The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Lalwendë]

We're still going on as though Numenor was destroyed because of many things that were not the cause of its destruction, e.g. following Sauron, being cruel to inhabitants of Middle-earth, not 'following' Eru etc. etc. Yet the 'reason' behind its destruction is given to us in the text! The motive is because the Numenoreans broke the Ban of the Valar. Note that the Numenoreans had not exactly been 'faithful' before Sauron's arrival - he was merely using their proclivities to his advantage in his mission to destroy them (and he did destroy them, with a little help from Eru ); he accelerated their end, they would probably have broken the Ban anyway.

The fact remains that it was Breaking the Ban that prompted the Valar to call upon Eru. Their worship of Sauron had nothing to do with Eru's 'punishment'. So trying to justify the deaths of innocents by saying "Oh, Eru was punishing them for being inherently evil for worshipping Sauron" doesn't wash. The punishment was for breaking the Ban - what, exactly, would a two year old tot have to do with that?

Originally Posted by SpM

I can readily accept the analogy between Eru and the God of the Old Testament. But I disagree that this resolves the problem, since I have no inclination to accept as credible that work, nor indeed to reconcile the portrayal of the God it presents with real life experience. But Tolkien is asking me, if I am to find his fantasy word credible, to accept as the source of all goodness within it the fictional God that he presents. Fine. But I find that credibility stretched to be told on the one hand that Eru is the embodiment and source of good within that world and that anything contrary to his will is evil, but be presented on the other hand with a deed perpetrated by him which I find hard to characterise as "good".

I think the crucial point is that we are not being told by Tolkien to accept the downfall of Numenor as 'good', or even as 'just'. Firstly, the story is couched in the language and imagery of tragedy, not of a lesson. This draws us back to our own myths about Atlantis/Lyonesse, lands where the people had become proud and eventually were lost to time - these stories are also told as tragedies, that humans can have the best lives, the best places to live, their own paradise, but their pride eventually leads to a downfall.

Then of course we must remember that this is a story, that Eru is a fictional character, Numenor is a fictional place, and it is entirely up to us to decide if this fictional god is 'just' or not. We are completely free to do that and Tolkien as not only a writer but a highly educated Oxford professor knew well that the reader, unless told in plain language how to read a text (which is why he tells us LotR is not an allegory, he knew that without telling us, readers may read all kinds of things into it and he did not want that to happen), will read it and judge the characters therein independently, using the text in front of them; if said text is ambiguous then the writer has done this on purpose and does not want us to reach a fixed conclusion. To think otherwise, to put assumptions onto the text, would be to denigrate Tolkien's own considerable intelligence and craft.

And then there is davem's point - is Eru actually a very well crafted god figure anyway?

Originally Posted by Raynor

I actually like the orcs of the Warcraft world. Not all orcs in all fantasies are the same. Some of them are examples of courage and nobility. The point in question was that those children were doing evil acts, which later would lead to a satanic cult at least for some of them.

Then I suppose you might think that we should also ban Hallowe'en, fancy dress parties and all games involving dress-up and make believe? Children playing at being Orcs are simply having fun, it certainly does not follow that this will result in being damaged or having a criminal frame of mind later in life! In fact, children forbidden from doing fun things such as exploring fantasy, scary stories and characters etc are probably more likely to grow up with hang ups and anxieties about such things, leading to very real psychological problems. Why, Tolkien even told his own children scary stories!

Originally Posted by Raynor

I haven't made my question clear: it is a general one, where the mother - the judge - maintains independent judgement and her morality. The consequences of letting the children live are those that I mentioned. What is your answer?

Any mother would let her child live and see what happened. That's what parents do. They do it because love is more powerful than 'morality'.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Then again, that would have left the island intact, as both the center of the empire, and, most likely, a place of corruption itself, given all the attrocities that were commited there and all the power Sauron spent in corrupting.

