Relative Powers

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by lmp

So is Saucy right? And if so, what do we make of it?

I think he is, and I think what we make of it goes back to earlier observations that the list has little merit without some context.

If the context is simply that two given characters go into a cage and fight to the death, then you can sort out the beginnings of a list rather easily (I expect that's mostly what drives the current rankings, with a few notable exceptions). A theme of Tolkien's is that evil choices lead to self-defeat, whereas self-sacrificing choices lead to victory. Consequently, while evil or deeply flawed characters bring more ability and/or will to project raw power onto the field, in practice they are not as "powerful" as they might seem since their attitudes towards power and its use and the choices they make ultimately leave them vulnerable.

Originally Posted by lmp

I suddenly see a lot of what Tolkien feared in himself, in Fëanor.

Nice insight!

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

A theme of Tolkien's is that '. Consequently, while evil or deeply flawed characters bring more ability and/or will to project raw power onto the field, in practice they are not as "powerful" as they might seem since their attitudes towards power and its use and the choices they make ultimately leave them vulnerable.

I think it could be argued that this is an instance of Tolkien imposing his own beliefs, or hopes, on his creation. Certainly in M-e its true that 'evil choices lead to self-defeat, whereas self-sacrificing choices lead to victory', but is that true in the primary world? Certainly we would all wish it to be the case, but how many of us can say it reflects our everyday experience?

If Feanor was Tolkien's own alter-ego, it seems he was punishing himself for his 'sins' in Feanor's fate. Maybe Tolkien created the world as he felt it 'ought' to be in his Middle-earth. I suppose it could be argued that if the primary world had been as Tolkien felt it should be he wouldn't have bothered to create a 'secondary' one. So, was M-e really a 'reflection' of our world, an attempt to enable us to see things 'as we were meant to see them' (OFS) or was it his attempt to get us to see the world as he felt it ought to be, but plainly was not (in his view)? In short, was M-e truly 'escapist' in the pejorative sense?

Yet this begs a further question - if the 'primary' world is not (as our experience suggests) a place where goodness & compassion ultimately win out, why do we respond so strongly to a world that is so 'out of touch' with our experience? Where does our innate sense that the way things work in M-e is 'right' & the way things seem to be in the 'real' world is wrong or 'faulty' come from?

[Aiwendil]

Certainly in M-e its true that 'evil choices lead to self-defeat, whereas self-sacrificing choices lead to victory', but is that true in the primary world? Certainly we would all wish it to be the case, but how many of us can say it reflects our everyday experience?

Yet this begs a further question - if the 'primary' world is not (as our experience suggests) a place where goodness & compassion ultimately win out, why do we respond so strongly to a world that is so 'out of touch' with our experience? Where does our innate sense that the way things work in M-e is 'right' & the way things seem to be in the 'real' world is wrong or 'faulty' come from?

Interesting questions. However, I don't think that Tolkien would have seen Middle-earth as fundamentally different from the 'primary' world in this regard. It is an over-simplification to say that in Middle-earth 'evil choices lead to self-defeat, whereas self-sacrificing choices lead to victory'. Yes, this is true to an extent - but it does not mitigate the Long Defeat. Self-sacrifice does not always lead to victory, and indeed it seems that the forces of good are doomed to lose in the end - at least within the world.

But insofar as the victory that arises from self-sacrifice is the 'eucatastrophe' of the story, I think Tolkien would say that it does accurately represent the real world. Tolkien thought that the eucatastrophe was a true 'glimpse of the Evangelium'.

[davem]

However, I don't think that Tolkien would have seen Middle-earth as fundamentally different from the 'primary' world in this regard. It is an over-simplification to say that in Middle-earth 'evil choices lead to self-defeat, whereas self-sacrificing choices lead to victory'. Yes, this is true to an extent - but it does not mitigate the Long Defeat. Self-sacrifice does not always lead to victory, and indeed it seems that the forces of good are doomed to lose in the end - at least within the world.

