of us, simply to live & look the 'Dragon' in the face. Avoiding the wrath of an angry deity merely requires us to do as we're told.

It seems to me that you are talking about your own interactions with the unfoldment of reality in the real world, not Tolkien's Legendarium.

To read LotR from a 'secular' perspective makes the display of courage far more moving. Imagine there is no eternal reward, that Frodo is giving up everything for others knowing that there is nothing beyond the life he is sacrificing, no healing in the West, because going into the West is simply to die. Not Tolkien's intention, certainly, but still a possible reading - does that make it more or less affecting?

Are you suggesting that the 'secular' (whatever that means - horrible metaphor in my opinion) viewpoint is one which the reader should consciously adopt in reading Tolkien? Or just that you enjoy doing so?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

It seems to me that you are talking about your own interactions with the unfoldment of reality in the real world, not Tolkien's Legendarium.

I was - but that was what was being questioned.

Are you suggesting that the 'secular' (whatever that means - horrible metaphor in my opinion) viewpoint is one which the reader should consciously adopt in reading Tolkien? Or just that you enjoy doing so?

The latter. There are different ways of approaching the text, without stepping outside it. One could read it, for instance, by missing out books 3 & 5, & just following Frodo's story, without the more 'action-packed' books. I'm sure that would produce a different effect on the reader. One can read it as a 'secular' work, assigning the references to the Valar as merely 'beliefs' held by various characters. My tendency is to read it fully accepting such things as 'facts' of that world, however, taking LotR as a stand alone work such a reading is entirely possible & we will get something entirely different from it.

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by davem

The latter. There are different ways of approaching the text, without stepping outside it. One could read it, for instance, by missing out books 3 & 5, & just following Frodo's story, without the more 'action-packed' books. I'm sure that would produce a different effect on the reader. One can read it as a 'secular' work, assigning the references to the Valar as merely 'beliefs' held by various characters. My tendency is to read it fully accepting such things as 'facts' of that world, however, taking LotR as a stand alone work such a reading is entirely possible & we will get something entirely different from it.

My tendency is to do the same, but the problem is that the beliefs which motivate the protagonists are entirely un-compelling without Deity. It becomes a book about bodily functions - still beautiful though.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

To read LotR from a 'secular' perspective makes the display of courage far more moving [than punishment avoidance]. Imagine there is no eternal reward, that Frodo is giving up everything for others knowing that there is nothing beyond the life he is sacrificing, no healing in the West, because going into the West is simply to die. Not Tolkien's intention, certainly, but still a possible reading - does that make it more or less affecting?

Note: "than punishment avoidance" is my phrase to summarize davem's previous point; I think it's accurate.

This is indeed more affecting than mere motivation to avoid God's punishment. However, a yet deeper motivation in Frodo is depicted in LotR: love of the Shire. This is significant.

That which davem describes is the Northern ideal; the Norse idea, I suppose you could say: sacrificing all even though there's nothing to be gained by it, because it's the right thing to do, the honorable thing. Yet Frodo's motivation was not mere honor, but love. Again, that is significant, and is a way through which Tolkien trumped the Northern ideal with something even higher.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

That which davem describes is the Northern ideal; the Norse idea, I suppose you could say: sacrificing all even though there's nothing to be gained by it, because it's the right thing to do, the honorable thing. Yet Frodo's motivation was not mere honor, but love. Again, that is significant, and is a way through which Tolkien trumped the Northern ideal with something even higher.

Yes, his actions are selfless. Which is the point. Long before the end of the Quest Frodo has no hopes of returning home, or of achieving anything for himself at all. It strikes me that whatever happens after the Grey Havens is outside the story, which ends with Frodo leaving the 'world'. Whether he 'dies' & ceases or dies & passes to another 'state' is not something the story takes up - rightly in my opinion, as it would make the whole of LotR just 'part' of a story of which the end is missing & it would thus feel 'unfinished' , rather than a 'complete whole'.

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by davem

What it seems to do is make him more of a cypher than he originally was.

Yes, and I think that was the point of Tolkien's alterations. Eru is mysterious. But then, so is the existence and character of everything else.

Originally Posted by davem

The myths Tolkien loved are effectively both polytheistic & dualistic & the myth he creates is, in fact, exactly the same. Its as if he feels for philodsophical reasons he must keep a 'God' figure, but he wants to remove him as far as possible from the work. He wants to have his cake & eat it. I suppose a more complex Eru would have required him to be a more active participant in the story. Yet at the end (Athrabeth) he seems to want him to be just that.