Well, if he was omnipotent, he could surely have removed the island as well, without killing any innocents. Although, with the corruption removed, I don’t see why the island should necessarily become a place of corruption again. Isn’t that rather like saying that the land comprising Germany should be removed from the face of the earth because it was once a place where terrible deeds were perpetrated? Of course, the fact that it was enticingly close to Valinor was a contributor to what happened, and we humans are not exactly known for learning the lessons of history. But isn’t that what free will is all about?

Originally Posted by Raynor

I take it from your statement "he could presumably have surgically removed the corrupt (and the corruptor) and left the Faithful" that in your variant there would be the same amount of victims as in the tale. Am I correct?

Not necessarily. I find it hard to believe that all those innocent of corruption escaped in the nine ships.

Originally Posted by davem

Point being: the Valar in this version did not destroy Numenor with malice aforethought, & therefore could not be held morally accountable - & those of us who have a problem with the 'official' version would not (i suspect) have such a problem with this one.

It would certainly be more consistent with the characterisation of Eru and the well-intentioned, but oft bumbling, Valar presented elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I think the crucial point is that we are not being told by Tolkien to accept the downfall of Numenor as 'good', or even as 'just' ...

Then of course we must remember that this is a story, that Eru is a fictional character, Numenor is a fictional place, and it is entirely up to us to decide if this fictional god is 'just' or not.

Quite so. Hence my freedom to view this deed as an unjust one. The problem that I have is not that I feel coerced into finding it a good or just deed. It is an issue of credibility and consistency. Eru’s act here is inconsistent with what I am being told elsewhere about him. So, in my desire for credibility and consistency within the works of a man I admire, I find myself being led to conclude either that Eru’s part in the downfall is misrepresented, or that he is not the paradigm of good that we are otherwise presented with and that the characters that believed him to be were mistaken.

[Raynor]

And after my last post, I saw SpM's...

Well, if he was omnipotent, he could surely have removed the island as well, without killing any innocents.

The question remains about those who were nonetheless tainted by Sauron's corruption, perhaps beyond redemption in the circles of the world. The Atrabeth hints that Eru can't, or won't, remove corruption in Arda unless he enters himself, at the end of time.

Not necessarily. I find it hard to believe that all those innocent of corruption escaped in the nine ships.

I don't think that there were any numenoreans who were free of corruption, yet not faithful. I don't think there was a middle ground, considering the powers at stake. And of the faithfuls, the text implies that all of them escaped. I know of no contrary proof.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

That Eru was supplicated by the valar to intervene doesn't mean he is forbidden to consider the situation of the Numenoreans more generraly, considering what was at stake by not doing so.

He is, actually. He sets that rule himself. He does not interfere with Arda, it is left to the management of the Valar. This is the one and only time he puts his nose in and he only does this because:

for that time the Valar laid down their government of Arda

If you look further, what he does is separate for ever the worlds of Men and Elves. In much the same way as Faerie is sundered from our own world except to those who know the path/Straight Road. It is not at all clear even if he intended to drown Numenor, he only intends to take Valinor away from the reach of mortals - but drown it he did, whether intentioned or not. Nothing is mentioned of it being to do with Sauron - in fact Sauron survives and goes on to greater things, having achieved his goal in having Numenor destroyed - if Eru was trying to deal with Sauron he would also have nixed all his future plans. If as you say, Eru can do what he likes (which he can't, due to a rule he imposes on himself), then we have to say "Hey! Eru! Why didn't you deal with that problem too? What do you think you're playing at?!"

Originally Posted by Raynor

Does any character in LotR or Silmarillion call this unjust? Obviously, other than the targeted numenoreans.

Note that nobody talks of Numenor anyway, so why would they talk of the more serious matter of its destruction and if that was just?

even the name of that land perished, and Men spoke thereafter not of Elenna, nor of Andor the Gift that was taken away, nor of Numen6re on the confines of the world; but the exiles on the shores of the sea, if they turned towards the West in the desire of their hearts, spoke of Mar-nu-Falmar that was whelmed in the waves, Akallabeth the Downfallen, Atalante in the Eldarin tongue.