Yet this is a central theme in LotR - it is Frodo's act of mercy to Gollum (as Tolkien himself stated) which ultimately leads to the destruction of the Ring. Yet is this actually logical, or is it Tolkien's fantasy of how acts of mercy ought to work out in real life. Of course, within the story it 'makes sense', & seems a 'logical' conclusion, but is that merely because we have been 'taken in' by the story? If we were told by someone that a similar series of events had happened in real life would we be inclined to believe them? In other words, based on our real life experiences, would we believe such a thing could happen, or would we instead think 'Er, I'd like to believe that, but life isn't like that.'

I suppose what I'm asking is, while we can accept Eucatastrophes in stories, do they actually happen in real life - or do we merely wish that they would happen? Perhaps we even convince ourselves sometimes that they do happen. But what's interesting is our desire for them - where does that come from is what I'm asking. Do stories shape our desire, make us want things that aren't true, or do they awaken a sense of something else, a sense that the stories are telling us the way things really were meant to be? Are they attempts to awaken 'memories' of 'Arda Unmarred', do they in effect 'alienate' us from our fallen state so that we will seek our unfallen state?

And, yes, I know this takes the thread way off-topic.....

EDIT. My thinking here is inspired by an essay I read recently 'the LotR as Literature' by Burton Raffel in the collection Tolkien & the Critics. Raffel mentions a story by Nathaniel West 'A Cooll Million'. In one episode

'the naive hero defends a young lady from a bully, beats the bully fair & square, holds out his hand to the bully afterwards, & is promply hauled into oblivion (the young lady, who faints at this sight, is promptly raped by the bully)'

Now what's interesting is that in reading this precis I felt the 'wrongness' of this incident far more than if I'd read of that in a newspaper as an actual event in the real world. In the latter case I'd probably have thought 'Horrible, but typical - that's the kind of society we live in!' but in a 'secondary world' its almost as if I expect 'better' from the subcreator - I want to be told how things ought to be, not how they are. Its as if West (& maybe I'm being unfair on him, as I haven't read the actual story) has 'let me down' by simply telling me how things are in the world I live in.

Yet Tolkien's Legendarium is full of such horrors as well as moral victories - The Sil in particular - but in a sense they don't move us as much, feel as 'True' as the Eucatastrophes'. They merely show us the world as we know it, as opposed to the way we feel it should be...

[drigel]

while we can accept Eucatastrophes in stories, do they actually happen in real life - or do we merely wish that they would happen?

Its as if West (& maybe I'm being unfair on him, as I haven't read the actual story) has 'let me down' by simply telling me how things are in the world I live in.

There is no "happily ever after" in that example that you gave. There was none for Frodo either. In terms of justice, that is. The rest of ME - yes. But, isnt the whole point of eucatastrophes the fact that it is an internal process? Is not whole point of self sacrifice in the deed itself, regardless of outcome? If I experience eucatastrophe standing right next to you, would you notice it?

They merely show us the world as we know it, as opposed to the way we feel it should be...

I wouldnt want it any other way. What I feel "should be" may not be how you feel.

[davem]

Originally Posted by drigel

There is no "happily ever after" in that example that you gave. There was none for Frodo either. In terms of justice, that is. The rest of ME - yes. But, isnt the whole point of eucatastrophes the fact that it is an internal process? Is not whole point of self sacrifice in the deed itself, regardless of outcome? If I experience eucatastrophe standing right next to you, would you notice it?


I wouldnt want it any other way. What I feel should be may not be how you feel.

So are Eucatastrophes merely subjective? Tolkien says the greatest Eucatastrophe was the Resurrection of Jesus. So, would you say the Eucatastrophic experience is merely how we feel about an event rather than the event itself being, by its nature, Eucatastrophic? The problem I have with that is that for an event to produce a Eucatastrophic experience in an individual it must be in response to a specific kind of event (a sudden unexpected turn of events, never to be looked for to recur', etc) - a 'miraculous grace'. If you experienced a feeling of Eucatastrophe at a particular event, & I didn't wouldn't that mean I'd missed something - ie that I wasn't responding to an objective occurrence which I should respond to in a similar way?

