The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by davem

But why is it necessary for the Valar to have been 'created' - they could just as easily have been the creators themselves. If Eru can exist without any origin so could the Valar. What i don't see is the necessity of Eru to the story. He doesn't seem to serve any purpose that couldn't be supplied by the very slightest alteration to the nature of the Valar themselves & given the tiny part he plays I don't see that he is actually necessary.

Music is not input - it is the synthesis of learning and action.

Tolkien understood that the only way to begin a proper allegory is for a whole to be divided.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

Music is not input - it is the synthesis of learning and action.

Tolkien understood that the only way to begin a proper allegory is for a whole to be divided.

Music is more than learning and action... It is the truth of the universe as such as the mathematical ratios in music are the very same the universe is built upon. The pythaghoreans already thought that way and later even Boethius (on fourth century if I'm not remembering this wrongly) whom all the monks during the middle-ages were drawing their information from.
EDIT: Sorry again. That is one view from our shared past, not mine... I forgot to mention it...

The concept of dividing is also age-old. How many myths handle the primordial chaos or disarray being "ordered" by the gods / creative gods as their first act? One of our traditions says that this "ordering" is not random, but is based on music - and thence on mathematics. Tolkien surely knew that tradition as it's not an uninfluential one.

[Aiwendil]

I'm a little behind in reading this thread - this is chiefly a response to Davem's post 133.

Davem wrote:

Is M-e monotheistic or polytheistic? It can't be both.

Why must it be either? Why must we analyze Tolkien's mythos as belonging to one class or the other? In my opinion, forcing a label onto the mythology (or implicitly forcing a label via an excluded middle) is not productive. Tolkien's world is what it is. Sure, in some ways, it resembles a monotheistic world-view and in other ways a polytheistic one - but this does not mean that it must be (in some fundamental or mystical way) truly one or the other.

In short, we don't need Eru as part of the story. If Ainulindale had begun 'There were the Singers, & they sang The Great Song which brought the worlds into being...' the effect on the story would have been negligible.

I must disagree. Eru's existence and role as the Creator does more than a simple analysis of his actions might suggest. His existence does much the same thing that the God of the Abrahamic religions does for the Judeo-Christo-Islamic world view; it puts everything else in the universe into an overarching moral and teleological framework. Eru's existence defines the moral good (which is, incidentally, why it doesn't make sense to ask whether Eru's actions are "right"). The Valar are imperfect and flawed beings. Insofar as they do (or endeavour to do) good throughout the story, they are serving Eru. Now, if Eru did not exist, we would merely have a story about flawed 'gods' acting in whatever ways they wished; it would be, in that regard, like Norse or Greek mythology. Eru's existence adds an element to the mythology that is lacking in either of those counterparts. Now, I'm not saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing; that's a separate question (though personally I think it is good for the story) - but it is not nothing.

The idea of a God providing a moral framework may make some people uncomfortable. Indeed, I'm a non-theist, so the world-view presented in Tolkien's Legendarium is very different from that which I believe to be true. But when I think about the Legendarium, I must do so on its terms.

[davem]

Aiwendil But doesn't that require Eru to be 'moral'? In short he is not - not as he is described. He's just there, sparks things off, & disappears. The next thing we see of him is (unless this is merely a Dwarvish creation myth) is giving life to the Dwarves & then he pops up & trashes Numenor. In short, the character is not up to the role he is given in the Legendarium. He remains a plot device, he doesn't fulfil the role of providing a moral & ethical heart to the story, an ideal to be emulated, he is simply something which is intended to fill that gap - & as long as Tolkien can point to something within the story which does that he seems happy to forget all about it & get on with telling the story.