The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Raynor]

Neither am I aware of her been mentioned as part of the faithfuls. That she might have brought the numenoreans out of darkness if she was queen would have been queen is a possiblity we cannot discard out of hand. However, no single mention on remorse or despair on her side is mentioned, about how things turned in Numenor. None. She did no action, that I am aware of, to show her good intentions, openly or not. She knew what Sauron was. She must have comprehended what means accepting him and his teachings. Her faith might have save her, her sanity, her morality. It doesn't look like she had it. She was most likely aware of the numenorean age old faith. Even if she was lukewarm at some point, or worse, she had the chance to turn, when she saw the magnitude the corruption was taking. She didn't. As far as we are aware, she did nothing to save herself (fear at the last moment isn't necessary a sign of repentance either) or her people.

[Raynor]

anything JRRT could conceive of, pales in comparison to the reality of S&G,

What exactly about Sodom and Gomora makes the horrible deeds of the numenoreans pale in comparison?

I think JRRT saw buroughcrats shuffling papers in cubicles offering a far more insidious evils than any orc or bad Numeronian.

That's a strong statement about people shuffling paper. Can you back it?

[Elmo]

That's a strong statement about people shuffling paper. Can you back it?

I've tried to get a passport

[The Saucepan Man]

*SpM guiltily eyes the papers on his desk, due a spot of shuffling, and with a sigh and no little reluctance, enters the debate.*

Originally Posted by davem

Either Sauron corrupted them - as you stated there, or they were already 'corrupted' & that is why they succumbed to him. You seem to be seeking to win the argument by adopting both positions.

To be fair, both positions are tenable. The Numenoreans were already, to a degree, corrupted prior to Sauron’s influence. That existing corruption was magnified and nurtured by Sauron following his arrival in Numenor. That the latter was the result of Sauron’s influence does not absolve those Numenoreans who succumbed to it from responsibility, for they had free will whether to accept or reject it.

However, my main purpose in posting was to offer the view that, whether one accepts the drowning of Numenor, and its attendant devastation, as an atrocity or not surely comes down to whether one accepts the “real life” (in terms of belief, at least) deity from which Tolkien’s characterisation (such as it is) of his fictional character, Eru, is drawn. In other words, if one can accept a God who perpetrated incidents such as Sodom and Gomorrah and the Noachian Flood as the act of a God worth believing in, then one can surely accept Eru’s active participation in the drowning of Numenor in similar vein. If one cannot, then the devastation wrought by Eru will indeed seem like the unjust and unforgiveable “hissy fit” which davem characterises it as.

As it happens, I rather agree with davem. But then, I have never really approved of the some of the actions of the God of the Old Testament.

But isn’t that beside the point? A debate between those who believe in the God from whom the inspiration for Eru was drawn and those who do not (or who do not accept that, if he exists, he would have perpetrated such deeds) as to whether Eru’s actions were just, or believable, or acceptable, can surely never be resolved. One’s perspective is firmly grounded in one’s personal beliefs.

I rather think that the debate might proceed more constructively by taking up the gauntlet thrown down by Child. How can those of us who cannot accept this intervention by Eru as just, or who find it difficult to perceive him as a credibly drawn fictional character, reconcile this with our love of Tolkien’s works and how does it impact upon our understanding of them?

Oh, and …

Originally Posted by davem

And even if he was the reader is not required to accept, let alone agree with, what the author says.

Originally Posted by davem

I don't remember him anywhere stating he was trying to reveal the truth about God.

I think of the endless debates that we had on the canonicity thread, and my flabber is well and truly ghasted.

[drigel]

What exactly about Sodom and Gomora makes the horrible deeds of the numenoreans pale in comparison?

Raynor, thanks for the inquiry, and sorry this isnt complete. I have to work instead of slack.

This was a generality I threw out, based on my studies. I will give more specifics when I can. A quick and lazy way to answer would be to google "atrocities of the ancient world". Curiously enough, the first link that comes up is a list that someone compiled that lists and ranks the known atrocities. Of the ancient world, the Old Testament Isrealites seem to appear a lot (no city left behind..., ....not even the women and children, etc). This is all based on what surviving documentation we have of course. I would say that the average life of ancient man was much harsher and more gruesome than the 20th century author JRRT. The atrocities commited were as well. What is made very clear that atrocities - and by definition loosing one's life is the ulimate atrocity - clearly modern man is the most efficient and prolific. Which leads me to:

That's a strong statement about people shuffling paper. Can you back it?

