The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Lalwendë]

Firstly, you have to consider what Melkor does. Is it evil? I'll come to that later. But even if it is evil, and he was made that way by his father Eru, it is Eru's perogative to do what he likes. That's why the Why is so interesting.

And secondly, does Eru put the theme of the Music as a flawless thing?

Iluvatar called together all the Ainur and declared to them a mighty theme, unfolding to them 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

The theme has might, wonder, glory and splendour. Is it flawless? We can only assume that if we want to read it that way. Now if we assume it is all good, then it's worth considering what Eru later says:

'Behold your Music! This is your minstrelsy; and each of you shall find contained herein, amid the design that I set before you, all those things which it may seem that he himself devised or added. And thou, Melkor, wilt discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind, and wilt perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary to its glory

This reveals that Melkor's discordancy is futile as it will not result in the things he assumes it will, only in things which in the end, will contribute to glory (for example snow and ice will result from his creation of cold). So what does Melkor assume his discordancy will result in? Now that brings me back to whether what Melkor does is 'evil'.

Melkor has all the powers of all his kindred, but instead of joining with them he seeks to follow his own path. This is interesting. He is the Mightiest and was made as the First of the Ainur, and it seems he decided he was going to challenge his Maker and have his own power. This is his 'sin', to attempt to seek his own way, not doing evil. There is nothing to say that Eru did not decide that 'evil' things like cold or despair or sadness were to be part of the theme; look at the words when he creates the vision of the Children:

The one was deep and wide and beautiful, but slow and blended with an immeasurable sorrow, from which its beauty chiefly came.

The Children are created with essential sorrow, which is also beautiful. So what we perceive as 'evil' can indeed be beautiful in Eru's eyes. All of Tolkien's stories are filled with strange combinations of sadness and joy, death and glory. It seems that Eru knew there needed to be Darkness in order for the Light to be all that more wonderful.

As to the why, I think it is Melkor's independence that rankles Eru. Melkor is filled with shame when he is 'found out' by Eru, presumably he has attempted something futile; his ongoing 'sin' then is to forget this lesson and continue, when he is in Ea, to pursue his goal of power and independence. If Eru wanted to create Ea with Darkness and Light, then it would have to be carefully balanced; I see that Melkor's discordancy puts that 'out of balance'.

It might in fact help to consider Tolkien's cosmology/theology not in terms of our Earthly Good/Evil axis but in terms of Light/Darkness, certainly that seems to be the way Eru intended them.

And just one more thing. Eru does trick Aule. He makes him think that he has smote down his Dwarves even before they have been given the Flame, but he hasn't:

Then Aule took up a great hammer to smite the Dwarves; and he wept. But Iluvatar had compassion upon Aule and his desire, because of his humility; and the Dwarves shrank from the hammer and were afraid, and they bowed down their heads and begged for mercy. And the voice of Iluvatar said to Aule: Thy offer I accepted even as it was made. Dost thou not see that these things have now a life of their own, and speak with their own voices? Else they would not have flinched from thy blow, nor from any command of thy will.' Then Aule cast down his hammer and was glad, and he gave thanks to Iluvatar, saying: 'May Eru bless my work and amend it!'

[davem]

One must be careful in one's analysis of Eru. Clearly Eru is not an 'interventionist' deity in the beginning. Apart from Ainulindale he is not present in BoLT (one might suggest that Tolkien introduced him because he needed a Creation myth & as a monotheist himself he uses such a figure. Interestingly, Illuvatar is translated 'All Father' a title of Odin).

Whatever. Once the story proper begins Eru plays no real part. In fact his main intervention is in Akallabeth, where he appears as a kind of weapon of mass destruction unleashed by the Valar.

Eru, it seems, is only 'necessary' to the story as an explanation of how things originated (as far as BoLT is concerned) & in practical terms the Secondary world is not monotheistic, but polytheistic. Which leads to an interesting digression.

The period in which Tolkien's creation takes on a new life & energy is the 1920's, where there is a movement away from the 'fairystory' world of much of BoLT, to a much 'higher' & more mythic world - yet this decade is one in which Tolkien turns away from his religion - he tells Michael in a letter that 'he ceased to practice his religion while at Leeds & at 20 Northmoor Road'. This period covers the whole of the 1920's & we must remember that for Tolkien the heart of his faith was the Mass & the Blessed Virgin, so that for him to cease to practice his religion was effectively to forget the whole thing.

Yet during this period the Legendarium is transformed, the Silmarils become the dominant theme & the Legendarium we know finds much of its form. Yet during this whole time Eru remains a very distant figure, & only really becomes an active participant in Arda with the appearance (& destruction) of Numenor. He's there, but basically passive all through. One can speculate he was responsible for this or that (Gollum's fall (even perhaps his Fall), but there is little evidence for direct interevention by Eru.

So, taking what we are actually given in terms of factual statements about Eru's nature we have very little to go on. He announces the themes to the Ainur, stops & starts the Music, & creates the Children. He effectively lights the blue touch paper & retires. Then, a very long time later, he totals Numenor - something Ulmo could have done - & reshapes the world - something the Valar could have done (at least in their early days).

In short, he is actually far, far less 'necessary' (in practical terms) to the plot than old Tom. What he does is add 'depth' & 'flavour' to the story. Yet he would hardly be missed - which one would expect given his secondary importance in BoLT. In fact, he is not necessary to the story at all, & a polytheistic M-e would work just as well.

As a character we know next to nothing about Eru beyond his talent for composition & we cannot, it seems to me, speculate too deeply on his morality, desires or intentions. Eru is a cypher, playing the part assigned to him & then disappearing till he is needed to drive the plot forward again (though it would not take very much rewriting to get rid of him altogether).

Eru, actually, is the most two dimensional character Tolkien created & the least necessary from a literary perspective. He appears first in the fairy world of BoLT, continues through the transformation of the Legendarium when Tolkien has little (practical) interest in religion at all (& thus probably only continued as part of the story because Ainulindale worked as a creation myth).

Speculating about who or what Eru is may lead to some interesting theories, but given the actual statements within the text, & avoiding as far as possible, conflating Eru with God, we have too little to go on.

As I said, Eru is the least important & certainly the least interesting character Tolkien invented. He's basically two dimensional & exists only to serve a purpose - making something happen to start things off & then disappearing. He is, effectively, equivalent to the impersonal source one finds in many myths. There is so little to the character that virtually anything one attributes to him in terms of motives & intentions is going to come from the reader rather than from the text.

Gets my vote for the most boring & gap filling character Tolkien created.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by davem

Eru, it seems, is only 'necessary' to the story as an explanation of how things originated (as far as BoLT is concerned) & in practical terms the Secondary world is not monotheistic, but polytheistic.

If you take it like this, then I'd say the secondary world is no-theistic (I don't want to say "atheistic", because this is not the right term nor it is true), because the Valar hardly intervene even during the First Age, much less after the departure of Noldor (not including the War of Wrath), and after the Fall, they lay down the rulership over Arda and then they just send the Istari (quoting Tolkien: "and perhaps with calling Eru for advice?").
But it is also about what you call "polytheistic": there are fourteen different powers, but they all stand together. Like the colors which make a rainbow, if I am to use a metaphore.

Originally Posted by davem

Gets my vote for the most boring & gap filling character Tolkien created.

As a character in a story, well, why, he might be, for someone. But since we spent this whole thread speaking mostly about him, I wouldn't consider him as boring and gap filling as you say. And as Lal said, "he is". I don't suppose a Creator would fill his time in running around Beleriand and make Legolas-movie-like stunt moves.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

And just one more thing. Eru does trick Aule. He makes him think that he has smote down his Dwarves even before they have been given the Flame, but he hasn't:

Well, "trick" is such an awful word. But I know, I know. However this might be "trick", in the end Aulë has more joy than he'd possibly have if everything went fine and Eru agreed rightaway. I always considered this part to be a very beautiful part, since I first read it (and I was about... eh... 10 years old?), I always almost feel the joy of Aulë when his creation was not only allowed, but blessed.
I think also this "trick" has a good reason for it to be done:
Aulë is driven to make a choice, like Melkor did: Melkor wanted to have things of his own, but he did not come before Eru with them. I mean: when it was realized that he has his secret plans, he kept them to himself and "so what, I'm gonna sit on them like a hen on its eggs". Aulë chooses to admit he did something against Eru (please note now that I am now leaving out all the points about that Eru of course had this in plan, because it comes from him etc., but we are talking about Aulë as independant being - HE does not know, it seems). This is, I think, really about the learning which has been very nicely pointed out by some people here. Aulë is left to discover himself that Eru knows even about his secrets (for those who were interested in it, possibly proof that Eru is omnipotent!), and more important, he has to discover that Eru wants Aulë to surrender his works to him. Meaning: when Aulë surrenders the Dwarves to Eru, like "I will even destroy them if you wish", Eru tells okay, you gave them to me, you didn't want to make them just for yourself and hide them from me (which, if you admitted it to yourself, is impossible: "That you all know that I am Eru... no one can play any theme against me"). So you see, had Melkor asked Eru "could I tear down this mountain", "could I destroy these Lamps", Eru might even told him "yes, you can" (but more likely "no, you cannot", but then, when Melkor asked, he'd accept it and instead go and for example help Manwë with the winds, or sit and do nothing, or think of another thing to do).
Okay pals, now when I stop at what I just wrote, I think that I accidentally resolved the debate about what is or what is not "allowed" in M-E. I think this is pretty clear now. The dischord could have been OK, had Melkor not tooth and nail held it to himself. This is the slight difference, and it is really a slight difference, but I think it is important and I hope I hit the nail here: the definition of what is "good" and what is "bad" is defined by Eru; since he is All, he defines it. And I daresay he defines it on the basis of many factors, and the main is if the one goes with his plan = not that Eru had any plan like "Manwë goes there and Ulmo comes to him at 3 AM" but "can I go to Manwë at 7 PM? I want to make one more river here". In certain points, Eru might say "no" (for example, I think, to a question "Can I kill Manwë?" According to what I am able to guess from Tolkien's works, the latest possible answer would be "Ask him first", unless, of course, there was any reason why Manwë would have to be killed). As I said, I quite stand with the opinion that it is about learning. The reason why Eru has let the dischord and the evil to take place is, that he gives everyone (no "evil ones" or "good ones" distinction here during the process) a chance to learn. And on this basis the "good" and "evil" are defined. So Eru says: If you know what you are doing, I will bless it. (I know this sentence is quite simple and can be interpretated in many ways, but applying this Secondary World thesis on us here, who wants to learn, will find the right meaning in it. Who wants not, might argue until the end of this thread )

One last example for illustration: the all-known Gollum case. He had the possibility to learn, seemingly he did not take it. By the way, from this it also seems that learning has its time (in the mortal world).