[littlemanpoet]

There was a potential Eucatastrophe in LotR, in the situation between Frodo, Sam, and Gollum. Though it could have been, it was not, and this was because of choice. Sméagol was on the verge of repentance when Sam woke up. What if Sam had remained asleep and Frodo woken instead? What if Sam had not reacted out of his biases, but had seen Sméagol at a spiritual crossroads, assuming that such a thing was even possible for Sam? And what if Sméagol had not withered and been subsumed into Gollum's hatred by Sam's meanness? Tolkien, it is known, did find it necessary to think out an entire plot development based on this possible turning point, so we know that it was pivotal. But Sam did react meanly. Frodo did remain asleep. Sméagol was subsumed into Gollum. Thus we had not a Eucatastrophe, but a tragedy. This tragedy became however part and parcel of a yet greater eucatastrophe, however devastating and tragic it was for Sméagol.

The example you offered, davem, was not tragedy but irony, and a most black one at that, in that it was so unremitting. There was no grace in it. We know that the world can be that ugly, and that potential is, I think, what you (and I) react so strongly against (I had the same experience watching the recent film, Crash which I never saw to the end I was so revolted).

But we also believe that primary life has the potential for grace, for eucatastrophe. (I see that I am at this point merely repeating what Tolkien said so well in On Fairy Stories.)

My point in bringing up this potential eucatastrophe in LotR is that the best stories do reflect real life as we know it, with all of its best hopes and worst fears.

I do, of course, have my own answers to the 'ultimate' questions you raise, but I feel it would be better for you to arrive at answers you need rather than for me to supply those that I need.

[drigel]

I think it could be argued that this is an instance of Tolkien imposing his own beliefs, or hopes, on his creation.

The Feanor story does have something to do with subcreation. I also read it as a tale of the inevitablitly of disaster when children abide with the holy. But it's also about decline, and pride. Feanor isnt all powerfull. He is flawed, like all of us. The power that comes from him is the work he crafted, which was greater than him or any of the other children - well nigh unto the Vala themselves. This sets him apart for me, regardless of physical attributes.

So, was M-e really a 'reflection' of our world, an attempt to enable us to see things 'as we were meant to see them' (OFS) or was it his attempt to get us to see the world as he felt it ought to be, but plainly was not (in his view)? In short, was M-e truly 'escapist' in the pejorative sense?

I dont think that was the intent of the author. It is IMO a reverse reflection, to stay with your analogy. But being of, and about Fairy is beyond conscious human history. Its Europe, not of an earlier time, rather than an earlier imagination (paraphrasing). You can define or describe a reflection, but you cant pick it up, weigh it, or break it apart.

I'm sorry, but i just couldn't read all of the replies to the topic, my primary intent here is just defend the position on 3 elves, in my opinion, the mightiest of all elves.
Fëanor, Galadriel, Fingolfin.
I really think they should be placed above the witch king (in the original and first post of the list)
Why ?

Originally Posted by drigel

The Feanor story does have something to do with subcreation. I also read it as a tale of the inevitablitly of disaster when children abide with the holy. But it's also about decline, and pride. Feanor isnt all powerfull. He is flawed, like all of us. The power that comes from him is the work he crafted, which was greater than him or any of the other children - well nigh unto the Vala themselves. This sets him apart for me, regardless of physical attributes.

Considering Fingolfin in a 1X1 contest with morgoth, he proved to be quite a worthy enemy (ok, morgoth had already shed much of his power in the land but still was supreme ruler)

Now consider Fëanor, he was the greates of all elves, because he just had more than any other. His mother just gave more of her Fëa to feed him, than did any other mom, so this fact, thus the dagor dagorath episode makes me believe he was the mightiest in body of all elves and men (i would also include "mind" but by doing this we would need to compare him with Felagund).

And Galadriel, where does she stands ? It is said that she could perfectly match any elf (phisically speaking) in the games held at Valinor , and if my memory does not fail me, she could match quite well Fëanor's phisical prowess too...

So, if Fëanor is stronger than Fingolfin and Galadriel is not far from Fëanor's power....
Thus, elves are fearless, so any of these could easily overcome the Witch-King....

I'll stop by here, let's see wat you think about my theories.

Namárië.

[littlemanpoet]

Yuukale Narmo, thanks for joining the discussion. I'm in agreement with you. Please click on the link, "Updated List", below in this post for the most recent edition of the list.

EDIT: Well, I could kick myself. I forgot to put the link up. Here goes....

Updated List