I dont have the Letters handy, so I cant directly quote JRRT on his opinion of buearocracies. Sorry. But IMO the point (which I agree) that I got from his letters is that the buearocrat who is shuffling the papers that enable the commiter of the atrocity is commiting the higher evil. Atrocity without responcibility. Sin without ownership. Completely anti-Heroic in it's purest sense.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I rather think that the debate might proceed more constructively by taking up the gauntlet thrown down by Child. How can those of us who cannot accept this intervention by Eru as just, or who find it difficult to perceive him as a credibly drawn fictional character, reconcile this with our love of Tolkien’s works and how does it impact upon our understanding of them?

Hiroshima.

Or reality intrudes. Sodom & Gommorrah is not the example we're looking for. The problem modern readers have is that we've seen destruction & devastation on a truly horrifying scale. The destruction of a whole society of 'bad' people is no longer part of the mythic world of Dragons, Balrogs & Elves.

Or, lets look at 9/11 & the shockwave that has produced. And that 'shockwave' is the real issue. I'm not comparing the Twin Towers to Numenor, or those killed to the 'evil' Numenoreans, btw, but considering the effect on the reader of an event like the destruction of Numenor.

Think about it. We cannot be 'casual' about such an act, or about someone (God or otherwise) who commits it. We can't shrug our shoulders & say 'its just fantasy', or God is said to have done something similar in the Bible. We exist in a post Hiroshima, post 9/11 world & the sudden death of thousands of human beings will elicit a response from us about anyone who does something like that.

We will require a proper justification, not clever arguments. We can't accept the 'Angry God' justification. Numenor shocks us (or should) because we've seen the effect (if not the cause) played out in in our lifetimes. 'Well, they were all bad people.' doesn't work.

Eru's act does not 'fit' in a world like M-e where mercy & compassion is played up to such an extent. I think what most of us do is simply not confront it. We basically ignore the fact that Tolkien has his God slaughter tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of human beings - men, women & children.

But this is probably the single most significant event in Middle-earth history, & (after the Creation) the single most significant thing Eru does. What does this tell us about the God of Arda?

My frustration all along has been with the argument 'Well, the Numenoreans were bad & deserved it.' (which is less of an argument & more of a refusal to think through the implications). Rotting human corpses would have been floating on the ocean. Pieces of bodies. Pieces of babies. Rotting animals. This is a 'fact' of M-e history. The fall of Numenor would have been quite possibly the single most horrible event in the History of Arda.

What we have is, admittedly, yet another scene of horror in a catalogue of such horrors - but this one is caused by Eru, & is thus unique.

Its as though the Fall of Numenor confronts us with a very difficult answer to the old question which is always asked when humanity is confronted by scenes of devastation: Where was God? - in this case the answer is 'Right here'.......

[Raynor]

But this is probably the single most significant event in Middle-earth history, & (after the Creation) the single most significant thing Eru does.

Again, ignoring the continuous appearance of Men, which goes on until the end of Creation. Also, you seem to discard, again, Gandalf reimbodied, or the destruction of the One Ring - without these, none may have seen the end of Sauron's tyranny. You also ignore all the other arguments I have presented on his continuous intervention, without providing a single time a counter-argument or proof. I have already given a refference where the attitude of denying the goodness of Eru is, in this work, the source of evil. You just keep repeating this one statement, oblivious to what I say. It is proving tiresome. May I kindly ask you to review your approach?

My frustration all along has been with the argument 'Well, the Numenoreans were bad & deserved it.' (which is less of an argument & more of a refusal to think through the implications). Rotting human corpses would have been floating on the ocean. Pieces of bodies. Pieces of babies. Rotting animals.

First of all, considering the magnitude of forces, and that Sauron himself was caught by surprise and that he rose out of the sea depths after he was killed, I would say that no trace of the event, as you describe, would have remained surfaced.