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

But it is also about what you call "polytheistic": there are fourteen different powers, but they all stand together. Like the colors which make a rainbow, if I am to use a metaphor.

I think this is a valuable point. Tolkien has created a polytheocracy (pardon my word construction) in which all of the major deities but one remain 'holy', or good, while just one rebels. This is in marked contrast to the many and varied polytheisms of our world's history in which there is constant jockeying for power, and frequent changes of alliance. The very stability of "sides" in Aman is notable. Where does such stability issue from? Well, it seems rather obvious from the narrative itself: Eru.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I think this is a valuable point. Tolkien has created a polytheocracy (pardon my word construction) in which all of the major deities but one remain 'holy', or good, while just one rebels. This is in marked contrast to the many and varied polytheisms of our world's history in which there is constant jockeying for power, and frequent changes of alliance. The very stability of "sides" in Aman is notable. Where does such stability issue from? Well, it seems rather obvious from the narrative itself: Eru.

Melkor is conflicted, the others are not. Melkor is like Feanor on the Divine level, & its no coincidence that they become foes - they are virtually mirror images of each other, & lets face it, they are the great tragic heroes of the Sil. The fate of both is self-wrought & heart-breaking. Without the two of them the story would have been boring - by which I mean if the Music had been sung according to the desire of Eru it would have been the equivalent of 'middle of the road 'pap & bored everyone to tears. Its the 'jockeying for power' that makes the myths interesting & its the rebellions of Melkor & Feanor that introduces conflict, struggle & the possibility of self sacrificing love.

How interesting do we think the story would have been if Melkor had sung what he was told? It would have produced the equivalent of 10,000 years of The Waltons....

[Raynor]

How interesting do we think the story would have been if Melkor had sung what he was told? It would have produced the equivalent of 10,000 years of The Waltons...

I disagree. Firstly, the music Eru gave to the Ainur was itself "a mighty theme, unfolding to them 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, so that they bowed before Iluvatar and were silent". Of the music the Ainur themselves made from this theme, it is said "never since have the Ainur made any music like to this music". Is this a trifle, a small thing, something to be disconsidered?

The Ainur are the greatest beings, in majesty and status, created by Eru. Howevr, when they beheld the Eruhini and their habitation world, "then many of the most mighty among them bent all their thought and their desire towards that place". Were the Ainur just stupid in not seeing how prosaic all this world is? And the greatest of them even? I also doubt that any of the ainur who decided to go forth had in their minds thoughts like "man, am I goona kick some behind there or what?",

Aman it is said to be as Arda Unmarred would have been. There, arts of all sorts were created freely, marvelous things. There, art would have been Art, a way for even the lesser creatures to rise above their condition and catch in their work a splinter of the wonder of creation. For don't the easterners say that creativity in humans is their divine aspect?

Is figthing the corruption of creation the only worthy challenge? How about exceeding your own limitations, with using your aptitudes and skills to their best? Doesn't human kind even nowadays prides itself with great technological, scientifical and cultural achievements? We see a perennial archetype which continues to inspire: the theme of Eru, the music of the Ainur, the Art of the elves, the art of the humans. Perhaps each and everyone thus achieved their greatest potential; perhaps some exceeded their initial condition.

There are challenges in coming and working together while still respecting and celebrating our uniquenness. To argue that the lack of corruption makes the world uninteresting is first of all a logical fallacy: we only know a corrupted world (here or in the books); to say how would a fundamentally different world would be to us is, imo, presumptuous. You can’t start with a hypothesis that is not true and then draw any supportable conclusions from it. I for one don't cherrish the dimming of one's faculty because of his/her inner corruption, or the world's. Violence is defined by Gandhi as the difference between one's actual status and one's potential. Corruption in the world increases that difference; in and of itself, it is not laudable. Countless of Einstein's, Francis's d'Assisi, Plato's and Mozart's have died horribly worthlessly due to the corruption of the world, without coming ever close to their calling and potential. Even if corruption presents a nice challenge, who is willing to celebrate their deaths and lost works? No one, I hope.

[davem]

Maybe, & I'm sure that that's what happened with the Vanyar. However, the fate of the Noldor is more interesting, admirable, poignant & fulfilling as Art. The light grows, flourishes & dims. We are born, grow, & die. That is our tragedy, but from it comes our potential for glory as a race & more importantly as individuals.

Would Mozart's music have contained the beauty it did if it had not come out of his experience as a Man (a mortal who will die), & would it speak to us as it does if we did not share his mortality? Living forever in a nice peaceful world is a nice fantasy, but a boring reality, which would not produce 'Art' but blandness, because nothing would actually matter - in fact it probably wouldn't produce anything much, because we could do it tomorrow or the day after or the day after that. 'Corruption', death, breaking down, is another word for liberation, because it frees us from the past & liberates us to do something new. The fact that other potential Mozarts, Platos, Einsteins, have been lost inspires us to do what they might have done if they'd had the chance.

"I think," Tehanu said in her soft, strange voice, "that when I die, I can breathe back the breath that made me live. I can give back to the world all that I didn't do. All that I might have been & couldn't be. All the choices I didn't make. All the things I lost & spent & wasted. I can give them back to the world. To the lives that haven't been lived yet. That will be my gift back to the world that gave me the life I did live, the love I loved, the breath I breathed."

The Other Wind....Ursula Le Guin

[davem]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

What you're doing, davem, is promoting through your analysis of Tolkien and his Legendarium an atheist worldview.

The fact remains that there is one thing missing: you do not know J.R.R. Tolkien. You know his words through whatever media you've read them or had them repeated to you, the words of others about him, and you know yourself. Your reasons for posting this analysis are basely illogical and a disservice to a deceased man.

I was attempting an analysis of the Character of Eru - I don't see where any 'athiest worldview' (actually I'm not an athiest but an agnostic with Pagan leanings) comes into what I posted. I was trying to explore the nature of the character Eru, the role he plays in the narrative & the reason for his existence. I find the character superfluous in the main, serving little purpose.

I don't see what is gained by challenging my knowledge of Tolkien. I have studied & loved the works of Tolkien for 30 odd years. I cited a letter from Tolkien's own hand to his son in which he clearly stated that for the whole of the 1920's he neglected his faith, & pointed out that this is exactly the period when the Legendarium undergoes a major transformation towards the form in which we know it. I further pointed out that during the whole of the development of the Legendarium, from its early fairystory form in BoLT, through Tolkien's 'faithless' period of the 20's, & on through the period of development in the 30's when his faith returned, the role of Eru is very much that of a secondary character.

In short, my analysis was logical, backed up with source evidence, & an attempt to make sense of the role & purpose of the character Eru. I can't see a single shred of evidence for your assertion that anything I said constituted the promotion of an athiestic worldview (something which is entirely legal anyway). I avoided any comment on religion at all, merely noting that Tolkien's own faith (or lack of same) seemed to play no part in the depiction of of the character of Eru.

In short, I'm confused by what you say, but have a slight forboding of where this all may end......

[Lalwendë]

Do I get you correct SoN in that you mean we cannot 'know' Tolkien as we are not Tolkien? Yes I can see that of course (I often say it myself), but to counter it, biographical detail is one of the few things we do have to go on for a solid grounding in understanding, which is why it remains so popular today in literary analysis, like it or not.

Couple of relevant quotes from anarticle in today's Guardian about an art show by the Chapman brothers:

I have to admit to a thought crime. I found my own response to the work - moved, shocked, impressed by its craft - far more appropriate. I'm aware that this is not the right attitude. Artists have more or less given up thinking about what response a work might get. We live in more democratic times, in which the artist just makes the work, and the public make whatever they want of it.

So I should learn to relax. When the Chapman brothers' work comes to London, I plan to see it again, and this time I'll try to follow the dictums of postmodern art appreciation. Art is what you make it. I shall have my response to the work. And other people - even little people aged about seven - will have their response. All of our responses will be equally valid. I just hope I don't get that nagging feeling that, when it comes to works of art, some responses are more equally valid than others.

Gets you thinking this. Is there really a democracy inherent in Reader Response or is it a fraud? Does it actually have any qualitative purpose? Or is it just hot air leading to the need to democratise and intellectualise the opinions of seven year olds? Will it lead ultimately to utterly meaningless and trivial Art? We've already seen that happen in television, will literature go that way?

Anyway....

Onwards and upwards...

An atheist reading of Lord of the Rings would not only be permissible but it also works and the text supports that view too. Without any forcing. I'll do something on it one day. I've been tempted to do a Marxist reading. I know someone who has and it also works.

Of course now I'm going to say that this is all grist to the mill that Tolkien's work is in fact Universal, but that is not a popular opinion with everyone. Whereas Universal is correct to me - even under SoN's triple analysis theory, including the effect that the text has on many and diverse peoples. Universal also supports both Reader Response and paying close attention to text only (now before someone jumps in, I'm talking Lord of the Rings here). Universal stops fights, stops claimings and also has everyone skipping about merrily and holding hands. What could be better?

[davem]

Of course, Eru is at first the dominant figure in the story. He is 'replaced' by the Valar, who themselves subsequently fade in to the background. In the end the gods follow their father & are left behind. That is both tragedy & liberation for the peoples of Middle-earth.

Eru is 'necessary', in that things must have a source, but he is a pretty boring source & not much to write home about. Hence one can project all kinds of things onto him in terms of values & motives which are not present in the text.

