Was Eru a Sadist?

[Child of the 7th Age]

I will respond only to the one issue that you raise, which is that of the istari and the limitations placed on them. This was not a matter of 'sadism'. Rather the istari were to teach and instruct Men so that the latter would be able to stand on their own feet and face whatever evil came at them.

Remember that the Fourth Age was to see the dominion of Men. What good would it have done if Gandalf and the others had come blazing in from the West and defeated Sauron with their own might? What would Men have learned? They would still be like children who are cared for by others.

It was only when things got very grim, after Gandalf fought the Balrog and was killed, that he was permitted to return with fewer restrictions placed on him. Even so, he was generally very careful to teach and persuade rather than directly confront.

[Bombadil]

Very good analogy of the Istari being like parents, thanks for clarifying!

[Bêthberry]

And finally, One could say that Eru represents Tolkien, because he created Arda - and we all know Tolkien loves to write tragically.

I see no necessary logical association between "writing tragically" and "being a sadist."

However, one of the largest quagmires in all reading is the assumption that authors usually write themselves the juiciest parts. Often the great beauty or persuasive power of an attractive character is enough to make us feel this must the author himself or herself. Such a response usually takes aesthetic power for biographical inspiration, wrongly.

Once, two major Victorian novelists met, William Makepeace Thackeray and Charlotte Bronte. She was a naive country Parson's daughter immersed in the sophisticated world of London literati for the first time. He introduced her to his dinner guests as "Jane Eyre." Unused to his games of attitudinising and play of wit, she became livid. Afterwards, a friend overheard them arguing in hi study. Thackeray, well over six feet tall, being lectured to by a small woman under five feet. Thackeray could not understand her objections to being identified with Jane; he asked if she would not associate him with Pendennis, the hero of one of his novels. She retorted no; she would call him---one of the minor characters. He was stung. She had hit home with more perspicuity than he had, with devastating effect.

Okay, what does this have to do with Tolkien? First, that our assumptions about how we go about identifying literary characters with their creators need to be very carefully reasoned. You barely consider the association between Tolkien and Eru except on this flimsiest of notions that both were creators. If you want to seek Tolkien in his work, look as Bronte did for Thackeray at his minor characters. Somewhere here on the Downs there is a thread suggesting Tolkien's close affinity with Faramir, I think it is. And even that is tentative and circumspect. Authors are far more likely to write facets of themselves into several different characters, or imbue a characters with their features amalgamated with features from several other people. They're a shifty lot, but not sadists. There's too much fun in their play.

[Bombadil]

haha i think that this thread is more of a "putting me in my place" one, and i thank you for your views on the suggestion.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Remember that the Fourth Age was to see the dominion of Men. What good would it have done if Gandalf and the others had come blazing in from the West and defeated Sauron with their own might? What would Men have learned? They would still be like children who are cared for by others.

This was precisely the point I made when my husband (the aptly named Witch-King) told me he held a grudge against Gandalf for not helping the hobbits scour the Shire at the end of the War of the Ring. Those four hobbits were more than ready for the challenges they met back at home! It is tempting to some to adopt the expressed opinion of Saruman, that mortals are Gandalf's playthings and he "drops them when their usefulness is at an end," (paraphrasing from memory here); but that is a dangerous view, and would lead to the idea that mortals are indeed but pawns in a larger game, toiling blindly without ever gaining any rewards for their labors. The higher power as sadist would then be a possibility within the minds that thought so.

Somewhere here on the Downs there is a thread suggesting Tolkien's close affinity with Faramir, I think it is. And even that is tentative and circumspect.

Tolkien wrote in one of his Letters (or it may be a footnote to a letter) in response to a question of which character is most like himself (I do not have the Letters to hand at the moment, so I can't be more specific, sorry!) that he saw himself most like Faramir, because of the more spiritual nature to Faramir's outlook. I don't remember what qualifiers he gave. Having read many of Tolkien's Letters, I can't imagine him identifying himself with Eru!

Cheers!
Lyta

[HerenIstarion]

Anyone wants to place a bet how many pages this thread can carry on? Mine gamble would be somewhat around 11 (when folks on canonicity thread get wind (as I see you already started to) of what's going on.

So, thanks to bombadil for posing such a provoking question!

In the interim, I would simply state: no, Eru was not a sadist (still more much was already said by previous participants)

And go on watching what happens next (and after that, and after what happens after that etc etc )

cheers

[davem]

Well, how much do we know about Eru's personality? (Does He have a 'personality' in teh sense in which we have a personality?)