So, we should think about implications? How about the implications of the actions of the numenoreans. You seem intent on vivid description. How would you describe to yourself "spilling of blood and torment and great wickedness, men made sacrifice to Melkor"? Can you depict how a normal Numenorean party of hunting people in M-E would generally go about? How about a casual day in the life of a taken slave? What would be, in your own imaginations, the stages of cruelly slaying people? May I also kindly request that you keep these images to you?

So, I am curious davem, how would you have gone about ending this tragedy? Remember, you have already used anything in your arsenal already. You have used lightnings, even to strike people, even to set the temple on fire. But to no avail. You have sent clouds in the forms of eagles (perhaps eagles themselves in the last day). Nothing. Warnings don't work. The tragedies continue. The power of Sauron increases daily. They set out to attack and possibly destroy the most sacred land, the land of the governors of creation, home to some of your other Children. What do you do davem? And, also, keep in mind that you have given your Children a gift, which you should not take back. You have given them free will. How do you go about? Can they really be saved in any manner while embodied? I truly doubt that; Sauron didn't waste his power for nothing, they were his both mentally and phisically. So? Let's recap: mounting tragedies, attack on Valinor, (most likely) impossibility of saving corrupted Men while still embodied, who, most importantly, wouldn't want to be saved... how do you cut this knot? I am looking forward to your creative opinion.

The fall of Numenor would have been quite possibly the single most horrible event in the History of Arda.

An ongoing tragedy ends, both in Numenor - and for many people in Middle Earth - why don't we "ask" these what they thought? M-E sees the dawn of a new day, and era, Sauron is diminnished in power, and the numenoreans go "home". What do you think about these implications? How would you solve this with less costs?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Again, ignoring the continuous appearance of Men, which goes on until the end of Creation. Also, you seem to discard, again, Gandalf reimbodied, or the destruction of the One Ring - without these, none may have seen the end of Sauron's tyranny.

Unless, of course, Eru had removed him as had been done with Morgoth...

You also ignore all the other arguments I have presented on his continuous intervention, without providing a single time a counter-argument or proof. I have already given a refference where the attitude of denying the goodness of Eru is, in this work, the source of evil. You just keep repeating this one statement, oblivious to what I say. It is proving tiresome. May I kindly ask you to review your approach?

But its not convincing anybody. Eru may have shown such 'concern' as you state, but he also slaughtered many thousands of his children, innocent as well as guilty & allowed many evil Numenoreans to survive in mainland colonies.

First of all, considering the magnitude of forces, and that Sauron himself was caught by surprise and that he rose out of the sea depths after he was killed, I would say that no trace of the event, as you describe, would have remained surfaced.

So the possibility that the bodies may not have been seen makes the killing more acceptable?

So, we should think about implications? How about the implications of the actions of the numenoreans. You seem intent on vivid description. How would you describe to yourself "spilling of blood and torment and great wickedness, men made sacrifice to Melkor"? Can you depict how a normal Numenorean party of hunting people in M-E would generally go about? How about a casual day in the life of a taken slave? What would be, in your own imaginations, the stages of cruelly slaying people? May I also kindly request that you keep these images to you?

And thus Eru is justified because two wrongs make a right?

So, I am curious davem, how would you have gone about ending this tragedy? Remember, you have already used anything in your arsenal already. You have used lightnings, even to strike people, even to set the temple on fire. But to no avail. You have sent clouds in the forms of eagles (perhaps eagles themselves in the last day). Nothing. Warnings don't work. The tragedies continue. The power of Sauron increases daily. They set out to attack and possibly destroy the most sacred land, the land of the governors of creation, home to some of your other Children. What do you do davem?

Oh, some 'God thing' - which doesn't involve mass murder. I'm sure, for instance, that destruction of the Fleet alone would have had the desired effect, without killing the civilians. And your position requires us to accept that every single one of the Numenoreans willingly went along with the attrocities, which must at least be open to doubt. I do not accept that any children on the Island can be held to have been guilty enough to justify their deaths while Nuemnoreans who actually did go along with the attrocities were spared by virtue of their being on the mainland.

