Most Tragic Moment?

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Does change always mean a defeat of hope? I don't think so.

If you ask Nietzsche, Tolstoy, Jünger, Heidegger... yes it does. But if you ask the enlightenment philosophers, Marx, J.S. Mill, the socialist movement, the technocrats... no it doesn't. Change is for the better or worse.

But as a true romantic, J.R.R. did not love change?

[Aaron]

I am the same, I think the tragedy is that you grow so attached to the characters and they mean so much to you as a reader that in a sense you yearn for further perils so that they can continue as they did in the past. But all things eventually change.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But as a true romantic, J.R.R. did not love change?

But was J.R. "a true romantic"? Oh, my, we have another word to define!

Originally Posted by Aaron

I think the tragedy is that you grow so attached to the characters and they mean so much to you as a reader that in a sense you yearn for further perils so that they can continue as they did in the past.

Ghoulish, isn't it, how much enjoyment some have in wanting to see others struggle even more.

Originally Posted by The Snide One

You could give up on breakfast altogether, and sit on your duff despondently in the kitchen, or simply microwave some waffles.

Tragic, en't it, how the standards of cookery have declined with that wretched microwave.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Tragic, en't it, how the standards of cookery have declined with that wretched microwave.

Tragedy is not being able to leave the Shire, to leave that which is comfortable and familiar for that which is unknown. Maybe Eru permitted Sauron in order to kick the Elves out of their kitchen (stocked mainly with regrets, formaldehyde and songs about how things used to be) and onto either the East or West Road.

If only Biblo hadn't left his door.

[Thinlómien]

Does change always mean a defeat of hope? I don't think so.

No, it doesn't. Or yes, it does defeat some hope, but not all hope. Change can be good, bad or neutral, but it always leaves the heart longing for something. I guess that human is such a languor-minded species that when happy, s/he finds some, however little, good things s/he misses in the previous horrible state, though s/he does not miss the horrible thing per se.

(Am I making any sense ?)

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

(Am I making any sense?)

A lot, I think.

In totally desperate situations people are able to tend even a tiniest spark of hope and in the moments of luxury and ease they are able to long for harder times.

But yes. I see a lot of hope there in the end of the LotR. It will be different, but not just bad or terrible. And in our "good ages" we may then long for the past strifes and troubles with their honour and beauty. Like good romantics do. (Touché, Bêthberry - we really should define that word, but maybe next time? )

[yavanna II]

Does change always mean a defeat of hope? I don't think so.

Entrophy, my dears. It's a universal law, and it (I think) applies to Tolkien's world as well. But that doesn't mean there's always a defeat of hope, because if there is, then ME and Arda would have been destroyed beyond repair.

[Mänwe]

I personally would say that the entrance, rather the inclusion of Tom Bombadil was the most tragic event. Tolkien introduced us to a character that immediately 'stuck out'. A character you knew was something special, but whose involvement was cruelly cut short and confined to a mere few pages, never being fully developed or explained.

Perhaps something that made him one of the better characters. Alas, I sigh and can only dream.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by yavanna II

Entrophy, my dears. It's a universal law, and it (I think) applies to Tolkien's world as well. But that doesn't mean there's always a defeat of hope, because if there is, then ME and Arda would have been destroyed beyond repair.

Truly the Second Law rules the day, and will have the last laugh, though none be present to hear it, but remember, this Law has been in effect since Day 1 (you know what I mean) and all must bow before it, yet localized systems of order have appeared, and so we have galaxies, planets, persons, the Children of Beren and Tinúviel, the Last Alliance...

All is not lost.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by yavanna II

Entrophy, my dears. It's a universal law, and it (I think) applies to Tolkien's world as well. But that doesn't mean there's always a defeat of hope, because if there is, then ME and Arda would have been destroyed beyond repair.

Isn't it so, that order and organisation can be introduced into any system if it comes from outside it, and if there is no outside force to create order then everything will go towards disorder? (The original law, if I recollect it right, says something like that the differences will smooth down and thrive towards being even)

So the outer forces from the point of view of ME have been all the time backing the order (t)here: the Valar, the Maiar and even the elves in their own way. Now they are leaving it all to us humans in the end of the stories.

So we humans can still affect things outside ourselves, eg. molding stone into beautifully organised patterns like statues or great architecture, bringing sounds together to make organised music and whatever. But there is no force any more to hold us humans in balance or order? So how long can we fight this alone?

If one looks at different myths from around the world, there seems to be a recurrent theme where people are created to fight alongside gods to defeat disorder or chaos (the Northern legends, the Babylonians, somewhat the Bible or the Indian Veda's too) or there is a strong emphasis on the importance of balance / order, like in Asian world-views etc. Maybe we humans have the hope (coming back to my theme) then anyhow? Can we sustain the order of things against the natural law of chaos gaining ground everywhere? With the law of entropy, we are forced to fight against it every minute as we are without the help from beyond our system, now as all the forces that might help us have withdrawn!

Isn't this the most tragic thing in the books?

Or are these just old-time "religious" views of the world that do not appreciate the fact that we humans have made all the order and happiness ourselves in the first place?

Or is the tragedy in there as we can't know, which one of the answers is the right one?