The Valar are a much more interesting bunch altogether, their motives (& flaws) make them more real, (& more importantly more necessary from a literary pov). 'Perfect' is not interesting. In fact it seems from a reading of this thread that the only way Eru becomes interesting is when people start attributing things to him which call his perfection into question. Come to that Melkor is by far the most interesting of the Ainur because of his flaws. I suspect that this is another reason Eru is left in the background until something spectacular is needed (bit like Superman is only interesting when the Kryptonite is brought out - when he's at full strength he can do anything & there's no drama).

So, very boring character, & the reason I think he's best left out. The Valar are interesting because they're flawed, make mistakes & produce drama. Yet they themselves are too powerful when the story turns to focus on individual people in Middle-earth & have to be removed to the background.

The reason the Akallabeth seems like an 'attrocity' is that what happens is essentially unfair because Eru is too powerful & its not a fair fight. He shouldn't have done what he did. The Numenoreans basically didn't want to die (who does?) & that's what drove them. If the Fall of Numenor had been a natural disaster it would have been awe-inspiring & humbling - man brought down by impersonal nature. As it is an overwhelmingly powerful being obliterates them with malice aforethought & in the end it seems vindictive because for all their 'power' they are weak mortals with no chance. One cannot rationalise the behaviour of Eru & make it equal 'good'. Once more we come back to Eru as a two dimensional 'Old Nobodaddy'.

Man facing the Dragon is moving & speaks to a deep part of our souls. Man trying to tiptoe around an angry Eru & avoid being smited is ultimately pathetic. So, for me the character of Eru doesn't work, & is the classic example of a deus ex machina which shatters the drama & undermines the tragedy.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

By a few logical conceits I could say that you are accusing me of being Evil, of being the Serpent. Or am I just playing that role right now, on the Barrow-downs, vis-a-vis a Faerie tale?

Are you quite sure that the one is very much different from the other?

As I recall, the rites of most, if not all religions of the ancient world would revolve around, or at least include ceremonies where the priest was understood to assume the role of the god, often by assuming elements of his appearance (i.e. the Anubis mask in the ceremonies to prepare the dead of Egypt for the afterlife), hence to "play the role" of a god is, at a fundamental level, intrisically related to the worship of that god...

...But I kid, of course.

Originally Posted by davem

The reason the Akallabeth seems like an 'attrocity' is that what happens is essentially unfair because Eru is too powerful & its not a fair fight. He shouldn't have done what he did.

No, the Numenoreans should not have done what they did.

Originally Posted by davem

The Numenoreans basically didn't want to die (who does?) & that's what drove them.

Rejecting the Gift of Men (as always ) and turning away from God. The Tragedy of the Akallabeth.

Originally Posted by davem

If the Fall of Numenor had been a natural disaster it would have been awe-inspiring & humbling - man brought down by impersonal nature.

If that had been the case, it would merely have been dull.

Originally Posted by davem

One cannot rationalise the behaviour of Eru & make it equal 'good'.

I would have to disagree.

Originally Posted by davem

Man trying to tiptoe around an angry Eru & avoid being smited is ultimately pathetic.

That, I think, is essentially the point. Man, whatever the extent of his works, ultimately IS pathetic next to the glory of God.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Neurion

If that had been the case, it would merely have been dull.

I have to disagree with this. There are many natural disasters in the world today and we could describe none of them as 'dull'. Of course some people ascribe them to God but I do not (the only tragedies I ascribe to 'God' are wars and acts of terror and hatred driven by religious fervour - and even these are driven by people in extreme mental states rather than any 'God' I know). The Boxing Day Tsunami for example was no less tragic than 9/11 or 7/7 - the former caused by the plates of the Earth moving, the latter by an over-abundance of duty to God.

Interestingly the impetus behind the Killer Wave came from Tolkien's dreams of an all-engulfing wave, something which seems to loom large in the collective conscience of a lot of people today. Is this due to the rising sea levels that are threatening our very existence? To the horrors felt by seeing well-known tragedies such as the Boxing Day Tsuanmi and the New Orleans flood? Or do we share collective memories of older floods? There is a long tradition in Britain of flood myths, and archaeologists think these may have stemmed from real floods, from the cutting off of Britain after the Ice Age, from our genuine drowned lands, from the temporal merelands that once ran along our coasts... I'm sure this also true of other cultures, I know it is in Japan, France, Ireland etc.

So if Tolkien had merely written of a Killer Flood and not explicitly said Eru was behind it then it would have been just as effective, just as tragic. It would have given scope for people to wonder if Eru really was behind it (and some people ascribe seemingly every decision made in LotR to Eru) anyway.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

So, [Eru is a]very boring character, & the reason I think he's best left out. The Valar are interesting because they're flawed, make mistakes & produce drama. Yet they themselves are too powerful when the story turns to focus on individual people in Middle-earth & have to be removed to the background.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I really must protest such a reductive reading of the character Eru.

Eru, being transcendant deity, is a fundamentally different type of character than any other. By definition, Eru cannot be flawed and make mistakes and produce that kind of drama.

To want or expect Eru to have done so is like asking the Sun to function like a planet. If one were to expect all heavenly bodies to exhibit the characteristics of planets, then there would be no light source for those heavenly bodies that really are planets, nor a strong enough gravitational pull to hold the planets around the sun.

Just so, Eru is the center of gravitation and light source, for the entire story. To miss this basic fact of Tolkien's creation is to have a somewhat povertystricken experience in one's reading of The Silmarillion. There are things about the story one simply will not comprehend.

The sequence of the creative process, interesting as it is, doesn't tell us as much as that which the mature author chose to include in the mature product.

I think the fundamental difficulty in creating an UNFLAWED being/deity/whathaveyou, is that the author is not unflawed, is not pure, not holy, not omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent...It's really difficult to create a character with whom you share NONE of the attributes.

Just a thought...I'll shut up now...As you were...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I really must protest such a reductive reading of the character Eru.

Eru, being transcendant deity, is a fundamentally different type of character than any other. By definition, Eru cannot be flawed and make mistakes and produce that kind of drama.

To want or expect Eru to have done so is like asking the Sun to function like a planet. If one were to expect all heavenly bodies to exhibit the characteristics of planets, then there would be no light source for those heavenly bodies that really are planets, nor a strong enough gravitational pull to hold the planets around the sun.

Just so, Eru is the center of gravitation and light source, for the entire story. To miss this basic fact of Tolkien's creation is to have a somewhat povertystricken experience in one's reading of The Silmarillion. There are things about the story one simply will not comprehend.

The sequence of the creative process, interesting as it is, doesn't tell us as much as that which the mature author chose to include in the mature product.

I think you misunderstand what davem is saying. He says that he doesn't need Eru to be there for the story to be satisfying, and he's entirely free to say that, as it's just a criticism of a piece of literature. I'd be quite happy with a few less Elves with names beginning in F (or indeed a few less Elves anyway, certainly less pathetically wimpy female Elves and a few more who do something, like Luthien or Aredhel). I'm allowed to say that. And davem not liking a character doesn't mean he does not comprehend things about the story or has somewhat less of a reading experience - that's an incredibly loaded statement to make.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

It's perhaps worth remembering that Tolkien set out to recreate the Atlantis-myth- the essential datum-point of which is the sinking of the island and the death of its inhabitants. For Tolkien to have ended it otherwise would have been to write a different story. As it is he's far more merciful than Plato, since he posits survivors; and goes to great length to assign a general guilt to the nation.

It's interesting that the myths of Numenor and Atlantis also share a sense of mystery - we find ourselves asking why this happened, a question to which we can come up with a range of decent answers, but when we ask about drowned innocents we get stumped. In the case of Numenor, we at least know that Eru did it, and we can at least say he did it "because he can" - and say that this is just part of his own mystery and omnipotence.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lal

Firstly, you have to consider what Melkor does. Is it evil?

It depends on whether Eru is.

Originally Posted by Lal

Melkor has all the powers of all his kindred, but instead of joining with them he seeks to follow his own path.

This is the epitome of evil, for his own path is against the will of Eru.

Originally Posted by Lal

There is nothing to say that Eru did not decide that 'evil' things like cold or despair or sadness were to be part of the theme; look at the words when he creates the vision of the Children:

Precisely the point. Eru planned ice and snow, and Melkor could have achieved them within the will of Eru; but he achieved them according to his own will instead, which achievement can nevertheless be used as a tool in Eru's hands to become what Eru intended in the first place.

Originally Posted by Lal

It seems that Eru knew there needed to be Darkness in order for the Light to be all that more wonderful.

Well, try to imagine Light without its opposite. Everything good thing automatically has its opposite, both in the Legendarium, and in real life. It's just the nature of reality. The good is made, and its opposite is as a rule always possible. There is no other way. It is not a necessary corollary that Eru must be the opposite as well as the original of what he has created; rather, he has created the good, and its opposite is necessarily possible for those who choose other than Eru's will. And Eru uses that opposite to achieve his will anyway.

Originally Posted by Lal

As to the why, I think it is Melkor's independence that rankles Eru.

Tolkien's word for it is 'rebellion'.

Originally Posted by Lal

his ongoing 'sin' then is to forget this lesson

Or perhaps it is to perversely continue in what cannot be forgotten because to repent is an unacceptable alternative.

Eru's compassion may be called a trick if you like, but it seems rather that Aulë is blinded by his remorse and determination to obey, and therefore does not see or recognize what Eru has already done, which reads more like an amazing grace than a trickster's prank. And here's as good an example as can be found of Eru revealed by Tolkien as good and not evil.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

Well, try to imagine Light without its opposite. Everything good thing automatically has its opposite, both in the Legendarium, and in real life. It's just the nature of reality. The good is made, and its opposite is as a rule always possible. There is no other way. It is not a necessary corollary that Eru must be the opposite as well as the original of what he has created; rather, he has created the good, and its opposite is necessarily possible for those who choose other than Eru's will. And Eru uses that opposite to achieve his will anyway.

