The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[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.'

[Raynor]

I expect it from an author.

Then again, you are putting all authors into one pot, regardless of their opinions. This expectation is uncalled for, imo.

LotR is not a religious work.

Again, ignoring myths as a path to spirituality.

It is, first & foremost, as Tolkien stated in the Foreword to LotR, an 'entertainment'.

Could you give that specific quote??

The point is that Eru is both transcendent (in which aspect he cannot be judged) & immanent (in which aspect he can).

But Eru is nont immanent, he does not inhabit any part of creation, an idea stated repeatedly by Tolkien. So your argument is void in that direction.

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

I don't see the logical connection between writting something about God in a fictional setting and inability to differentiate between one's fiction and (perceived) reality.

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'.

How can we conceive two different transcendent realities?? What differentiates them, if at their core both are, well, transcendent?

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

The problem with this quote is that it says nothing of the standing of those who died.

I take it he 'destroyed the village in order to save it'?

That is what it seemed; part of Sauron's loss of power is that he spent a great part of it on corrupting Numenor. This is the only possible exit out of that hell; as Tolkien stated, there are certain encounters with evil that cannot be won by mere humans without supplication to God.

I think it should also be pointed up that not all the Faithful survived the devastation of Numenor

And you say that, because?

Originally Posted by Akallabeth

But whether or no it were that Amandil came indeed to Valinor and Manwe hearkened to his prayer, by grace of the Valar Elendil and his sons and their people were spared from the ruin of that day.

[Lalwendë]

Look, we're arguing as though Eru destroyed Numenor because of something done against his will, but that's wrong. Eru detsroyed Numenor because the Valar asked him to, not even that, that Valar pleaded with Eru just to do something.

The Valar had overstepped the mark by giving Men this island which was so temptingly close to the Undying Lands, by idolising Men too much. Then when Men came to act as they inevitably would, wanting to explore the seas and wanting to see what it was about the Undying Lands which gave the inhabitants unending life (to their minds, it was the place which did this, not the inherent nature of the peoples there - the Men of Numenor lacked understanding of immortals just as much as the Immortals lacked any comprehension of mortality) the Valar were powerless to act. They pleaded with Eru, the one who made these creatures, and Eru smote.

He did not do it as those remaining on Numenor were 'evil' themselves - indeed Miriel is perfectly innocent. And I seriously doubt that Tolkien, devoted family man would ever write about children being evil or wicked. The event is not 'just' nor is it 'justified' apart from it is something that the god of this world does. A god who as I have pointed out already is like the God of the Book of Job, a law only unto himself. Rather than punishing the people left on Numenor, he is in fact punishing the Valar who were foolish/proud enough to set up Numenor in the first place.

Nor was the event meant to echo the Noah myth in any way, it was meant to be Atlantean. The only part which echoes the Noah story is the escape of Elendil and the Faithful, which Tolkien calls "a kind of Noachian situation". The rest of it, this whole, huge, overbearing and memorable story, is drawn from something Atlantean. It comes from Tolkien's own mind, from his own recurring nightmares, something which he squarely points down to being common amongst those who live near the Sea and those in Western Europe. I know exactly what he means - I grew up with exactly the same kinds of tales of drowned lands and fears of the lands being drowned once more.

So while we're all scratching away at some kind of Biblical analogy, meaning or comprehension to all of this we are looking in precisely the wrong place. This really has very little to do with what Eru and the valar are really like, little to do with whether the babies drowned at Numenor were evil, and a whole lot to do with Atlantis.

Some quotes:

Originally Posted by Letter 154

The particular 'myth' which lies behind this tale, and the mood both of Men and Elves at this time, is the Downfall of Númenor: a special variety of the Atlantis tradition. That seems to me so fundamental to 'mythical history' -- whether is has any kind of basis in real history, pace Saurat and others, is not relevant -- that some version of it would have to come in

Originally Posted by Letter 163

for I have what some might call an Atlantis complex. Possibly inherited, though my parents died too young for me to know such things about them, and too young to transfer such things by words. Inherited from me (I suppose) by one only of my children, though I did not know that about my son until recently, and he did not know it about me. I mean the terrible recurrent dream (beginning with memory) of the Great Wave, towering up, and coming in ineluctably over the trees and green fields. (I bequeathed it to Faramir.) I don't think I have had it since I wrote the 'Downfall of Númenor' as the last of the legends of the First and Second Age.

Originally Posted by Letter 180

For when Faramir speaks of his private vision of the Great Wave, he speaks for me. That vision and dream has been ever with me -- and has been inherited (as I only discovered recently) by one of my children

Originally Posted by Letter 227

The legends of Númenórë are only in the background of The Lord of the Rings ... They are my own use for my own purposes of the Atlantis legend, but not based on special knowledge, but on a special personal concern with this tradition of the culture-bearing men of the Sea which so profoundly affected the imagination of peoples of Europe with westward-shores.

Originally Posted by Letter 257

What I might call my Atlantis-haunting. This legend or myth or dim memory of some ancient history has always troubled me. In sleep I had the dreadful dream of the ineluctable Wave, either coming out of the quiet sea, or coming in towering over the green inlands. It still occurs occasionally, though now exorcized by writing about it. It always ends by surrender, and I awake gasping out of deep water. I used to draw it or write bad poems about it. When C. S. Lewis and I tossed up, and he was to write on space-travel and I on time-travel, I began an abortive book of time-travel of which the end was to be the presence of my hero in the drowning of Atlantis. This was to be called Númenor, the Land in the West.

Originally Posted by Child

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?

Really the most obvious answer is that anyone writing a mythical saga would not want to miss out the Coolest Bit Of All: the chance to write your very own creation myth. I'm not religious and I too would be champing at the bit to get some god/creator action going on. Tolkien didn't put Eru in because he was a Catholic but because he was a writer.

[davem]

Again, ignoring myths as a path to spirituality.

Tolkien's work is not a 'mythology'. A mythology is the work of a people over millenia. Whatever Tolkien produced it is not technically a 'mythology'.

Could you give that specific quote??

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none....The Lord of the Rings has been read by many people since it finally appeared in print; and I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybeexcite them or deeply move them.

I don't see the logical connection between writting something about God in a fictional setting and inability to differentiate between one's fiction and (perceived) reality.

Which assumes that Tolkien was writing something about God in a fictional setting, of course. And even if he was the reader is not required to accept, let alone agree with, what the author says. And if the author gives us a work of fiction rather than a work of theology, one must assume he wanted it to be read as a story, not a work of theology.

The problem with this quote is that it says nothing of the standing of those who died.

So killing a million 'bad' people is OK?. Tolkien seemed to consider the fall of Numenor & the deaths involved to be a tragedy. You seem to be shrugging your shoulders & saying its OK.

That is what it seemed; part of Sauron's loss of power is that he spent a great part of it on corrupting Numenor. This is the only possible exit out of that hell; as Tolkien stated, there are certain encounters with evil that cannot be won by mere humans without supplication to God.

And yet Eru spared Sauron (& the Orcs & other servants of Sauron btw - whose attrocities far exceeded those of the Numenoreans). I don't see where 'Hell' comes into M-e - where it is never mentioned as a metaphysical reality.

And you say that, because?

The last leaders of the Faithful, Elendil and his sons, escaped from the Downfall with nine ships, bearing a seedling of Nimloth, and the Seven Seeing-stones (gifts of the Eldar to their House)

The idea that the whole of the faithful of Numenor could gather together in one place (& fit themselves into 9 ships) without being noticed is hardly credible.