Turin the Hopeless?

[Lalwendë]

Well my thought is that this shows us yet again the two contradictory sides of Tolkien - he is at one moment a believer in Hope and at the next a believer in Fate. On Fairy-Stories was written in 1939, after the publication of the Hobbit, and as Tolkien said in the newly released BBC interview seen on Newsnight last week, some of the thought behind On Fairy-Stories sprang from the reactions of his own children to stories he told them. Lord of the Rings also sprang up at the same time in his life. Children of Hurin however sprang from an earlier, darker phase of Tolkien's life, from the 'war years'.

A person of course, is allowed to take differing views, not to fix upon one way of looking at life! We do get ourselves in knots trying to pin poor Tolkien down to being either Northern or Catholic - when he was both! That's why it's best not to fix on something and then go looking for it, but to read what he says and then see what flows from that...

And what does flow for one is that these periods of Middle-earth's history are quite different. Both are without any visible presensce of Eru or the 'good' Valar, both have Dark Lords - but in the earlier period that Dark Lord is a very real, very physical presence involved with the tangible world whereas later on, Sauron is very distant and remote. The Third Age is more 'modern' in that the Gods are more remote, less 'real', more like true legends. The First Age however is much more like the 'Pagan' age in that the Gods are very real, so real that you can be killed by one in battle, or taken captive by one, that you can try to find them and plead with them. The former would give you a sense of control of your own destiny and hence, a belief in things like hope, which you could bring into being yourself; the latter would leave you feeling subject to Fate and to Wyrd.

[davem]

Of course. Still, its interesting how Tolkien breaks his own rules regarding Fairy story. Then again, it could be argued (has been - here for instance http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/ID24Aa01.html, that his purpose was a more subtle one in CoH - to point up the bleakness & hopelessness of the Pagan worldview.

Of course, reading the Turin saga as part of The Sil is one thing - the Eucatastrophe is present in the War of Wrath & the overthrow of Morgoth. It is not present, however, in the Children of Hurin when read as a stand alone work - which is how it is presented now for the first time.

So, was Tolkien merely writing CoH to point up the failings of the Pagan worldview? Seems a very long, laborious way of going about it if he was. Or was he rather setting out the Pagan ideal? It seems to me that CoH is a story far better suited to a post Christian world than LotR, or at least a story that is easier to understand. I can identify with Turin far more than with Frodo, or even Sam. They may be people I'd like to be, but I know Turin is far more like I actually am.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

So, was Tolkien merely writing CoH to point up the failings of the Pagan worldview? Seems a very long, laborious way of going about it if he was. Or was he rather setting out the Pagan ideal? It seems to me that CoH is a story far better suited to a post Christian world than LotR, or at least a story that is easier to understand. I can identify with Turin far more than with Frodo, or even Sam. They may be people I'd like to be, but I know Turin is far more like I actually am.

Anyway! No, I don't think it does point out a pessimistic view of the 'Pagan' world - it may be a world where the Gods are closer to hand and so was Fate, as they were in the Pagan world, but there's something else very odd here. These are people close at hand to the Elves, the very Elves who have lived in the Undying Lands and who have lived with the Ainur. They know all about Eru, perhaps more than any other Men ever would - and yet they have less hope? What does that tell us about their times? About Eru? About Hope?

[Lalaith]

What is also interesting is the recurring refrain in CoH of how unfortunate it was that Turin didn't die at various given points in the story. Also how lucky it is for people when Turin passes out of their lives - eg Nellas. This gives a strong sense that his situation really is hopeless.

Norse culture draws a very strong link between morality and luck. Even today, in Icelandic, somebody really morally reprehensible, a child molester for example, might be referred to as "ogaefumadur", or a man of ill fortune.
This idea is very prominent in Turin's story. Turin's hopelessness is very much tied in with his own perception of himself as a man of ill fortune. The whole issue of him refusing to return to Doriath, and thus be protected from Morgoth, is related to his pride - but was his pride the result of his ill fortune, or vice versa?

Interestingly, in CoH we have a very strong sense of Morwen also being cursed with pride which leads to terrible errors of judgement, while Nienor is more let off the hook - her main motive for leaving Doriath with her mother was the hope that her insistence would make Morwen turn back.

[Lalaith]

They know all about Eru, perhaps more than any other Men ever would - and yet they have less hope? What does that tell us about their times? About Eru? About Hope?

