The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I have to disagree with this.

Feel free to.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

IThere are many natural disasters in the world today and we could describe none of them as 'dull'.

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.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

IOf course some people ascribe them to God but I do not (the only tragedies I ascribe to 'God' are wars and acts of terror and hatred driven by religious fervour - and even these are driven by people in extreme mental states rather than any 'God' I know).

Again, I would have to disagree, both with the assertion that such events are essentially tragic in nature and that "extreme mental states" are inevitably the cause.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

IThe Boxing Day Tsunami for example was no less tragic than 9/11 or 7/7 - the former caused by the plates of the Earth moving, the latter by an over-abundance of duty to God.

Not an especially good comparison, I must say. On the one hand, you have a random and pointless act of nature. On the other, the latest major salvo in a very old war.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

IInterestingly the impetus behind the Killer Wave came from Tolkien's dreams of an all-engulfing wave, something which seems to loom large in the collective conscience of a lot of people today. Is this due to the rising sea levels that are threatening our very existence?

Since such evidence seems yet to have surfaced, I'd have to assume that the answer is a fairly defintive no.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

ISo if Tolkien had merely written of a Killer Flood and not explicitly said Eru was behind it then it would have been just as effective, just as tragic.

Again, it would not have. Such as it is, the destruction of Numenor recalls the Biblical flood in its parallel tale of over-weening human pride and abandonment of God, and thus derives its power. As a "killer flood" it would merely have been just another freak act of nature such as tend to occur every now and then, devoid of any emotional power save in the glorification of victimhood as seems to be the fashion these days.

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

These where both replies to Davem's post and I would like to ask the simple question: Why?

Because they were wrong, simply enough. Because they violated the divinely-established conditions that had been set upon the men of Numenor.

Originally Posted by davem

But we are not talking (at least I'm not) about God, but about the character Eru. I can't think of any point at which Eru displays compassion, mercy, tolerance. He rarely displays wisdom ('Of course you can enter into Arda, Melkor!').

And how is it that you know beyond doubt that this was not wisdom?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Hookbill

I hear you.
Perhaps the reason for Tolkien's lack of development of Eru is due to a sort of fear of getting it wrong or causing too much controvacy. To go into the character too deeply might make him too obviously an allegory of the God of the Bible and may have alienated some readers who just wanted to get down to the excitement, adventure and really wild things.

I think it's that Eru simply had no place in The Hobbit or LotR. However he does have a place, putting aside all other arguments about if he was necessary, in The Silmarillion, as that book deals with cosmology and creation. Myths have Gods, so at the most simple level, Tolkien gives us some. But I do think he found the Valar inherently more interesting which is why he concentrated more on them; and even beyond this, he found the Children most interesting of all, because around 90% of his work must be devoted to them. Tolkien said Lord of the Rings is not a 'religious' work, which is why it didn't 'do' to make too much of Gods. They didn't fit his story nor did they fit what he was saying with this epic tale, which is essentially about the amazing, mind-blowing struggles of the Children.

Originally Posted by Neurion

Feel free to.

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.

Again, I would have to disagree, both with the assertion that such events are essentially tragic in nature and that "extreme mental states" are inevitably the cause.

Not an especially good comparison, I must say. On the one hand, you have a random and pointless act of nature. On the other, the latest major salvo in a very old war.

Since such evidence seems yet to have surfaced, I'd have to assume that the answer is a fairly defintive no.

Again, it would not have. Such as it is, the destruction of Numenor recalls the Biblical flood in its parallel tale of over-weening human pride and abandonment of God, and thus derives its power. As a "killer flood" it would merely have been just another freak act of nature such as tend to occur every now and then, devoid of any emotional power save in the glorification of victimhood as seems to be the fashion these days.

Because they were wrong, simply enough. Because they violated the divinely-established conditions that had been set upon the men of Numenor.

And how is it that you know beyond doubt that this was not wisdom?

First off, aside from it being ever so slightly sick to suggest that natural disasters are not worthy of notice (get caught up in one and you might think differently when other people are ignoring your cries for help), it's not even true that they do not make history, as they do.

And the 'glorification of victimhood' is some thing often trawled out by the extremes of right and left wing media these days just as a way of sying "Oh look at us, we're so rational we fail entirely to be moved by the deaths of other humans". It's quite frankly sad. Feeling sympathy, pity etc for those caught up in natural disaster is what separates us from the Apes - our inherent abilty to emphaphise, which is why Tolkien makes so much of this in his books; in contrast the Orcs do not empathise, displaying distict sociopathic tendencies - as lack of empathy is a common sign of that mental illness. It's not even a modern phenomenon. On March 11th 1864 a dam burst in the hills above Sheffield and the flood killed hundreds of people - the newspapers were full of stories for months afterwards (of great benefit to those if us who are interested in this as we have lots of documentary evidence to look at).

Oh, and the conditions set upon the Men of Numenor were not set by Eru but by the Valar.

[Tar-Telperien]

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.

I kind of get your point, but you are not the arbiter of what is emotionally moving. For example, I think that Númenor's end was extremely tragic (more so than any other scene in the entire Silmarillion), but my opinions above outline my belief that it came about through (mostly) natural means. But if you want to believe otherwise, I won't stop you.

Originally Posted by Neurion

And how is it that you know beyond doubt that this was not wisdom?

No kidding. I oppose tacking "wisdom" or "foolishness" onto Eru for the same reason that I resist attempts to tack morality on him.