Of course there is the 'opposite', that's the way Eru makes it as it's part of his own all-encompassing, omnipotent nature. Eru is the All Father. Who makes the opposite to Light if Eru does not create it? Even if it is an absence of Light then Eru also causes the rules which allow voids and absences.

Originally Posted by lmp

Eru planned ice and snow, and Melkor could have achieved them within the will of Eru; but he achieved them according to his own will instead, which achievement can nevertheless be used as a tool in Eru's hands to become what Eru intended in the first place.

Melkor could not have achieved them within the will of Eru unless of course his path towards Darkness was all part of Eru's will. As it was Melkor's darkness and Evil which resulted in the formation of such terrible beauties as snow and frost, mist and clouds. This of course depends upon whether you can accept that part of Eru's creation and intention was Darkness. If you cannot accept that Eru intended there to be Darkness, that Melkor stemmed from Eru himself, then there would never have been any way possible for Melkor to make these things within a 'wholly perfect' version of Eru's will. Of course, Melkor could have made them independently of Eru, but then we come back to who made Melkor again...

How Melkor makes the snow and ice and so on. This passage is where Eru shows to the Valar before creation what Ea will be like:

And Iluvatar spoke to Ulmo, and said: 'Seest thou not how here in this little realm in the Deeps of Time Melkor hath made war upon thy province? He hath bethought him of bitter cold immoderate, and yet hath not destroyed the beauty of thy fountains, nor of thy clear pools. Behold the snow, and the cunning work of frost! Melkor hath devised heats and fire without restraint, and hath not dried up thy desire nor utterly quelled the music of the sea. Behold rather the height and glory of the clouds, and the ever- changing mists; and listen to the fall of rain upon the Earth! And in these clouds thou art drawn nearer to Manwe, thy friend, whom thou lovest.'

So, from this, did Melkor merely do that which was set out for him anyway?

Following on from that in the Sil is the following interesting passage:

But even as Ulmo spoke, and while the Ainur were yet gazing upon this vision, it was taken away and hidden from their sight; and it seemed to them that in that moment they perceived a new thing, Darkness, which they had not known before except in thought. But they had become enamoured of the beauty of the vision and engrossed in the unfolding of the World which came there to being, and their minds were filled with it; for the history was incomplete and the circles of time not full-wrought when the vision was taken away. And some have said that the vision ceased ere the fulfilment of the Dominion of Men and the fading of the Firstborn; wherefore, though the Music is over all, the Valar have not seen as with sight the Later Ages or the ending of the World.

Note here how the Valar are shown Darkness. This is the first time they see it, though they have thought of it before now. If you like, this is when Eru shows them what Darkness will look like as a living thing, rather than as a concept. It has always existed, but here it is shown to them given life. Interesting that even though they see this, and they see a little (but not all) of the history of Arda into the Third Age, they do not stay Eru's hand. He doesn't give them much of a chance anyway (he's quick to get creating is ol' Eru ), and says "Well I'm going to make it anyway, Darkness or Not!"

Then there was unrest among the Ainur; but Iluvatar called to them, and said: 'I know the desire of your minds that what ye have seen should verily be, not only in your thought, but even as ye yourselves are, and yet other. Therefore I say: Ea! Let these things Be!

Hmmm, that also brings on another thought...there are many things within Arda that must have been created by unknown and unknowable members of the Ainur, as some stayed behind. What might these be?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Since I am sort of getting lost in all these arguments, I'll just post one thing which I realized in reading Valaquenta. I think (or: I SINCERELY HOPE) it will make an end to the disputation of whether Melkor's =>evil<= deeds were planned by Eru (for him) or not.

Originally Posted by Valaquenta

The mightiest of those Ainur who came into the World was in his beginning Melkor; but Manwë is dearest to Ilúvatar and understands most clearly his purposes.

Manwë understands most clearly Ilúvatar's purposes. So Ilúvatar has some purposes, and whatever they are, Manwë understands them (and acts according to them) and Melkor does not (mostly). Thus, if for example Ilúvatar's purposes with Melkor were to destroy the lamps and battle with Valar, then according to what we know, actually Melkor would NOT destroy the lamps and battle with Valar (what Ilúvatar wanted) but he'd do something different (like not destroy the lamps or even help building them). Thus, in the reality, it was not Ilúvatar's will that Melkor destroys the Lamps - although, as with the snow, he could alter his primary plan and "make even greater things of it" (possibly later).

And:

Originally Posted by Valaquenta

Both [Aulë and Melkor] also desired to make things of their own that should be new and unthought of by others, and delighted in the praise of their skill. But Aulë remained faithful to Eru and submitted all that he did to his will.

I posted some post involving the part of creation of the Dwarves here some time ago, and as I can see, I could've saved me time by posting just this. Clear as day, in my opinion. But Aulë remained faithful to Eru and submitted all that he did to his will. Melkor did not remain faithful to Eru: not that he did remain faithful to some codex of morality or whatever, but did not remain faithful to his purpose given to him by Eru. Cf. above the example with lamps. So, even if Eru would've had evil in plan in the creation of the world, he didn't want Melkor to perform them. Which means, he possibly didn't have the evil in plan at all. When the evil came, yes, he dealt with it, after all, he was the omni-creator; and sometimes he made "even greater things" from evil that came. But he did not intend it in the first place.

Huh. And one last, general thought for this topic. I think it is important, when speaking about someone like Eru, to consider that he was "far above" and, even though just a book character, above our, human thoughts. I think I could use a parallel with the real-world theology: we also are not able to reach God in any way (if you think he is), just look around, you don't know even from what atoms your table is made from and he'd create all of this. So the only way you can reach him is not by your reasoning (humanly limited), but only if he himself wanted to present to you. Thus, we are restricted to what he could possibly have let us know from his own intent (hence the term "revelation"). Why I am telling that is, that I want to show on this that we cannot polemise what and how Eru is in "real" (whatever it might be), since you can 99% bet this does not show the truth at all. We can only rely on that how he's revealed to us: and this means, here, via Ainulindalë, Valaquenta, Silmarillion, Akallabëth etc.

Just to make some things in this topic clear.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Once the story begins Eru plays no part.

This is debatable. There are numerous references in LotR to things that are "meant" to be; by whom? It is never stated baldly that it is Eru, for to do so would do violence to the story the way Tolkien intends to tell it, but the reference is there nonetheless; regardless of whether one agrees that this is Eru, the burden of proof is on those who would argue that it is not Eru.

Originally Posted by davem

The one time he intervenes he is a weapon of mass destruction.

To suggest that Eru is a weapon of mass destruction wielded by the Valar doesn't work, for then one is saying that the Valar control Eru, which cannot be. Thus the analogy breaks apart. Eru is more than a mere weapon. Point of fact, this is a derogatory statement that is rather offensive to the theists amongst us.

Originally Posted by davem

Eru is only 'necessary' to the story as an explanation of how things originated.

Only if one fails to accept that Eru can be perceived behind the scenes all over the legendarium.

Originally Posted by davem

In fact, [Eru] is not necessary to the story at all, & a polytheistic M-e would work just as well.

If this is the case, why does Tolkien insist on keeping Eru in the story? Why does Tolkien redact theism back into the story that has achieved a 'much higher, more mythic' atmosphere? Why is he not satisfied with that which he produced in the 1920's? If one were to posit that anything Tolkien wrote after the 1920's, is unnecessary, what does that remove? Are we sure we would want to live with such a reduction? It is a very dangerous game to play (and rather foolish, frankly), picking a particular period of an author's writing (especially an early period!), and saying, this is the real thing.

Originally Posted by davem

Eru is a cypher, playing the part assigned to him & then disappearing till he is needed to drive the plot forward again (though it would not take very much rewriting to get rid of him altogether)

One is left wondering if this is the desire of certain readers.

Originally Posted by davem

Eru is the most two dimensional character Tolkien created & the least necessary from a literary perspective.

Highly debatable again. It depends on what a reader is willing to acknowledge is Eru in action, and what is not.

Originally Posted by davem

Gets my vote for the most boring & gap filling character Tolkien created.

Some posters sometimes reveal more about themselves than they do about their subject. All in all, this particular post is loaded with unsubstantiated opinion that is debatable at best, uses dangerous and unwise choices in literary analysis, and lacks basis in evidence.

[Raynor]

I find myself in agreement with lmp's post.

Originally Posted by davem

Once the story begins Eru plays no part.

I disagree:

Originally Posted by Ainulindale, Silmarillion

Yet some things there are that they cannot see, neither alone nor taking counsel together; for to none but himself has Iluvatar revealed all that he has in store, and in every age there come forth things that are new and have no foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past.

Originally Posted by Of Aule and Yavanna

Thy offer I accepted even as it was made. Dost thou not see that these things have now a life of their own, and speak with their own voices? Else they would not have flinched from thy blow, nor from any command of thy will

Originally Posted by Of Aule and Yavanna

Then Manwe sat silent, and the thought of Yavanna that she had put into his heart grew and unfolded; and it was beheld by Iluvatar. Then it seemed to Manwe that the Song rose once more about him, and he heeded now many things therein that though he had heard them he had not heeded before. And at last the Vision was renewed, but it was not now remote, for he was himself within it, and yet he saw that all was upheld by the hand of Iluvatar; and the hand entered in, and from it came forth many wonders that had until then been hidden from him in the hearts of the Ainur.

Originally Posted by Atrabeth Finrod ah Andreth

He must as Author always remain 'outside' the Drama, even though that Drama depends on His design and His will for its beginning and continuance, in every detail and moment.

Originally Posted by Letter #156

[Gandalf] was sent by a mere prudent plan of the angelic Valar or governors; but Authority had taken up this plan and enlarged it, at the moment of its failure. 'Naked I was sent back – for a brief time, until my task is done'. Sent back by whom, and whence? Not by the 'gods' whose business is only with this embodied world and its time; for he passed 'out of thought and time'.

Originally Posted by Letter #192

Few others, possibly no others of [Frodo's] time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named' (as one critic has said).

As lmp has mentioned, there are various refferences by the characters in the story to things that were meant to be, or inspirations (Gildor, Frodo, Gandalf, Elrond, etc).

