The curse of Morgoth in CoH.

[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]

Regarding Morgoth's curse and his ability to govern the mind of Turin and others I found these passages and came to think of this old thread:

From HoME X: Myths Transformed

...'thought transference'... [is a] process of mind reading: this is but the reception, and interpretation by the receiving mind, of the impact of a thought, or thought-pattern, emanating from another mind, which is no more the mind in full or itself than is the distant sight of a man running the man himself. Minds can exibit or reveal themselves to other minds by the action of their own will (though it is doubtful if, even when willing or desiring this, a mind can actually reveal itself wholly to any other mind). It is thus a temptation to minds of greater power to govern or constrain the will of other, and weaker, minds, so as to induce or force them to reveal themselves. But to force such a revelation, or to induce it by lying or deception, even for supposedly 'good' purposes (including the 'good' of the person so persuaded or dominated), is absolutely forbidden. To so this is a crime, and the 'good' in the purposes of those who commit this crime swiftly becomes corrupted...

...and with regard to the enemy, Melkor, in particular, he [Manwe] could not penetrate by distant mind-sight his thought and purposes, since Melkor remained in a fixed and powerful will to withhold his mind, which physically expressed took shape in the darkness and shadows that surrounded him.

This seems to indicate that powerful beings such as Manwe and Melkor/Morgoth have the ability to penetrate and dominate the minds of lesser beings by means of distant mind-sight, although it is a crime to forcefully do so.

This might be what the curse in practice meant: that Morgoth tried to design a horrible fate for Hurin and his kin by means of distant mind-sight and mental domination. This process however would not be perfectly accurate, and the unwillingness and strength of will the objects in question would make it more difficult still. But do not doubt the power of Morgoth Bauglir!

[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.