And, also, keep in mind that you have given your Children a gift, which you should not take back. You have given them free will.

Have to say that the most effective way of taking away someone's free will is to drown them.

How do you go about? Can they really be saved in any manner while embodied?

Isn't that how they justified burning heretics & witches?

I truly doubt that; Sauron didn't waste his power for nothing, they were his both mentally and phisically. So? Let's recap: mounting tragedies, attack on Valinor, (most likely) impossibility of saving corrupted Men while still embodied, who, most importantly, wouldn't want to be saved... how do you cut this knot? I am looking forward to your creative opinion.

Destroy the fleet, spare the civilians.

An ongoing tragedy ends, both in Numenor - and for many people in Middle Earth - why don't we "ask" these what they thought? M-E sees the dawn of a new day, and era, Sauron is diminished in power, and the numenoreans go "home". What do you think about these implications? How would you solve this with less costs?

You miss the point. Eru intervened & killed people. Innocent & guilty. The buck stops with him. You're making him out almost to be the helpless victim of circumstances beyond his control. He is responsible - a fact you seem to keep ignoring. We have to deal with the fact that Eru is a God who will do something like that.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by hewhoarisesinmight

I've tried to get a passport

Something more like an argument maybe? Related to Tolkien's opinion preferrably?

Drigel, I would be more than happy to continue our discussion if you could provide something more specific about both my particular questions. And as to ancient history being more violent, the very first result which appeared on my query on google on the topic you mentioned lists the 20th century with the highest rate of casualties. For the worst of it, I don't think it lacked anything of the past centuries' wars; but it sure repeated them on an unimaginable scale, with more "refined" and "efficient" means of destruction. But this is off topic.

[Lalwendë]

Firstly, to answer SpM, I too don't like what Eru did. But I can reconcile this as the action of Eru, who is a very odd kind of god. He's not the kindly sort of God that modern worshippers know, but more the Old Testament type of God who would happily smite you down just for fun, for a bit of a cosmic joke. He's like the God of the Book of Job who toys with even his most faithful followers and is let's be frank, a wee bit cruel. But he can do this simply because he is omnipotent, and in fact its the kind of thing you'd expect of an omnipotent god - play around with even the most faithful, just to keep them 'in their place'.

That's just how Eru is - and it works if you consider the difficulties Tolkien himself had with reconciling his belief in God with the real horrors he saw on the Somme (such horrors as none of us has ever seen so we can't even get to the point he must have got to). I have to say, this Eru who Tolkien turned up isn't someone I particularly like, but he's interesting enough as a literary creation, and he certainly gives the writer incredible licence to do dodgy things to his characters as it can all be explained away as "Eru did it", and we all go "Ahhhhh, I see......"

The nature of omnipotent gods is that they can be as horrible as nasty as they like, but we can't question their motives because they are beyond our own concept of morality.

Now, getting on to those evil little kiddies who drowned. I seriously doubt that Tolkien really believed that children playing at being Orcs meant said kids were by nature 'evil' - you only have to read biographical works on Tolkien to see just how much of a family man and devoted father he was. Such a man simply would not kill off children and want us to believe this was 'justified' - has anyone ever thought that he put this there so that we would question Eru's actions? We are allowed to, you know! Remember there is no final word to say that this here literary creation, Eru is God, and nobody/no deity is going to smite anyone who questions this Eru's actions against mere children!

The other character who concerns me is indeed Miriel. Tolkien does NOT set her up as evil! Where does she condone the actions of Sauron? She is simply trapped in a marriage she does not want. The reason she did not speak out is laid out in the story - she simply could not. Putting a modern analogy to this - there were many ordinary Germans during WWII who did not speak out against Hitler - but this does NOT mean they condoned his actions or were 'evil'! I believe there is a letter mentioning Tolkien's own belief that ordinary Germans should in no way be held 'to blame'. They were simply trapped in a situation where they were inable to speak out for fear of their own lives. Tolkien is not in the habit of creating figures who are martyrs - and he does not make one out of Miriel. Rather he invites us to view the very human tragedy of Miriel (and many others too) caught up in events outside their control, and invites us to ask questions, not to draw lines and prepare nooses.