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

This is debatable. There are numerous references in LotR to things that are "meant" to be; by whom? It is never stated baldly that it is Eru, for to do so would do violence to the story the way Tolkien intends to tell it, but the reference is there nonetheless; regardless of whether one agrees that this is Eru, the burden of proof is on those who would argue that it is not Eru.

Have to admit that those statements struck me as referring to something along the lines of 'wyrd' when I first read LotR, & that is how I tend to read them now.

To suggest that Eru is a weapon of mass destruction wielded by the Valar doesn't work, for then one is saying that the Valar control Eru, which cannot be. Thus the analogy breaks apart. Eru is more than a mere weapon. Point of fact, this is a derogatory statement that is rather offensive to the theists amongst us.

I was talking about the way his intervention comes across to the reader. As for it being 'rather offensive to theists' I would hope everyone here can distinguish between criticism of an invented character in a work of literary fiction & the Creator of the Universe - 'cos I'd be seriously worried about anyone who couldn't. Eru is a character invented by Tolkien, just like Frodo, Gollum, Wormtongue & the fox in the Shire. I will not treat him with any more 'awe' & reverence than I would treat any other character, or place him above criticism. Eru is a poorly drawn & undeveloped character who plays a minor part in the story.

Only if one fails to accept that Eru can be perceived behind the scenes all over the legendarium.

Or chooses not to

If this is the case, why does Tolkien insist on keeping Eru in the story? Why does Tolkien redact theism back into the story that has achieved a 'much higher, more mythic' atmosphere? Why is he not satisfied with that which he produced in the 1920's? If one were to posit that anything Tolkien wrote after the 1920's, is unnecessary, what does that remove? Are we sure we would want to live with such a reduction? It is a very dangerous game to play (and rather foolish, frankly), picking a particular period of an author's writing (especially an early period!), and saying, this is the real thing.

I don't think I did that at all - though I note in passing that the later works like the Athrabeth with its 'supposed' closeness to Christianity in the passing reference to Eru's incarnation is often dragged up to support the theory that the Legendarium is an 'essentially' Christian work (even though Tolkien expressed his discomfort with it as being too close to a parody of Christianity). I've stated the reason why I think Eru was kept in the story - to keep it monotheistic. It is a monotheistic universe - my gripe is that the 'God' Tolkien presents us with is a shallow, undeveloped & not very interesting character.

One is left wondering if this is the desire of certain readers.

Well? Some may do - I don't see it as any more of a problem than wishing any character in any literary work had been written out.

Highly debatable again. It depends on what a reader is willing to acknowledge is Eru in action, and what is not.

Some posters sometimes reveal more about themselves than they do about their subject. All in all, this particular post is loaded with unsubstantiated opinion that is debatable at best, uses dangerous and unwise choices in literary analysis, and lacks basis in evidence.

Well, I thought we were here to debate. I also thought it was pretty clear that I was expressing my opinion. How 'choices in literary analysis' can be ''dangerous' though, is beyond me. Its characters in a book we're discussing here.

[Lalwendë]

Whoa! Just put the baggage down on the floor and walk away from the vehicle!

Originally Posted by lmp

This is debatable. There are numerous references in LotR to things that are "meant" to be; by whom? It is never stated baldly that it is Eru, for to do so would do violence to the story the way Tolkien intends to tell it, but the reference is there nonetheless; regardless of whether one agrees that this is Eru, the burden of proof is on those who would argue that it is not Eru.

These 'fate' references could be to just about anything because Tolkien 'never stated baldly' what was turning the wheels of his created world. If we then say "oh well it must be this" we are the ones 'doing violence' to the story as it unravels the whole complexity of reference and meta-reference and reduces the leaf mould of the mind to sterile mushroom compost. Tolkien, well versed in Literature and myth of all kinds weaves in things which could come from the Eddas, from Beowulf, from Celtic myth, from his won belief, from other fantasy....he does not wish to pin the text down to meaning one thing or have events pinned down to originating from one source. In this way he builds mystery (and a work of such complex genius none of us could ever repeat it). And to say that if we don't accept that Eru pushed Gollum into the cracks of Doom or Eru made Bilbo go off on his adventures (etc.) that we are wrong is to reduce the starnge and wonderful events of the text to having One Meaning Only and makes it just a dull old text book, one in which we have no capacity to stand back when a Hobbit falls into the cracks of Doom in awe and go ".....wow...."

Originally Posted by lmp

To suggest that Eru is a weapon of mass destruction wielded by the Valar doesn't work, for then one is saying that the Valar control Eru, which cannot be. Thus the analogy breaks apart. Eru is more than a mere weapon. Point of fact, this is a derogatory statement that is rather offensive to the theists amongst us.

Why? Has it come to pass now that Eru=God? Where did that happen? I thought we were discussing a work of literature not a holy scripture?

Sorry I do not like the way that this is headed. If other people dissecting a literary creation causes offence it's maybe time to accept that people read books in many different ways? Point of fact for me. Eru is an oddball. He creates a world where there is evil, he creates a world knowing that its not perfect and never can be. He creates evil beings like Melkor. That's not how I see my own world (but can perfectly accept it in a literary creation). Maybe its not how Tolkien saw his own world, but nevertheless that's what's in the text. And on top of all of this, Eru stands right back and does not get involved until the Valar muck around with things that they ought not to done and Dad has to come in and sort out the kids' mess - he does it by grabbing everything and hurling into a big cosmic bin bag and then goes back to his study to resume smoking his pipe in peace.

I can't say I like Eru at all. There are some kind of rules it seems but he never tells anyone what they are. Cheers. You can fear Eru but there's nothing to love in him. The people may love Varda or Manwe or Melkor but nobody particularly loves Eru. And you've got to wonder why. Thank goodness I don't live in that world - I can do without some omnipotent creator who can squish me at any time for no discernible reason and doesn't even give me the respect due of providing me with some 'rules'.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

The reason the Akallabeth seems like an 'attrocity' is that what happens is essentially unfair because Eru is too powerful & its not a fair fight. He shouldn't have done what he did. The Numenoreans basically didn't want to die (who does?) & that's what drove them. If the Fall of Numenor had been a natural disaster it would have been awe-inspiring & humbling - man brought down by impersonal nature. As it is an overwhelmingly powerful being obliterates them with malice aforethought & in the end it seems vindictive because for all their 'power' they are weak mortals with no chance. One cannot rationalise the behaviour of Eru & make it equal 'good'. Once more we come back to Eru as a two dimensional 'Old Nobodaddy'.

Derogations aside, the essential complaint here is that Eru should not have punished the Numenoreans for disobeying his viceroys because it wasn't a fair fight.

Clarity first: Tolkien is the one who describes Eru's action as punishment for disobedience, which is rebellion.

Second: to accuse Eru of 'not being fair' because he is too powerful is like saying that police are not being fair when they arrest someone who has committed a crime because they have guns and the criminal only has a knife.

Further, to assert that it would have been better if impersonal nature had taken out the Numenoreans instead of Eru, is like saying that it would be better if the knife wielding criminal would take a wrong turn in his escape such that he winds up in a prison cell, than that police should arrest him and bring him in.

The point: those in authority have the right to use power to enforce laws. This is true regardless of whether one is talking about local police, or about a transcendant deity.

The issue of Eru's so-called "boring" role in Tolkien's legendarium has already been addressed.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Derogations aside, the essential complaint here is that Eru should not have punished the Numenoreans for disobeying his viceroys because it wasn't a fair fight.

Clarity first: Tolkien is the one who describes Eru's action as punishment for disobedience, which is rebellion.

Which it was. But that's not the issue.

Second: to accuse Eru of 'not being fair' because he is too powerful is like saying that police are not being fair when they arrest someone who has committed a crime because they have guns and the criminal only has a knife.

No - its like saying the Police are not being 'fair' or reasonable if they decide to deal with the knife-wielding criminal by employing tactical nukes to take out half the State the criminal is in. Its to accuse the Police of over-reaction & psychopathic tendencies

Further, to assert that it would have been better if impersonal nature had taken out the Numenoreans instead of Eru, is like saying that it would be better if the knife wielding criminal would take a wrong turn in his escape such that he winds up in a prison cell, than that police should arrest him and bring him in.

Poetic justice. However, I don't think your analogy is ideal. If impersonal nature (the 'Dragon') had brought down the Numenoreans it would have brought home Man's insignificance & his ultimate tragedy far more profoundly than Eru's hissy fit.

The point: those in authority have the right to use power to enforce laws. This is true regardless of whether one is talking about local police, or about a transcendant deity.

The issue of Eru's so-called "boring" role in Tolkien's legendarium has already been addressed.

'With great power comes great responsibility' as Uncle Ben said. Eru psychopathically over-reacts in the case of Numenor, because while the Numenoreans may have disobeyed the Valar they were no threat. It would have been better if the cause had been a natural cataclysm, because Eru doesn't come off well as a character in this incident. In short, I still feel it was a mistake on Tolkien's part to have Eru do something so terrible - we can never think of Eru as a loving creator again without also having to acknowledge he is also a monster. The only acceptable interpretation is that it was a natural cataclysm which post-deluvian inhabitants of M-e wrongly attributed to Eru.

And one suspects it would not have been necessary to include the event at all in the final redaction of the Legendarium, in which Tolkien attempted to make Arda conform to 'current' scientific thinking. The Sun & stars were to pre-exist the earth, which would inevitably have had to be spherical from the start - hence, no need for a re-shaping of the world, so no requirement for Eru to wreak such devastation.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

Which would mean that evil is indeed inbuilt by Eru and is not a result of Melkor's rebellion! In fact Melkor would not be necessary whatsoever as evil would still be manifest in Arda simply by dint of it being created by Eru.