We can't say He's a 'sadist' because we have too little evidence on which to base an analysis. He is too transcendent a figure. If we had the account of His incarnation in Middle Earth as foretold in the Athrabeth, & could see what He got up to - if he went around 'doing a Sauron', etc, then we could judge Him. Unfortunatley, we're limited to basing our judgement of Him on events which occur in Middle Earth, because we can't know his mind. Of course, one could make a case for him being uncaring - if he's so powerful, why doesn't He just make the bad stuff go away? We'd judge other supposedly 'good' characters in the story harshly if they stood by & allowed the innocent to suffer. Indeed, Tolkien seems to state very clearly (to this reader, at least, though maybe I'm just reading it into the text, & its not really there ), that there is a moral obligation to protect the innocent & if necessary, sacrifice oneself for the 'Good' & that there really is such a thing as 'Good' - deliberately capitalised, with all the implications of that acknowledged & accepted!

But as we can't see things from an 'Eruian' perspective, we don't know why He only intervenes occasionally, & in specific ways. Maybe Tolkien is trying to do a Milton, & justify the ways of God to Man, or maybe he's trying to keep the deus ex machina back for the really dramatic moments.

As Bethberry has said, we can't really equate Eru with Tolkien in a one-to-one way. Particularly if, in any way at all, he intended Eru to be a 'reflection' of God.

There is a question to be asked, perhaps, about what Tolkien's concept of God was. The God presented in Job, for example, is difficult to reconcile with 'Gentle Jesus, meek & mild'. I think Tolkien's God is the God of Job, & there we come to
another problem. As I stated in another thread, viewed literally, God in Job is playing a game with Satan, & Job is the playing piece. Littlemanpoet pointed me in another direction - seeing God's appearance to Job as an experience of Transcendence for Job, so that he is rising above his suffering, the suffering of humanity in general, & seeing it from a 'higher' perspective - If I'm not over simplifying his position - I'd advise you to read his later posts in the 'Nebulous It' thread for clarification.

Oh, please, not another long thread - Canonicity is taking over my life

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Thanks for your provocative thesis, Bombadil - that's often a good way to get an excellent discussion going. Here are my thoughts:

Eru was an artist, a musician first and foremost, not a sadist! The first few sentences of the Ainulindalë show us a Creator who:

1. Sought fellowship and relationship.

...he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the off-spring of his thought, and they were with him before aught else was made. And he spoke to them...

2. Wanted to create.

...propounding to them themes of music...

Ilúvatar... declared to them a mighty theme, unfolding to them things greater and more wonderful than he had yet revealed...

3. Wanted his creation to result in joy and glory.

...they sang before him, and he was glad.

...things greater and more wonderful than he had yet revealed; and the glory of its beginning and the splendour of its end amazed the Ainur...

4. Desired harmony.

Then Ilúvatar said to them: 'Of the theme that I have declared to you, I will now that ye make in harmony a Great Music.'

5. Encouraged others to exert their creativity and power.

And since I have kindled you with the Flame Imperishable, ye shall show forth your powers in adorning this theme, each with his own thoughts and devices...

It is all summed up in the last sentence of the third paragraph of the Ainulindalë (All of these quotes are from the first page):

'But I will sit and hearken, and be glad that through you great beauty has been wakened into song.'

A sadist is interested in exercising power over others, not letting them develop their own. He/she is destructive, not creative, and does not look for beauty to result from his/her actions. And he/she is most certainly not interested in harmony and real fellowship with others!

(I looked up 'sadism' on the M-W online dictionary; here is an excerpt:

...gratification is obtained by the infliction of physical or mental pain on others; delight in cruelty; excessive cruelty.

I can see no evidence of such gratification or delight in Eru as he is shown in the Ainulindalë.)

[edit: davem posted while I was writing this; as you can see, I do think we are given information about Eru's personality, in those very paragraphs I have quoted.]

[davem]

Well, those accounts weren't written, or even dictated by Eru Himself, so we're only getting opinions here

I still don't think we can get a clear enough sense of Eru's personality - & I'd still ask whether he has a 'personality' in the psychological sense, or an Ego or a superego, or an id - does He have a 'Self' in the Jungian sense?

In other words, can we use psychological terminology to 'psychoanalyse' Him? Can we diagnose Him as suffering from a human personality disorder? Even if we could interpret some acts in psychological terms, it being impossible to (taking the position of a creature within Middle Earth) concieve of the mind of Eru. And if we're analysing Eru as a character, we're really analysing Tolkien's concept of God, & psychoanalysing him - why would he come up with a God that behaved in a sadistic way (if we think He does).