Yes, it seems to me that Men still remained deeply hurt by the loss, and unable to talk of it. They even still desired Numenor and to go West; taking the physical reality of the place away could never remove that yearning. No, not even Eru could take that away. And with this memory still so sore in the minds of Men, this suggests that the loss of life, the human tragedy too was sore. This is clearly Tolkien asking us to think more deeply about the nature of tragedy and how it echoes down the ages.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Ok, I am growing uncomfortable myself with this line of reasoning, so I will change it. The problem is the value of individual damned lives, and not only to themselves, but in the greater scheme of things, esspecially when weighed against other lives (the numenoreans slew each other in madness), and esspecially more innocent lives (those who were sacrificied, most of whom were faithfuls). All the more, love has an object, but can the initial object of love be recognised in a Ringwraith (three were numenoreans), a Mouth of Sauron, a Necromancer, Black Numenorean (all these were or may have been numenoreans), orc (a possibility under Sauron too)? If we are to judge Eru, we are to walk in his shoes and take this extremely delicate position.

I'm not quite understanding you here. Are you equating a tiny child with a Mouth of Sauron? Are you also suggesting that a tiny child is somehow less innocent than one of the adult Faithful? Given that a two year old simply does not, cannot, understand right and wrong, how can the child make any kind of decision to be one of the 'Faithful' or not? I'd also argue that a child up to the age of about 10 (and maybe even beyond - plenty of adults cannot break free of family religious constraints) does not have the capacity to go against his or her parents' moral/religious wishes so he or she simply cannot be held to account for decisions taken for the child. Likewise, no child is born 'evil' - this is a dangerous way of thinking. All young children are absolute innocents ready and waiting for the experience of life itself to shape them - the baby of a drug dealer or terrorist or despot is still an innocent child nonetheless and all of them possess the potential to grow and to be different to their parents. How many of us have followed our parents blindly? Few of us. That personal experience alone should tell us just how innocent children really are!

[Raynor]

He is, actually. He sets that rule himself. He does not interfere with Arda, it is left to the management of the Valar.

Again, false dilemma. His interventions and the government of the valar are not mutually exclusive. I have gave plenty of arguments in that respect. Perhaps you could back your statement too?

If you look further, what he does is separate for ever the worlds of Men and Elves.

That's a questionable argument at best. Men were forbidden to access Valinor from the begining, which became after the war of wrath the de facto destination of all elves, as they have been "if not commanded, then sternly counselled" to go there.

It is not at all clear even if he intended to drown Numenor, he only intends to take Valinor away from the reach of mortals

I already asked what reasons are there that this was an accident, overstepping the initial objectives. Would you care to answer?

if Eru was trying to deal with Sauron he would also have nixed all his future plans.

Myths Transformed stated that Sauron was a problem Men had to deal with finnally.

Note that nobody talks of Numenor anyway, so why would they talk of the more serious matter of its destruction and if that was just?

Note that they still reffer to it, though by not its initial name, but by a name that, at least metaphorically, justifies its drowning: the downfallen. Note that Faramir reffers to it. It is also mentioned by those who composed the appendices.

They even still desired Numenor and to go West

As in breaking that ban again?? What do you mean?

Are you equating a tiny child with a Mouth of Sauron?

No. Since we are playing judging Eru, I am proposing to take his perspective. I believe that the extent of Sauron's corruption would have left, after a certain period of time, none of the Numenoreans (who weren't faithfuls) a choice to redeem themselves, not in the circles of the world, no matter what age they had. They were doomed to be in thraldom to evil, due to the amount of power Sauron spent to corrupt them.

[Raynor]

You seem to be saying 'Its better for a child who has chosen evil to die rather than grow up to be a 'monster''

When did I say any Numenorean child chose to be evil? What I argued, concerning the children, was that they were tainted. If you look back, you will see that I argued that chosing sides was possible at most at the beginning of Sauron's corruption. Please don't misrepresent my arguments.