While I believe that the moral possibility of evil is necessary in order to have true free will, Melkor is not necessary as an agent of evil. With free will, there will be plenty of agents around. However, him not present, or at least he not corrupted, would mean that the greatest power that ever entered Ea wholly will not bent almost each and every spiritual and physical entity towards evil. Most such encounters are beyond one's power to resist, as Tolkien commented for example on Frodo's struggle against the corruption of the ring; that sort of thing you just can't fight ["There exists the possibility of being placed in positions beyond one's power."] On the other hand, there is also the general case of Gollum, who doesn't want the good path, no matter the circumstances [I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'".]. This later case would still appear in Arda Unmarred, and rightly so, I almost dare say; for this is indeed the test of one's faith and standing; Aule's initial dwarves would have been the most marvelous stones in the world, if it weren't for Eru breathing true life and sentience on them.

Originally Posted by Lal

I interpret it as Pride. He is driven by his own desire.

I think you are playing with words here. There is difference between pride, and desire and gift; his special gifts are specifically stated, he was naturally gifted. I doubt that anyone, no matter his level of motivation, could have achieved what he did, Artistically speaking. In Ea, the fire of one's spirit is a real spiritual trait, not just a figurative manner of speech; esspecially with elves, this was consuming their body, for one thing. I would very much link this fire to the imperishable flame, the creative aspect of Eru, or the living essence of creation if you will. Pride is something more.... wordly; anyone can have it. I would say the positive aspect of pride is nobility, acknowledgment of one's special connection with the creator, prohibiting thus one from falling; the negative, much more common, is reffering ourselves not to the creator, but to others, in which case.... bring on the fight, competition, envy, superiority, etc. Feanor enjoyed both the fire in its creative aspect, and the pride, which brought about the downfall, not his Art.

Originally Posted by Lal

That depends if it is. For the majority it is not.

Then again, if we talk about the elves, one of their most important qualities concern sub-creation, the Art as defined previously. This type of Art, and these sub-creative qualities, have the most fertile ground on Valinor, from most, if not all, points of view. The inhabitants of M-E enjoy sub-creativeness too, but how much time do they have to develop it, what with all the wars, departing of the most gifted, the elves, and lack of continuity of culture, due to social decay or social extinsion.

Originally Posted by Lal

This is profound and sad, and the sense of urgency, of having just One Chance to get it right, that drives mortals is beyond the understanding of Elves.

I don't deny that Men represent a full half (if not more) of the problem of Death, treated by Tolkien in his work. It should also be noted that Men more often that not deserve to be looked upon not with admiration, but with sadness; they do not make the most of it. They are too caught up, for better or for worst, most of the times for the worst - the grip of Melkor is too strong on them.

Originally Posted by Of the beginning of days, Silmarillion

Yet the Elves believe that Men are often a grief to Manwe, who knows most of the mind of Iluvatar; for it seems to the Elves that Men resemble Melkor most of all the Ainur, although he has ever feared and hated them, even those that served him.

True enough, Eru also said that "these too in their time shall find that all that they do redounds at the end only to the glory of my work"; yet Tolkien commented:

Originally Posted by Letter #181

Their 'damnability' [of those who persist in wickedness] is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.

Originally Posted by davem

No - its like saying the Police are not being 'fair' or reasonable if they decide to deal with the knife-wielding criminal by employing tactical nukes to take out half the State the criminal is in.

I disagree; the numenoreans were not wielding a knife, they had "the greatest of all armadas"; they were able to wreak havoc in Valinor and they subjugated a good part of Middle Earth, enslaving, torturing and sacrificing people to Melkor. Maybe they were worst under Sauron's corruption than Men were under Melkor's.

Originally Posted by davem

If impersonal nature (the 'Dragon') had brought down the Numenoreans it would have brought home Man's insignificance & his ultimate tragedy far more profoundly than Eru's hissy fit.

I doubt that for such a profoundly corrupted people this dragon would have been more than an accident - if it lacked conscious will behind it. They would have gone at it again, while continuing to oppress the Children of Eru in the name of Melkor.

Originally Posted by davem

Eru psychopathically over-reacts in the case of Numenor, because while the Numenoreans may have disobeyed the Valar they were no threat.

To disprove with quote:

Originally Posted by Letter #131

Faced by this rebellion, of appalling folly and blasphemy, and also real peril (since the Numenoreans directed by Sauron could have wrought ruin in Valinor itself) the Valar lay down their delegated power and appeal to God, and receive the power and permission to deal with the situation; the old world is broken and changed.

Originally Posted by davem

And one suspects it would not have been necessary to include the event at all in the final redaction of the Legendarium, in which Tolkien attempted to make Arda conform to 'current' scientific thinking. The Sun & stars were to pre-exist the earth, which would inevitably have had to be spherical from the start - hence, no need for a re-shaping of the world, so no requirement for Eru to wreak such devastation.

I doubt that the changing of the world was the main reason for the Akallabeth. I actually have serious problems picturing Arda flat, what with the skies and what not (was all Ea a tube with Arda at the bottom? Was it a sphere with Arda on the inner surface? Was it an ever widening cylinder, with Arda at its "lowest", smallest circumference? Someone help me out .)

[davem]

I think we'd have to question how 'helpless' the Valar were in the face of the Numenoreans. Such devastation as Tolkien posits could have been avoided by striking while the fleet was at sea, & I'm sure Ulmo could have done serious damage. Tolkien's statement in the letter strikes me as one of the infamous 'reflective glosses'. The problem was bringing about a change in the shape of the World & removing the Undying Lands from the world. This required a divine intervention of some kind. However, the form & nature of that intervention is the issue, & what it says about Eru's nature. I still say he doesn't come off well.

[Raynor]

Such devastation as Tolkien posits could have been avoided by striking while the fleet was at sea, & I'm sure Ulmo could have done serious damage.

Everyone, including Ar-Pharazon, was not sure of the outcome, until they reached the Undying Lands. I would say the good guys were still hoping for a good turn of events at the last moment.

But the fleets of Ar-Pharazon came up out of the deeps of the sea and encompassed Avallone and all the isle of Eressea, and the Eldar mourned, for the light of the setting sun was cut off by the cloud of the Numenoreans. And at last Ar-Pharazon came even to Aman, the Blessed Realm, and the coasts of Valinor; and still all was silent, and doom hung by a thread. For Ar-Pharazon wavered at the end, and almost he turned back. His heart misgave him when he looked upon the soundless shores and saw Taniquetil shining, whiter than snow, colder than death, silent, immutable, terrible as the shadow of the light of Iluvatar.

A beautiful passage...

Manwe only called upon Eru after the numenoreans camped "in might" about Tuna, where from all the Eldar have fled...

[Child of the 7th Age]

Such devastation as Tolkien posits could have been avoided by striking while the fleet was at sea, & I'm sure Ulmo could have done serious damage.

But why do this?

At the heart of the tale of Numenor lies a myth and a dream....Tolkien's dream of the great wave and the myth of Atlantis and the subsequent breaking of the world. If that dream element is removed and it becomes merely a tale of the sinking of the fleet by Ulmo, the whole point and reason for the story would, in my opinion, be diminished. In the Letters, Tolkien is clear that this dream and myth is what impelled him to spell out the sinking of Numenor on paper. In our desire to substitute a "just" ending to tidy up Eru's character, we would be guilty of removing the core element of faerie.

As far as I am concerned Eru is Eru and can not be critiqued (or defended) on the basis of whether or not he lives up to our modern expectations of justice or the nature of a just deity. Eru is not identical with God in our "real" world, especially not in terms of his relations with humans. This is true whether we consider the definition of God that is proposed by "religious" groups or those who question the "value" of religion. I think Tolkien would have agreed with this distinction. He repeatedly stated that he was investigating a world where the deity was distant and hidden from view. As Shippey notes, Tolkien wanted to see how men would react when faced with such a stark canvas: what impetus to do good remained to them. This is a pre-revelation world. There may have been a plan hidden in the music that included the element of revelation. Finrod and Andreth's conversation does imply this, and I can not dismiss it lightly. Still, at this point in time--in the first through the fourth age--that plan of revelation, even if it existed, was not known to Men or, by implication, to the readers of the story.

Since the Creator of Arda is so unknown and distant to men, yet also so powerful and all-knowing in the grander scheme of things, how could any man "justly" judge their god in terms of his actions? One thing is clear in Middle-earth: Eru is greater than any other being in or outside Arda and knows things no one else does. Essentially, he has no peers: men lack the wider understanding of the purpose of creation that would allow them to make a reasonable and just verdict on something as cosmic as the breaking of the earth. Yet, without peers, there can be no "just" judgment of Eru, whether we are talking about characters in the story or our own assessment. We may not like the playing field that Tolkien set up. But I see no indication that Tolkien had any doubts that Eru was the chief "good guy", despite the fact that he was so distant.

On a personal level, we are obviously free to question anything in the story. In our own minds, we can do a Milton and create a very attractive, beguiling, creative force of evil. We can turn Morgoth into the good guy or Eru into a destructive, evil force. But I don't see that as compatible with the mindset of Tolkien. If the author's intentions matter, then we have to accept his basic terms. If not....if the reader has complete freedom--, then we can dismiss the basic assumptions Tolkien has woven into the tale. So I guess we get back to canon again....just how much freedom the reader has versus the author. I'm uncomfortable with judging or defending Eru in human terms because he is not human. I also feel uncomfortable interjecting such a "judgment" into the heart of a myth. At the heart of myth or faerie always lies a mystery, something that goes beyond mankind's ability to comprehend. Human judgments destroy part of that mystery. If Tolkien's tales are strictly history, then we can judge but if part of the tale is actual myth, then we are in a different league. For all these reasons, I don't see Eru as a minor, irritable character but rather the core mystery at the heart of Tolkien's legendarium, essentially distant and unable to be comprehended in strictly human terms.

[davem]

Yet there is a problem with simply sticking a 'dream' into the heart of a story - & that is integration. The dream has to be integrated into the story in a convincing way. Any character from the story who is given a role in the dream section is going to have to act 'in character' or the dream will not be properly integrated & stick out like a sore thumb. So we're left with the question of how Eru will be percieved by the reader, & how this one act will impact on the reader's understanding of & feelings about Eru. Put Numenor on one side & what do we have of Eru in the Legendarium?

