The curse of Morgoth in CoH.

[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 littlemanpoet

Prove the existence of belief and unbelief.

Just a brief comment as I'm afraid the post will disappear.

In a strict sense you can't really prove anything with absolute certainty. In practice you can prove some things, such as the laws of thermodynamics or gravity. "Belief" or "unbelief" are just words to describe an indirectly observable human action, much like "afraid" or "hungry". There's no need to prove them as the concepts are universally agreed upon, even though the words used differ from culture to culture. Therefore I don't think it is fair to compare them with evil, which isn't an observable concept, directly or indirectly. Unlike "belief" or "unbelief", the distinction between "good" or "evil" is a creation of man (or god if you believe in that).

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by skip spence

Just a brief comment as I'm afraid the post will disappear.

In a strict sense you can't really prove anything with absolute certainty. In practice you can prove some things, such as the laws of thermodynamics or gravity. "Belief" or "unbelief" are just words to describe an indirectly observable human action, much like "afraid" or "hungry". There's no need to prove them as the concepts are universally agreed upon, even though the words used differ from culture to culture. Therefore I don't think it is fair to compare them with evil, which isn't an observable concept, directly or indirectly. Unlike "belief" or "unbelief", the distinction between "good" or "evil" is a creation of man (or god if you believe in that).

Show that the concepts of good and evil are not universally agreed upon.

[skip spence]

^I believe that's selfevident by our disagreement.

I will however gladly concede that a majority, including me, agrees about many key distinctions between "good" and "evil". But I think this discussion should end here as we won't progress any further with it.

[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.