What, really, would a "more complex Eru" have been like? How could he have been much different from one of the Abrahamic Gods? I think that Tolkien makes Eru more vibrant through his addition of estel to the Legendarium, an addition that would not work if Eru were as active in the world and as promising as the Christian God is portrayed to be. Admittedly, estel only shows up decades after the major changes to Eru's character are made, but they fit very well with Eru's presentation, much better than they would if Eru were very different than he is. Tolkien used a typical "God figure" to draw the (typical Western) reader into the story, and then used Eru as a vehicle for bringing out different themes and concepts than are often discussed in Western religion.

Originally Posted by davem

Ok, in other words, I accept that what you say is correct - except I'd argue that he doesn't so much develop the character as remove the little 'character' that he seems to have. After that he seems to lose interest in him at all. I wonder whether the changes are for philosophical or narrative reasons?

Though I have no way of ever knowing, I tend to think more philosophical. The original version of the Ainulindalë was written, of course, just about at the time that Tolkien was fighting in World War I. To me, Eru's speeches in the original read very much like Tolkien was, through his words, grappling with the troubles in the world that he had encountered. He would not put words into the mouth of the God he actually believed in, of course, so he used the similar-seeming deity in his newly-constructed world to work out his concerns about good and evil. As time went on, however, he did not need Eru for this role, and so he took out many of these lines and made him more opaque. That's just how I see it, anyway.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The odd thing about Frodo going into the West is that he probably did die, and possibly much more quickly than if he had stayed in The Shire (laying aside the possibility that he may well have committed suicide had he not got any healing). Valinor is no place for a mortal:

But then, it wasn't to Valinor that he was going. Technically, Frodo went to live in Tol Eressëa, which may not have had the same effects on mortals as the land of the Valar proper (I tend to think it didn't). Admittedly, I am biased by my hope that Sam got to see Frodo after sailing into the West in his old age.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

But then, it wasn't to Valinor that he was going. Technically, Frodo went to live in Tol Eressëa, which may not have had the same effects on mortals as the land of the Valar proper (I tend to think it didn't). Admittedly, I am biased by my hope that Sam got to see Frodo after sailing into the West in his old age.

I suppose I ought to have said the Undying Lands really, as I think it's any of the land masses which can be perilous places to live for mortals (Valinor being to the Undying Lands as Britain is to the United Kingdom, i.e. the largest land mass); looking at the Akallabeth it seems that any of the islands lying off the Eastern coast are also part of the perilous realm.

Though I am not intending to shatter illusions and dreams about what happens to our heroes. Maybe Frodo managed to hold on long enough after his Elven healing to see his Sam? I like to think that myself; it would be like old Bilbo holding on to see them all again at the end.

[davem]

Tar-Telperien Accepting much of what you say, it still leaves us with Eru as a cypher, while every other character is drawn in depth. He doesn't seem to fit. Maybe Tolkien didn't want to say to much about him for the reasons you give, but it still leaves him as as little more than a name. We don't know why he does most of what he does, what his intentions are, or why he bothers to do anything at all. He seems to exist only to make the world monotheistic. I suspect this is what leads readers to project their own God concepts onto him, & lead to religious arguments which get nowhere. He is probably the only character Tolkien invents who is not a 'character' at all.

An author can't do this! A theologian may speak of the 'ineffability' of God, but a storyteller must create characters - or if he doesn't he isn't doing his job right. If someone had just popped up in Mordor to hand Sam & Frodo a canteen of water & then just wandered off again, with no explanation as to how or why he was there, we'd rightly dismiss him as a 'get out of jail free' card Tolkien was playing. We'd demand to know who he was, why he was there. We might assume there was a reason for him being there, but if there was no reason to be found (if his appearance could not be accounted for in any way & if his existence in the story was logically impossible) we'd have to say Tolkien had failed in his creation of a logically consistent secondary world - particularly if he admitted that he'd put the character in there simply because he didn't want Frodo & Sam to die of thirst & couldn't be bothered to come up with a better idea.

Yet this seems to be exactly what he does in the case of Eru - he needs 'something' to make the world monotheistic, one who can 'fill the gaps' in the narrative, & so comes up with Eru.

Now this is not to say that Eru cannot be perceived by other characters as 'ineffable', but he shouldn't be so to the reader (or the writer), because the writer in this case is not writing a work of theology, but a story, & characters in a story must fit logically into the story & be explainable within the rules of the story world.

So, I find Eru unsatisfying, & try to ignore him, or put down his appearances to the character's belief systems. Accepting him as an actual character within the secondary world is too much for me. Ainulindale as 'fact' (the 'fundamentalist' approach) is something I can't stomach. Ainulindale as an Elvish creation myth, a metaphor or parable, just about works for me.