We have a Creator, who is basically distant, detatched & seemingly unconcerned for the most part, in the First & Second Ages, & who is (possibly) a behind the scenes mover of certain events at the end of the Third. And then there's Numenor.

Eru intevenes into the world in a major way for the only time - & he virtually blows it apart! Hundreds of thousands of people die & a shockwave, both literal & metaphorical, ripples out across time & space & our perception of Eru is transformed. The effect is devastating, & it seems to me that it is Numenor which forces Tolkien into writing the Athrabeth & introducing the idea that Eru will enter the world in order to heal it (the echoes of Jung's Answer to Job are possibly worth considering seriously). It is Eru who has to be 'redeemed' for the attrocity he has committed, because he is ultimately responsible &, after Numenor, cannot sit back at a distance & watch - he has entered into his world & traumatised its inhabitants. He cannot leave it again. Once he acts within the world he is committed to play a personal role, & must enter into it in order to suffer along with it.

Hence, I would argue that far from the Athrabeth being Tolkien's attempt to introduce an echo of 'Christianity' into his secondary world to make it conform more strongly to his faith, he is actually left with no option but to bring him in fully, & make him a full part of the creation. Tolkien's comment that 'already it is too close to a parody of Christianity' shows his discomfort with the idea of Eru incarnating into M-e, but equally it shows he was stuck - either no intervention at all, or a full participation.

In other words, Eru can either be a 'mystery' - ie he can remain outside the world altogether, & not intervene to destroy Numenor - or he must lose his mystery & become an active participant - & Tolkien must choose. For Eru to retain his mystery he must not intervene. For him to intervene he must sacrifice his mystery. What he cannot do, is pop in, trash the place & then go away again & pretend nothing happened. Once he enters in he has to be explained - & so he must either explain himself, or explanations will be invented & foisted upon him. He will be 'judged' for his actions because such actions have to be explained. If you come home tonight & find a big hole where your house is you will want an explanation - in fact you will not be able to rest until you get one - & if no-one offers you one you will invent one based on whatever evidence you have.

The 'basic assumptions' Tolkien has woven into the tale are neither here nor there. Tolkien knew (consciously or otherwise) that Eru's intervention into his creation & his destruction of Numenor changed Eru, & required an explanation & an account to be given by Eru himself. Numenor requires Eru's incarnation into Arda - however much that may seem like a 'parody' of Christianity to Tolkien himself - he (both Eru & Tolkien himself) has backed himself into a corner. Either no destruction of Numenor or full participation in the world he has created.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Numenor requires Eru's incarnation into Arda

I think you are misreading the Atrabeth; Eru's incarnation is required so as to finnally remove all traces of Melkor's marring.

Originally Posted by davem

Eru intevenes into the world in a major way for the only time

What about the coming of the Children? Is that a lesser even on the grand scheme of things than the shaping of a planet, which would be meaningless without them?

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien's comment that 'already it is too close to a parody of Christianity' shows his discomfort with the idea of Eru incarnating into M-e

I disagree. I believe it shows his discomfort with the fact that his story would explicitly contain the Christian religion, which he considered, in Letter #131, fatal to a story - a recurrent idea in the letters.

Originally Posted by davem

In other words, Eru can either be a 'mystery' - ie he can remain outside the world altogether

He doesn't remain outside altogether. I would like to invite you to review the refferences I gave in post #189, which show Eru's continuous participation in the story. He is not present as a person, but through his deeds and interventions.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Is M-e monotheistic or polytheistic? It can't be both. the simple answer is that it is monotheistic - except Eru doesn't do very much after Ainulindule, & the world is effectively ruled by the Valar. So for 99% of the Sil we have a polytheistic world.

Yes, M-E is monotheistic. But it is incorrect that Eru "doesn't do very much after Ainulindale". A transcendant deity, by definition, upholds the entirety of the creation 'It' has made; keeps it running, as it were. I have already addressed the issue of "polytheistic" by pointing out how this polytheocracy is unlike the typical ancient mythological polytheocracies.

Originally Posted by davem

Even in the destruction of Numenor he is not necessary - the Valar could have destroyed the Numenorean fleet.

One would expect a good reader, having had this insight, to ask the next obvious question: "Then why does Tolkien have Eru there at all?" If Tolkien had no reason, then he cannot have been much of a writer. Since we do not accept such a conclusion, the question deserves an answer. So, "What, in Tolkien's legendarium, is Eru there for?" Why does Eru do the deed when the Valar could have done it (if they could have)? The key is in that the Valar lay down their authority. Why do they do this? Because the violators of the Ban are the Second Children of Iluvatar. In other words, the Valar recognize and acknowledge that they do not have final authority regarding the Second Children of Iluvatar breaking the Ban. Thus they must lay down their authority.

Originally Posted by davem

In short, we don't need Eru as part of the story.

On the contrary. We do very much need Eru as part of the story, precisely because he has final authority over the Children of Iluvatar. The Children of Iluvatar are themselves, as a matter of fact, proof of the fundamental necessity of Eru to the plot of the entire legendarium. They are called by his own name.

Originally Posted by davem

Eru is a character who Tolkien attempts to make use of, & he is never more than a plot device. He can't be used without devastating effect, so he is hardly used at all & when he is used he replaces the Valar.

No. Quite simply, no. This misunderstands the nature of Eru. Eru is a constant part of the entire legendarium, behind the scenes (most of the time). If there were no transcendant deity, the entire legendarium would not adhere the way it does. This is fundamental.

Originally Posted by davem

What he does display is pride, lack of compassion & brute force.

If this is the extent of one's understanding of Eru as the character functions in the legendarium, then this character is fundamentally misunderstood.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

To say that Tolkien's Eru is some how a picture of his beliefs of God is a dangerous thing to do because here we have Eru placed in a legend that had nothing to do with the Jewish God and so to pin ideas of 'God is a meanie' or 'The Numenorians had every right to do such and such' is not a good road.

Yours is a valid caution. I have been aware throughout this debate that some of us may be equating Eru with Yahweh. It is hard not to do, regardless of one's personal beliefs and leanings. My own approach has been to take what Tolkien has written as the basis for understanding his use of the transcendant deity in his works, namely Eru, and applying logic in order to arrive at hoped for reasonable conclusions. One does best to avoid attempting to create a full-blown theology for a fictional world. Nevertheless, questions are asked, and reasonable answers may be arrived at.

Good-bye for now, I shall return in approximately 41 days.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by lmp

I have been aware throughout this debate that some of us may be equating Eru with Yahweh.

So has Tolkien in his 1971 BBC interview

Dennis Gerrolt: Where is God in The Lord of the Rings?

Tolkien: He's mentioned once or twice.

Dennis Gerrolt: Is he the One?...

Tolkien: The One, yes.

Take care lmp

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I doubt that he saved Gandalf or helped finnish the ring's quest for aesthetic considerations. I am curious what considerations you were having in mind.

I don't see that we're ever told what his motivations are, why he does what he does or what the point of anything is as far as he's concerned - his main concern seems to be his own 'glory' & making sure everyone does as they're told.

What do you mean? That for Eru to be convincing for you, Tolkien has to explain his omnipotence?

No - that he has to explain his character, motivations & provide convincing justifications for his actions.

We don't even know the mystery of Men, but you require to know the mystery of Eru himself. Or judge him by not knowing that. Judge him if you will, but your analysis will be marred by its partiality of data, and thus, most likely, logically flawed.

The only 'data' is the data Tolkien has provided us with. Eru is not a 'mystery'. Eru is an invented character within a fictional world. This 'mystery' you perceive in him is your own addition. What I know from the data supplied is that Eru is an undeveloped figure whose behaviour is not properly explained & that is what I'm judging.

What would be one such illogical action?

I think the knots Tolkien ties himself in over Manwe's treatment of Melkor (as set out in Osanwe Kenta) shows that he realised that Manwe's behaviour made absolutely no sense (& I have to say that the 'explanation' he comes up with didn't convince me for a minute)

I disagree; I was addressing your statement that "Numenor requires Eru's incarnation into Arda" by discussing the necessity of it due to Melkor's immense power which he invested in corrupting Arda. You can backtrack that yourself.

...which 'backtracking' lead me back to my point:

Originally Posted by me

Only in the beginning. Its clear that by the time of his fall he was far from superior.

Therefore, I see no problem with Arda being free for a while from the strong corruption of Melkor it later has.

So when Tolkien stated that Arda was created with the potential for, if not the inevitability of, a fall inherent in it, he meant it was created without that potential for a bit & then the potential was added in after that - so Eru not only could, but actually did, create Arda without that potential, but then introduced it in? Sorry, but i'm not sure that stands up...

Your generalisation is unwarranted; the initial quote didn't say "any" of his own, while clearly stating a difference between his own and the Enemy.

So to say

"He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves. ".

is an entirely different thing to saying "He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of any of His own?

Are hairs not being split here?

So has Tolkien in his 1971 BBC interview

Oh, come on - the simplest & most obvious interpretation of Tolkien's response is that he was referring to Eru, the 'God' of M-e.

[The 1,000 Reader]

To interrupt your essays, if Melkor was so tough, why did Tulkas take him down? Was Tulkas stronger but just not around?

[Raynor]

I don't see that we're ever told what his motivations are, why he does what he does or what the point of anything is as far as he's concerned - his main concern seems to be his own 'glory' & making sure everyone does as they're told.

We are told, but you disregard my quotes. I don't know if this is going anywhere.

No - that he has to explain his character, motivations & provide convincing justifications for his actions.

You genuinely expect that from a religious person? To put God in a frame? May I ask if you are theist?

I think you lose sight of spiritual meaning the myth has for Tolkien, that of returning us to an un-fallen state, of a more special communion. I hardly see how this can be achieved by rationalising God. Of course, that may not suit some critics. They way Eru is presented is not a literary flaw, but a religious necessity; I would venture so far as to say even a philosophical one - who can put transcendence into words?

What I know from the data supplied is that Eru is an undeveloped figure whose behaviour is not properly explained & that is what I'm judging.