There's a really interesting speech by Turin on this very subject in CoH.
*goes to look*

[davem]

Just been re-reading the essay/review I linked to. The writer seems to see CoH as a work 'reflecting' what he sees as the pre-Christian world, full of hopeless, futile heroics which lead to disaster even as they achieve (transitory) victory. He also seems to believe that LotR is a work that reflects the 'Christian' world which superceded the 'Pagan'. Heroism is neither hopeless nor futile & victory may be permanent. God is (as far as the writer is concerned at least) fully present in the world of LotR, whereas he is conspicuous by his absence in CoH. Now, as I've pointed out, if we take the stories in chronological order in M-e history this theory fits as a 'reflection' of Primary world history - the world of CoH is the First Age, that of LotR is the Third.

If, however, we look at when the two works were published then we see the opposite - LotR appeared in the mid 1950's, when Churchgoing (in Britain/Europe at least) was the norm. Every home had a Bible, (which was well read, btw) & most everyone (in Britain again) considered themselves Christian. CoH has just appeared, in 2007, in (again from the British/European perspective) a post Christian world.

"The Valar! They have forsaken you, and they hold Men in scorn. What use to look westward across the endless Sea to a dying sunset in the West? There is but one Vala with whom we have to do, and that is Morgoth; and if in the end we cannot overcome him, at least we can hurt him and hinder him ... Though mortal Men have little life beside the span of the Elves, they would rather spend it in battle than fly or submit."

This statement reflects, for the majority in the post-Christian world, our shared worldview far better than the 'Estel' we find in LotR. In short, it seems to me that the books have actually appeared in the correct sequence to reflect the change that has taken place in the Primary world...

Doesn't CoH actually feel more 'contemporary' than LotR?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by davem

If, however, we look at when the two works were published then we see the opposite - LotR appeared in the mid 1950's, when Churchgoing (in Britain/Europe at least) was the norm. Every home had a Bible, (which was well read, btw) & most everyone (in Britain again) considered themselves Christian. CoH has just appeared, in 2007, in (again from the British/European perspective) a post Christian world.

This statement reflects, for the majority in the post-Christian world, our shared worldview far better than the 'Estel' we find in LotR. In short, it seems to me that the books have actually appeared in the correct sequence to reflect the change that has taken place in the Primary world...

Doesn't CoH actually feel more 'contemporary' than LotR?

Only to add a little correction to the first part: in Western Europe, to be precise.

However, I agree with the second, though I think it was hardly an intention. I agree with that it corresponds much with the change in the Primary world, meaning now the general post-modernistic paradigm, where there actually is nothing certain and for some people, it can lead even to a loss of hope. We saw the rise and fall of big ideologies of the 20th century, from what streams the experience that nothing can be taken for certain, and people who cannot bear the "non-simplified" point of view can be really shaken. Though, I think to doubt is not a reason to lose hope, which would be for another topic. But what I wanted to say is, that though I agree with what you said, I certainly wouldn't like to see the story of Túrin as "hopeless": though it is a sad story, terrific almost (well... why almost? It is), it is the typical storyline we all know from for example Romeo&Juliet. But I don't know why, Tolkien's works, even "dark stories" like that of Húrin's children, have some light in it. This might be, as you say, the Northern heroic image (and I think we might easily track the source - cf. Tolkien's "Monsters and critics" and what he said about Beowulf). But let's face it, the Northern heroic image is ultimately hopeless. "Great deeds worth entering songs, even if there will be no one to sing them." This is exactly the classification of them. But in Tolkien, on the contrary, even the quoted part from the "last" ride of the Rohirrim, although dark in itself, is broken by the typical miraculous blow of estel (here even literally). Why I never felt the tale of CoH really depressing might be that I knew the context: I knew there is hope all around it, before and after, I knew it will ultimately not end in darkness, I know the light will prevail. If anyone read the tale of Túrin out of context, which would be theoretically possible now after releasing CoH, someone might just see it as one separate dark heroic story. But speaking for myself, I always see the larger world behind it - and to be honest, I think no one will just read CoH without at least hearing (even if he didn't want to) of the larger world Tolkien created, he will know Morgoth is going to be defeated etc. This does not change anything on the story itself, though: the complete experience of Túrin and the folk of Dor-Lómin and the whole Beleriand at times after Nirnaeth Arnoediad, the grave situation, can be felt from the story. But why not, it is the reality of the shadow, the true reality, not some cheap pretending of such a thing - the suffering and pain is real. But still, we know this shadow eventually passes away. (What more, if we take the prophecy of Mandos into account, then even Túrin himself will be the one who kills Morgoth, which I would consider quite "just".) But as I said: I don't need these things and after-world signs to have a "feeling of hope beyond Túrin" - it just comes from the tale itself, somehow, Tolkien-wise perhaps, as I said earlier. Does anyone else in here feel the way I do?