Finally, back to Atlantis. I am afraid that one letter in which Elendil is called 'Noachian' does not turn Tolkien's story into a Noachian story, no matter how much we want it to be one. The overwhelming evidence is that this is simply has little if anything to do with the Biblical flood, it is to do with Tolkien's Atlantis complex. That one Noachian figure proceeds from the story certainly does not mean that the story itself is Noachian - that I am afraid is simply speculation as Tolkien tells us the story is not Noachian, it is Atlantean.

[Raynor]

but more the Old Testament type of God who would happily smite you down just for fun

I see. And one instance where Eru does this for fun would be...?

I seriously doubt that Tolkien really believed that children playing at being Orcs meant said kids were by nature 'evil'

They are evil by choice. May I ask if you read it? Or letter #256?

Such a man simply would not kill off children and want us to believe this was 'justified'

One would have to balance the justice of this killing against growing up in a ever increasingly corrupted world, where they would be zombies doing Sauron's work, oppressing others in ways unimaginable, losing every bit of humanity, falling ever lower on the chasm of madness. I wonder if a mother would suffer her children to go about that way.

there were many ordinary Germans during WWII who did not speak out against Hitler - but this does NOT mean they condoned his actions or were 'evil'

No tyrant survives without the consent of his people - I truly believe in this.

Where does she condone the actions of Sauron?

If condone means to disregard without protest or censure, then she did all that. There isn't a single card of dissent, inward or outward, that we know she played. All we know is that in that period the luxury was ever increasing, more so at the top, presumably; there is no mention that she was an exception. There were clear signs that all riches came off at the expense of slavery and oppression - esspecially so concerning the king's house and his riches. All we know is that she enjoyed all that and did nothing about it. Nothing. Meanwhile, the faithfuls remained true to their beliefs, even when they were most often the victims of cruelty. No moral person can live in such times, enjoy the greatest luxury, with no sign of remorse, and still reject the label of evil.

I believe there is a letter mentioning Tolkien's own belief that ordinary Germans should in no way be held 'to blame'.

If you find it, perhaps we can discuss it.

The overwhelming evidence is that this is simply has little if anything to do with the Biblical flood, it is to do with Tolkien's Atlantis complex. That one Noachian figure proceeds from the story certainly does not mean that the story itself is Noachian - that I am afraid is simply speculation as Tolkien tells us the story is not Noachian, it is Atlantean.

Again, I see this as the logical fallacy of the false dillemma. The story can be both, I see no reason why not. I find your argument esspecially questionable, given that you were the first to quote Tolkien as calling this a noachian situation.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

They are evil by choice. May I ask if you read it? Or letter #256?

Children 'evil' by choice....and does Tolkien state how old these children were? 2? 5? 12?

One would have to balance the justice of this killing against growing up in a ever increasingly corrupted world, where they would be zombies doing Sauron's work, oppressing others in ways unimaginable, losing every bit of humanity, falling ever lower on the chasm of madness. I wonder if a mother would suffer her children to go about that way.

What mother wouldn't happily see her children killed for playing at being Orcs? You've sure convinced me...

No tyrant survives without the consent of his people - I truly believe in this.
If condone means to disregard without protest or censure, then she did all that. There isn't a single card of dissent, inward or outward, that we know she played. All we know is that in that period the luxury was ever increasing, more so at the top, presumably; there is no mention that she was an exception. There were clear signs that all riches came off at the expense of slavery and oppression - esspecially so concerning the king's house and his riches. All we know is that she enjoyed all that and did nothing about it. Nothing. Meanwhile, the faithfuls remained true to their beliefs, even when they were most often the victims of cruelty. No moral person can live in such times, enjoy the greatest luxury, with no sign of remorse, and still reject the label of evil.

As I stated earlier, in Robert Foster's Complete Guide to Middle-earth Miriel is stated to have been one of the faithful, & Christopher Tolkien himself praises that book for its accuracy.

If you find it, perhaps we can discuss it.

Its Letter 81.

There was a solemn article in the local paper seriously advocating systematic exterminating of the entire German nation as the only proper course after military victory: because, if you pleasse, they are rattlesnakes & don't know the difference between good & evil! (What of the writer?) The Germans have just as much right to declare the Poles & Jews exterminable vermin, subhuman, as we have to select the Germans: in other words no right, whatever they have done.

