The curse of Morgoth in CoH.

[davem]

I just recently read a comment by the late Icelandic scholar Magnus Magnusson on Njal's Saga"

With his (Njal's) wisdom & foresight he struggles to control events which are ultimately uncontrolable because they are pre-ordained, not by some impersonal supernatural force of destiny but by the predispositions & propensities of the human beings involved...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

I just recently read a comment by the late Icelandic scholar Magnus Magnusson on Njal's Saga"

It's been some time since I read CoH, but this describes my sense at the time, that the terrible consequences arose because of the nature of the people involved.

Rather than yawing about evil, it is perhaps helpful to consider the various defintions of "curse".

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

–noun 1. the expression of a wish that misfortune, evil, doom, etc., befall a person, group, etc.
2. a formula or charm intended to cause such misfortune to another.
3. the act of reciting such a formula.
4. a profane oath; curse word.
5. an evil that has been invoked upon one.
6. the cause of evil, misfortune, or trouble.
7. something accursed.
8. Slang. the menstrual period; menstruation (usually prec. by the).
9. an ecclesiastical censure or anathema.
–verb (used with object) 10. to wish or invoke evil, calamity, injury, or destruction upon.
11. to swear at.
12. to blaspheme.
13. to afflict with great evil.
14. to excommunicate.
–verb (used without object) 15. to utter curses; swear profanely.

. . .

—Synonyms 1, 9. imprecation, execration, fulmination, malediction. 5. misfortune, calamity, trouble. 5, 6. bane, scourge, plague, affliction, torment. 10-12. Curse, blaspheme, swear are often interchangeable in the sense of using profane language. However, curse is the general word for the heartfelt invoking or angry calling down of evil on another: They called down curses on their enemies. To blaspheme is to speak contemptuously or with abuse of God or of sacred things: to blaspheme openly. To swear is to use the name of God or of some holy person or thing as an exclamation to add force or show anger: to swear in every sentence. 13. plague, scourge, afflict, doom.
—Antonyms 1, 9. blessing, benediction. 10. bless.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: bef. 1050; ME curs (n.), cursen (v.), OE curs (n.), cursian (v.), of disputed orig.]

What evidence exists that Morgoth's curse was an actual "charm to cause misfortune" or "an evil that has been invoked"? If we see personality and disposition coming into play, as davem's quote from the Icelandic scholar suggests, then 'curse' is simply "an expression of a wish that misfortune fall" or that "heartfelt invoking or angry calling down of evil". Morgoth was one angry fella. It's easy to be spooked by someone's ill will and quite possibly that is all that operates in any way on Turin, messing with his mind, which is a particularly stubborn, obdurate (perhaps 'unbending' might be more precise), and determined one, as is his mother's.

What might be more useful than arguing definitions of evil is clarifying what "curse" means.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

What might be more useful than arguing definitions of evil is clarifying what "curse" means.

I don't believe in "curses" either

And I suppose Tolkien's various curses and prophesies (that all come true) are narrative tecnique more than anything else. Reminds me of the old greek tragedies where the protagonist goes to Delphi, is told his (un-)fortune and spends the rest of the play vainly trying to avoid it.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I don't believe in "curses" either

And I suppose Tolkien's various curses and prophesies (that all come true) are narrative tecnique more than anything else. Reminds me of the old greek tragedies where the protagonist goes to Delphi, is told his (un-)fortune and spends the rest of the play vainly trying to avoid it.

Actually, if all we do is read for what we personally believe in, then we read solipsistically without much chance of understanding or learning anything new or challenging.

So one's belief or lack of belief in curses or absolute evil might be a starting point in the reading process, but if that process does not engage with how the text presents those ideas, then no communication truly takes place.

Your comparison to Delphi raises an interesting question, though: does Tolkien employ Greek/Classical notions of fate or does he look to Northern notions? Is there in fact any difference between the two cultures?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Your comparison to Delphi raises an interesting question, though: does Tolkien employ Greek/Classical notions of fate or does he look to Northern notions? Is there in fact any difference between the two cultures?

Tolkien was probably more influenced by the concept of Wyrd

Wyrd refers to how past actions continually affect and condition the future, but also how the future affects the past. The concept of Wyrd highlights the interconnected nature of all actions and how they influence each other. Wyrd, though related, is not the same as predestination. Unlike predestination, Wyrd allows for the expression and assertion of one's individual wyrd - essentially one's will or destiny. However, this is always constrained by the wyrd of others. Nevertheless, one is able to influence to some extent the 'weaving' of fate.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyrd

I think the most interesting question about the 'curse' is whether it is strictly necessary - ie, would anything have turned out differently, given the nature of the individuals involved, if Morgoth had simply lied to Hurin about having cursed his children? Is there anything in the story which actually requires an active curse, or was the idea of the curse sufficient? I can't help but feel that, given 'the predispositions & propensities of the human beings involved' an active force of 'Evil' driving Turin & Nienor to their doom is somewhat surplus to requirements. Or, to put it another way, if the curse element was removed from the story, would there be any aspect of it that made no sense?

[Bêthberry]

Quickly and off the top of my head, I'd say that Morgoth's gloating torture of Hurin would lose a fair bit of its vengeful force. (Still, there are many parents who are forced to watch their children make unfortunate choices which they (the parents) are powerless to advise or correct.) And I suppose that Nienor's fate would seem too improbable? I'd have to reread to be sure of that.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by skipspence

I don't believe in the existance of evil in any absolute sense.

I don't believe in "curses" either

Prove the existence of belief and unbelief.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien was probably more influenced by the concept of Wyrd

I think the most interesting question about the 'curse' is whether it is strictly necessary - ie, would anything have turned out differently, given the nature of the individuals involved, if Morgoth had simply lied to Hurin about having cursed his children? Is there anything in the story which actually requires an active curse, or was the idea of the curse sufficient? I can't help but feel that, given 'the predispositions & propensities of the human beings involved' an active force of 'Evil' driving Turin & Nienor to their doom is somewhat surplus to requirements. Or, to put it another way, if the curse element was removed from the story, would there be any aspect of it that made no sense?

As for the concept of Wyrd and whether Tolkien was influenced by it or not I can't say much as I'm not familiar with it.

As far as I can remember there are no parts of CoH that require an active curse. Yet the curse is treated as quite real and active in the narrative and by the characters involved. And IMO the curse is active as I think I've explained (or tried to) previously in this thread. I believe Melkor's marring is meant to have an effect on 'the predispositions & propensities of the human beings involved' and that the curse is working as a moral corruption upon the afflicted people much like the general marring, but more concentrated.