How come you hold on so much to judging, in a case where you also state that there isn't enough information? What sort of validity would your conclusion have? At most, literary; you can reduce the reality of this work's Creator to a finite character, and state that he is underdeveloped, and could be fine, to someone who could swallow this reduction (which I consider impossible). But you cannot draw conclusions, moral or otherwise, if you don't know enough; to do so seems, to me, to be an empty exercise.

I think the knots Tolkien ties himself in over Manwe's treatment of Melkor (as set out in Osanwe Kenta) shows that he realised that Manwe's behaviour made absolutely no sense (& I have to say that the 'explanation' he comes up with didn't convince me for a minute)

You mean Manwe would have made more sense if he would have kept Melkor indefinitely, despite the initial judgement? What sort of justice is that?? What could have justified such an arbitrary change of thought? Please explain.

Only in the beginning. Its clear that by the time of his fall he was far from superior.

Which doesn't address in the least my (then) previous argument and my explanation, hence my feeling it is a red herring: the amount of power he had at the end of the first age has no relevance to the amount of power he had at the time, far superior to the valar's, which he used it to corrupt Arda. To reiterate my argument, that corruptive power could not have been annihilated by the valar, only by Eru.

So when Tolkien stated that Arda was created with the potential for, if not the inevitability of, a fall inherent in it, he meant it was created without that potential for a bit & then the potential was added in after that - so Eru not only could, but actually did, create Arda without that potential, but then introduced it in? Sorry, but i'm not sure that stands up...

I don't know why you feign you don't know the difference between a potential and actualising that potential. The corruption of Arda existed as a potential, as a possibility, ever since the music, and it became a reality of Arda, with the coming of Melkor and the making of Utumno.

is an entirely different thing to saying "He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of any of His own?

It is not entirely different, but is not logically sound. You cannot use unwarranted generalisation in a debate, esspecially when in the quote, and in the story, "his own" and enemy are qualitatively different, on all grounds, esspecially the moral one. To introduce such a qualifier requires more than a personal desire for it to be accepted.

Oh, come on - the simplest & most obvious interpretation of Tolkien's response is that he was referring to Eru, the 'God' of M-e.

G: Now this seems to me to be somewhat like Tennyson's "the old order changeth, yielding place to new, and God fulfills himself in many ways". Where is God in The Lord of the Rings?

T: He's mentioned once or twice.

G: Is he the One?...

T: The One, yes.

G: Are you a theist?

T: Oh, I'm a Roman Catholic. Devout Roman Catholic.

If you really believe that God here is reffered to by Tolkien only as Eru, I really don't know how to convince you; you seem to disregard again the spiritual underlying of his myth making.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Yet there is a problem with simply sticking a 'dream' into the heart of a story - & that is integration. The dream has to be integrated into the story in a convincing way. Any character from the story who is given a role in the dream section is going to have to act 'in character' or the dream will not be properly integrated & stick out like a sore thumb. So we're left with the question of how Eru will be percieved by the reader, & how this one act will impact on the reader's understanding of & feelings about Eru. Put Numenor on one side & what do we have of Eru in the Legendarium?

Yes, you are right, davem. But the difference may be that I am comfortable with that act of integration while you are less so. Obviously from this thread, there is no one opinion on this. But if you accept the basic ground rules that JRRT laid down, then Eru is a distant figure who, even if he is known to the author, is not truly known to the Men in the story and, by implication, the Men reading the story. Since we do not even understand the nature of Eru or the mystery that stands at the heart of creation, how can we possibly make a judgment on informed grounds as to the "justness" of Eru's act?

That puts the reader in a strange position. He can accept that ambiguity or insert some other image of "god" or "ungod" into the story to try and achieve greater clarity. I think both Hookbill and Littlemanpoet have hit the nail on the head. In Imp's words that bear repeating.....

I have been aware throughout this debate that some of us may be equating Eru with Yahweh. It is hard not to do, regardless of one's personal beliefs and leanings.......One does best to avoid attempting to create a full-blown theology for a fictional world.

My own feeling is that on this point both the mystery and the ambiguity must remain. There's certainly nothing wrong with personal speculation, speculation that seems to be inevitably shaped by our own personal views of deity in the "real" world. But there is a chasm of not knowing that Tolkien purposely placed at the heart of his story, and there is a certain point we can't go beyond. Tolkien almost seems to delight in doing this to the reader. One moment we are given hints of a greater force at work by the use of the passive voice in the narrative or by showing Faramir's men standing at "grace" after their meal. The next moment we are given a hobbit society that has absolutely no religious content. Except for a footnote or two in the Letters, we have hobbits who aren't really aware of Varda and Manwe, let alone Eru. The one exception is Frodo and Sam who are the only two "Little Folk" who take a step closer to that chasm and peer down into its depths.....hence Samwise's invocations to Varda and Gandalf's comments on Frodo's light being like that of the silmarils. Even these glimpses, however, are guarded and spell out little beyond the mere acknowledgement that there are forces at work beyond the edge of the story.

Several questions intrigue me that no one has discussed. Tolkien was no fool. Was he aware of the potential outcry from some readers about the "unjust" nature of Eru's act given what happened in Numenor? Was that reaction something that he could not conceive of, since his own personal view of deity was Catholic at the core? Or did he simply see it as not being a relevant discussion or response in the context of constructed myth?

And secondly, davem, if we accept (only for purposes of argument )your suggestion that Eru is a minor, irritable, and seemingly flawed character, how big a "defect" is this? If such a major flaw exists at the heart of Middle-earth, what does it do to the Legendarium overall? Even if men of Middle earth and the reader know virtually nothing about Eru's nature and see little active involvement on his part, the reader does know he is the Creator of the world and holds mysteries that no one else comprehends. Can the Creator of the world who stands at the beginning of the whole legendarium be a "minor and irritable" character, or is this a fatal flaw? To put it bluntly, did Tolkien blow it by giving us tiny glimpses of deity or reflected deity in one part of the narrative and pulling back in others so that we are ultimately left with unaswered questions. If the author truly wanted to keep "religion" out of his created world, as he certainly stated at one point, then why start the whole thing off with Eru? Or did his Catholic beliefs compel him to do this and, yet at the same time, require him to make Eru no more than a "minor, irritable" character, because of the difficulties of writing in a pre-revelation world?

Anyone out there....I am truly curious about this.

[davem]

You genuinely expect that from a religious person? To put God in a frame? May I ask if you are theist?

I think you lose sight of spiritual meaning the myth has for Tolkien, that of returning us to an un-fallen state, of a more special communion. I hardly see how this can be achieved by rationalising God. Of course, that may not suit some critics. They way Eru is presented is not a literary flaw, but a religious necessity; I would venture so far as to say even a philosophical one - who can put transcendence into words?

I expect it from an author.

LotR is not a religious work. It is, first & foremost, as Tolkien stated in the Foreword to LotR, an 'entertainment'. The point is that Eru is both transcendent (in which aspect he cannot be judged) & immanent (in which aspect he can).

You mean Manwe would have made more sense if he would have kept Melkor indefinitely, despite the initial judgement? What sort of justice is that?? What could have justified such an arbitrary change of thought? Please explain.

'Arbitrary'? He knew Melkor was still dangerous, he was not certain that he wouldn't go back to his old ways. If he was smart he wouldn't have set any limit on Melkor's terms of imprisonment at all.

If you really believe that God here is reffered to by Tolkien only as Eru, I really don't know how to convince you; you seem to disregard again the spiritual underlying of his myth making.

I choose to believe that Tolkien was only referring to Eru - because if he really believed that it would only confirm to me that he was failing to seperate the primary & secondary worlds in his own mind - something I think it would be wise for us all to do. Eru is a character invented by Tolkien, & plays the role of creator within the secondary world. To think of Eru as in anyway equivalent to the creator of the primary world is, in my opinion, crossing a very dangerous line. Where do you stop - is it only the creator of M-e that you consider as equivalent to God, or do you consider the creator figures in other fantasies as also equivalent. Of course, to my mind, once you start thinking of LotR as a Christian work that line is too easy to cross, & its an area I will not stray into, caonsidering my sanity, such as it is, too precious.

Eru may, or may not, reflect Tolkien's own thoughts on the nature of God, but it is a step too far for the reader to consider them as equivalent in any way. If God is a transcendent mystery then Tolkien would have inevitably had a limited perception of him, & one can question the extent to which he was correct, but that is a very different thing to considering them 'the same thing'.

[Raynor]

Was he aware of the potential outcry from some readers about the "unjust" nature of Eru's act given what happened in Numenor?

At least from Christians, this reaction should, theoretically, not come. The Bible describes what happens to the two cities of Sodoma and Gomora, whose people were considered sinful. Howeve, can the sins of the inhabitants of those cities ever compare to what the numenoreans did to others (torture, slavery, sacrifice to Melkor) and to themselves (slaying each other in madness), while disregarding each and every sign to repent? Or what would persons like minded with Thomas Jefferson, who said that "from time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots". I believe that the corruption in Numenor was so great among the un-faithful, that they were beyond redemption; possibly, that corruption spiritually and phiscially affected even those who were too young. Concerning the biblical deluge, it is said: "and God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually". It may be that Numenor was rotten to the core; for good reason did Tolkien call Elendil a Noachian figure, he may have been among the few who escaped this dire marring by true faith, which he later brings to M-E.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Or what would persons like minded with Thomas Jefferson, who said that "from time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots".

Or with Joseph Stalin who said: "One death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic. "

I believe that the corruption in Numenor was so great among the un-faithful, that they were beyond redemption; possibly, that corruption spiritually and phiscially affected even those who were too young.

So even the children of Numenor were valid targets, & it was acceptable for Eru to kill them? And we, presumably, cannot 'judge' such an action because Eru is a 'mystery'? I take it he 'destroyed the village in order to save it'?

Concerning the biblical deluge, it is said: "and God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually". It may be that Numenor was rotten to the core; for good reason did Tolkien call Elendil a Noachian figure, he may have been among the few who escaped this dire marring by true faith, which he later brings to M-E.

I think it should also be pointed up that not all the Faithful survived the devastation of Numenor - which I suppose is a case of 'Kill them all - God will know his own.'