"Systematic extermination of a whole people is morally unnaceptable - whatever they have done"

False analogy; the germans were not tainted by Sauron. And the judge is in one case Eru, in the other (this letter) humans. Of humans, Tolkien said they should judge others with utmost mercy, if they are to expect mercy. I believe this letter it is in the spirit of that idea.

In fact, I don't think the fact that the story of Numenor was developed & introduced into the Legendarium in the 1940's is entirely coincidental.

According to the Chronology volume of Hammond and Scull, Tolkien first wrote of Numenor in about 1936 or 1937.

Of course a person may put themselves in a position where it is necessary to kill them as a last resort. But to kill them is to take away their free will.

Which, in that situation, is of secondary importance.

Tolkien may use 3 or 4 different words in the Intro to LotR which mean 'entertainment' but because he doesn't use the actual word 'entertainment' you argue his intention was not to 'entertain'.

IIRC, I was only arguing that what he wrote in paragraph does not exclude religion - which was your point.

The punishment suffered by the Queen in Snow White is cruel (as I remember she is forced to wear red hot shoes & dance until she falls down dead) & Tolkien speaks of child readers liking this kind of 'justice'.

This kind of justice? Let me ask you again: where does Tolkien say that children like cruel justice?

Because it is stated that the Valars' purpose was to remove The Undying Lands from danger

Since I dont know if you mean this literary, that it was their intent to remove Aman from Arda, or metaphorically, that they wanted the danger on Aman removed, please provide the quote you are reffering to.

Numenor happened to be on the edge of the rift

To interpret the text "Numenor itself on the edge" as meaning that it was there by mistake contradicts the logic of the story. Such a tremendous mistake, esspecially considering the status of those made it (Eru or the Valar, whichever you will) is almost inconceivable, impossible. And there is no evidence of the existence of such an error, only an interpretation which takes the event out of context.

The way I read it, you don't just want the Numenoreans dead, you want them executed.

This is a learning process for me. I do admit I can be proven wrong in the end. Please make this the last assumtion you make on my part.

One that convinces, behaves consistently, one who, if he is declared to be loving, compassionate & wise (as well as all-powerful) doesn't execute children.

And I presume that you think that Eru didn't live up to this, at least in the case of Numenor. However, when I have asked if there was any other way to end this story in a better manner, no viable option was offered. Accusing him of doing worse than he could, although we don't know of doing that any better, is, well, wrong.

So you are saying that he pre-judged the strength of their will to resist corruption when removed from the source of corruption?

Yes. Tolkien speaks of encounters with evil that one cannot overcome. We also have the shadow cast on Maeglin by Melkor, or the allegiance of the ringwraiths to Sauron. Furthermore, when Sauron's power is objectified in an object, it can bend the will of those who it taints; I believe this was the case with Numenor too, that Numenor itself, by and large, became a medium of his corruption.

And, if he was so concerned to prevent those of his Children who became irrevocably tainted with corruption from having to endure such a life, why did he allow the continued propagation of Orcs?

That orcs have fea is a matter of debate, as far as I understand. I don't know if we can come with a relevant conclusion on this part.

[drigel]

So you are saying that he pre-judged the strength of their will to resist corruption when removed from the source of corruption? Isn't that rather at odds with the gift of free will that he gave to them?

Furthermore, when Sauron's power is objectified in an object, it can bend the will of those who it taints; I believe this was the case with Numenor too, that Numenor itself, by and large, became a medium of his corruption.

Great point.

"beyond redemption" is the problem. But, when they chose to have the devil reside amongst them, free will becomes hijacked, I suppose. Sauron's deific powers, and his desire to be the enabler of their undoing, poses threats that even the high Numenoreans had no armor to protect themselves against. Couched in what looks like free will they sailed west, they didnt have a gun to their head to set sail, not physically. But, spiritually they had lost a fight that they never had a chance to win, in the first place. Is this why there was no proselytizing by the faithful? No unselfish act of martyredom, because there was no hope?

