The Original Breaking of the Fellowship - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Kalessin · 05-04-2002, 07:16 PM

Interesting post, Halfir - just don't start a free will debate [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

As far as I can see from Tolkien's contextual writings, The Silmarillion is intended to 'act' as myth, but as myth that is comprehensible (and perhaps appropriate) to those who are at least familiar enough with Christian concepts to both accept and understand the kind of divinity, semi-divinity and cause-and-effect (ie. the nature of The Fall) that are central to the work.

The parallels between the Valar and the Fellowship are at least matched by the differences. And the number of members seems to me the most obvious and the least important. Halfir's analysis of Melkor's embitterment is impressive - note how he attempts to 'create' by macabre interbreeding and corruption of life forms that already exist. Boromir is a nicely drawn character, and the subsequent introduction of Faramir and then Denethor provide a strong subplot based around the family relationships - the point being that Boromir is essentially mortal ... his one 'fall', or temptation by the ring, is dramatically different from the discordant music that begins Melkor's transformation. Boromir commits only one 'evil' action, and there is both a personal redemption for him, and the narrative redemption - the ultimate triumph of goodness in RotK. Melkor/Morgoth is offered opportunities for redemption at various points in The Silmarillion, but remains Fallen ... he simply pretends in order to survive and rebuild. At the last, all opportunity to repent is removed and he is subject to summary judgement and timeless punishment. These contrasts between characters (and narratives) seem to me pretty compelling reasons not to read too much into parallels.

And I think Tolkien did like the number 9 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Peace

05-04-2002, 07:16 PM	#16
Kalessin Wight Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Earthsea, or London Posts: 175	Interesting post, Halfir - just don't start a free will debate [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] As far as I can see from Tolkien's contextual writings, The Silmarillion is intended to 'act' as myth, but as myth that is comprehensible (and perhaps appropriate) to those who are at least familiar enough with Christian concepts to both accept and understand the kind of divinity, semi-divinity and cause-and-effect (ie. the nature of The Fall) that are central to the work. The parallels between the Valar and the Fellowship are at least matched by the differences. And the number of members seems to me the most obvious and the least important. Halfir's analysis of Melkor's embitterment is impressive - note how he attempts to 'create' by macabre interbreeding and corruption of life forms that already exist. Boromir is a nicely drawn character, and the subsequent introduction of Faramir and then Denethor provide a strong subplot based around the family relationships - the point being that Boromir is essentially mortal ... his one 'fall', or temptation by the ring, is dramatically different from the discordant music that begins Melkor's transformation. Boromir commits only one 'evil' action, and there is both a personal redemption for him, and the narrative redemption - the ultimate triumph of goodness in RotK. Melkor/Morgoth is offered opportunities for redemption at various points in The Silmarillion, but remains Fallen ... he simply pretends in order to survive and rebuild. At the last, all opportunity to repent is removed and he is subject to summary judgement and timeless punishment. These contrasts between characters (and narratives) seem to me pretty compelling reasons not to read too much into parallels. And I think Tolkien did like the number 9 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Peace