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by davem

Accepting much of what you say, it still leaves us with Eru as a cypher, while every other character is drawn in depth. He doesn't seem to fit. Maybe Tolkien didn't want to say to much about him for the reasons you give, but it still leaves him as as little more than a name. We don't know why he does most of what he does, what his intentions are, or why he bothers to do anything at all. He seems to exist only to make the world monotheistic. I suspect this is what leads readers to project their own God concepts onto him, & lead to religious arguments which get nowhere. He is probably the only character Tolkien invents who is not a 'character' at all.

I thought I explained that not "knowing his intentions" is vital for the creatures he desires to make. They have to trust and learn for themselves. If there's one moral a person can get out of the "Tale of Adanel", it's that Eru isn't pleased when his creatures beg for easy answers, from him or anyone.

Of course, you are perfectly free to see him as a cipher. But then, I think that was exactly the effect Tolkien wanted. I have strong doubts that it was unintended by him.

Originally Posted by davem

An author can't do this! A theologian may speak of the 'ineffability' of God, but a storyteller must create characters - or if he doesn't he isn't doing his job right. If someone had just popped up in Mordor to hand Sam & Frodo a canteen of water & then just wandered off again, with no explanation as to how or why he was there, we'd rightly dismiss him as a 'get out of jail free' card Tolkien was playing. We'd demand to know who he was, why he was there. We might assume there was a reason for him being there, but if there was no reason to be found (if his appearance could not be accounted for in any way & if his existence in the story was logically impossible) we'd have to say Tolkien had failed in his creation of a logically consistent secondary world - particularly if he admitted that he'd put the character in there simply because he didn't want Frodo & Sam to die of thirst & couldn't be bothered to come up with a better idea.

What makes Tolkien's stories great is that he wasn't just "an author". He was a world-builder. And when you devise and describe an entire constructed world, yes you can put irreducible mysteries in it like this. After all, what do you think Tom Bombadil is if not an irreducible mystery? People have had "arguments that go nowhere" concerning his nature for decades, but you aren't complaining about that. And the mysteries must only get deeper and yet more impenetrable when you're dealing with the One who created them in the first place.

Originally Posted by davem

Now this is not to say that Eru cannot be perceived by other characters as 'ineffable', but he shouldn't be so to the reader (or the writer), because the writer in this case is not writing a work of theology, but a story, & characters in a story must fit logically into the story & be explainable within the rules of the story world.

Tolkien wasn't just writing a story, he was writing a history. And what is, for example, the Bible if it is not a history (especially to the people who believe in it most)? Yet the reader of the Bible perceives God as being quite ineffable indeed. So why shouldn't Eru be viewed the same way, if Tolkien's intent with how the text is to be read was similar?

Originally Posted by davem

So, I find Eru unsatisfying, & try to ignore him, or put down his appearances to the character's belief systems. Accepting him as an actual character within the secondary world is too much for me. Ainulindale as 'fact' (the 'fundamentalist' approach) is something I can't stomach. Ainulindale as an Elvish creation myth, a metaphor or parable, just about works for me.

I encourage you to read it as a parable. That is what the Elves themselves did, apparently.

Originally Posted by Note on the 'Language of the Valar', from "Quendi and Eldar

If we consider the First History, which is called the Ainulindalë: this must have come from the Aratar themselves (for the most part indeed from Manwë, it is believed). Though it was plainly put into its present form by Eldar, and was already in that form when it was recorded by Rúmil, it must nonetheless have been from the first presented to us not only in the words of Quenya, but also according to our modes of thought and our imagination of the visible world, in symbols that were intelligible to us.

[davem]

Of course this means that Eru is not actually a character as such - which is waht I've been arguing. I'm not sure the analogy with Tom works. Tom is enigmatic, but he has a character & plays a specific role in his world & in the story He is a person. Eru seemingly exists only to make the mythlogy monotheistic. Eru is so far outside the world & the events of the story that effectively he is not a part of it.

Yet Tolkien insists on bringing him into the story as an active participant at certain points, & this causes a problem due the fact of his one dimensionality. When he appears it is to do something & we don't really know why he does what he does because we don't know who he is. You can't just have a metaphor popping into the story & then popping out agan - not if this changes the story in a major way. If the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan had popped up in the Gospels as an actual person we'd be totally confused as to to the point of the parables - suddenly they would become reportage & not stories with a moral truth behind them. If Ainulindale is a parable/myth how 'true' is it? Is the 'mythic' Eru the same as the Eru who appears to trahs Numenor, or is he different? We need to know more about Eru if he is to become a physical fact within the world. If we'd never encountered him outside the Music, no problem. The point at which he enters in he becomes a problem, because he becomes a fact which changes the world of which he is a part.