The crux lies in the idea of a time when the holy (and unholy) bestrode Ea with its inhabitants (including hapless man), and the time of transition to what we would call today's reality. The seperation of the spiritual and the physical. Cant make the omelet without breaking some eggs eh?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

When did I say any Numenorean child chose to be evil? What I argued, concerning the children, was that they were tainted. If you look back, you will see that I argued that chosing sides was possible at most at the beginning of Sauron's corruption. Please don't misrepresent my arguments.

And therefore they had no free will in any real sense for Eru to take away. Thus, any restrictions on his actions imposed by a desire not to remove their free will are obviated. He does not need to concern himself with their free will at all, because Sauron has already taken it away - which removes the justification you offer for his actions.

False analogy; the germans were not tainted by Sauron. And the judge is in one case Eru, in the other (this letter) humans. Of humans, Tolkien said they should judge others with utmost mercy, if they are to expect mercy. I believe this letter it is in the spirit of that idea.

Which means what, exactly? That an action which is 'morally wrong' for a human is morally right for God? Which means, what, that Divine morality & human morality may be totally opposed?

According to the Chronology volume of Hammond and Scull, Tolkien first wrote of Numenor in about 1936 or 1937. Which, in that situation, is of secondary importance.

And, being aware of that fact, I stated it was in the '40's that the account of Numenor was introduced & developed, not that it was in the 40's that Tolkien began writing about it. And besides, the point about possible influence of Nazism on Tolkien's thought is not contradicted by the 30's date, as the Nazi movement was on the rise in the 30's.

IIRC, I was only arguing that what he wrote in paragraph does not exclude religion - which was your point.

I thought we were to refrain from telling each other what our 'points' were.....

This kind of justice? Let me ask you again: where does Tolkien say that children like cruel justice?

Again, I think the problem is that are ignoring the spirit & implications of statements made. You refuse to accept that Miriel was one of the faithful because no-one has yet given you a quote in which Tolkien wrote 'Miriel was one of the faithful.' Does Tolkien anywhere say 'Frodo was a good person who sacrificed himself for others'? But does he need to? Is the reader not capable of picking up hints?

Since I dont know if you mean this literary, that it was their intent to remove Aman from Arda, or metaphorically, that they wanted the danger on Aman removed, please provide the quote you are reffering to.

The Valar lay down their delegated power & appeal to God, & receive the power & permission to deal with the situation: the old world is broken & changed. A chasm is opened in the sea & Tar-Calion (sic) & his armada is engulfed. Numenor itself on the edge of the rift topples & vanishes for ever with all its glory in the abyss.

Now, the 'situation' referred to is clearly not the general behaviour of the Numenoreans - which had been going on for a good while. The situation, clearly, is the attack of the fleet - this is clear because the result of the Valar's action is to open a chasm & engulf the fleet. The fact that the fate of Numenor is described in the passive (its on the edge of the rift & topples over) implies that it was a side effect, not a direct consequence.

And I presume that you think that Eru didn't live up to this, at least in the case of Numenor. However, when I have asked if there was any other way to end this story in a better manner, no viable option was offered. Accusing him of doing worse than he could, although we don't know of doing that any better, is, well, wrong.

If a new TV has a blurry, out of focus picture & distorted sound I can declare there is something wrong with it - even if I couldn't make a TV set myself, or even fix the faults on that one.

What you're missing is that many of us are uncomfortable with Eru's behaviour. Telling us 'Well, Tolkien said it was fine' is not to the point. If I said 'Celery makes me sick' that would be a fact. For you to respond 'Well, I've checked with a nutritionist & she says it can't make you sick, & there's nothing else to eat' is to completely misunderstand the situation & ignore the simple fact that celery makes me sick. Throw up all the quotes you want but it won't address the real issue of how many readers feel about what happened.