So, in Tolkien's opinion the 'extermination' of the German people could not be justified - whatever they had done - even 'consenting to a Dictator'.

[Raynor]

Unless, of course, Eru had removed him as had been done with Morgoth.

Which disregards that:
- all the ainur are supposed to stay within Ea until the end
- Eru must respect the free will of his created beings
- Melkor is the foremost candidate for an exception; the effects of him staying in Ea and regaining power are incomparable to Sauron doing so

But its not convincing anybody.

So far, I believe you are the only one who remains unconvinced of their veracity. If don't have an actual counter-proof, your argument is fallacious.

Eru may have shown such 'concern' as you state, but he also slaughtered many thousands of his children, innocent as well as guilty

I have presented my case concerning the marring of all the un-faithfuls in Numenor. I am looking forward to rebutals.

allowed many evil Numenoreans to survive in mainland colonies.

In a situation of power which is incomparable to what has been before.

So the possibility that the bodies may not have been seen makes the killing more acceptable?

That was not my point. I have simply pointed out the unlikelyness of your theory.

I'm sure, for instance, that destruction of the Fleet alone would have had the desired effect, without killing the civilians.

You disregard the fact that killing people _in_land_ by lightning strikes had no effect either; or that Sauron was still in Numenor, more of a ruler than before, above a people he tainted with his power. That situation would simply have removed all obstacles in Sauron's path, as he was already musing how to go about his business, now that the Edain were out of his way. Destroying only the fleet would have actually helped Sauron. He was glad about it.

I do not accept that any children on the Island can be held to have been guilty enough to justify their deaths while Nuemnoreans who actually did go along with the attrocities were spared by virtue of their being on the mainland.

Those on the mainland, unlike those on the island, weren't under Sauron's continuous, ever increasing, corruption.

Have to say that the most effective way of taking away someone's free will is to drown them.

I have asked you what would you have done better, if someone continues to kill and oppress, and will do so as long as he/she lives. So far, you have only nitpick at my presentation of the situation, without pointing out to any other better solution. The One's responsibility is not only to save the aggressors (the best way he can), but the victims too.

Isn't that how they justified burning heretics & witches?

False analogy; in the situation of heretics and witches, the blame rested on their accusers. There was no real reason, religious or otherwise, to do so. The burden of proof has not been observed in fact. With the numenoreans, the evidence were in the day light, while there still was light. So, what is the answer to my initial question?

Destroy the fleet, spare the civilians.

In addition to what I have answered before to this theory, I would also note that the center of world-wide oppression would still be left - Numenor.

Eru intervened & killed people. Innocent & guilty.

I am aware that the younger those people, the lesser their fault (although their marring might be just as strong). For this, I propose we consider: the "mother" situation I presented to Lal; beyond all, the fact that Eru can turn any divine punishment into a divine gift.

You're making him out almost to be the helpless victim of circumstances beyond his control.

These circumstances are beyond his control, if he is to guarantee free will.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Which disregards that:
- all the ainur are supposed to stay within Ea until the end
- Eru must respect the free will of his created beings
- Melkor is the foremost candidate for an exception; the effects of him staying in Ea and regaining power are incomparable to Sauron doing so

So exceptions are possible?

In a situation of power which is incomparable to what has been before.

As would Numenor without its Fleet.

Those on the mainland, unlike those on the island, weren't under Sauron's continuous, ever increasing, corruption.

So the Children of Numenor were more 'evil' than fully grown Numenoreans on the Mainland?

I have asked you what would you have done better, if someone continues to kill and oppress, and will do so as long as he/she lives. So far, you have only nitpick at my presentation of the situation, without pointing out to any other better solution. The One's responsibility is not only to save the aggressors (the best way he can), but the victims too.

If that was the 'best' he could do, I'm not impressed.

False analogy; in the situation of heretics and witches, the blame rested on their accusers. There was no real reason, religious or otherwise, to do so. The burden of proof has not been observed in fact. With the numenoreans, the evidence were in the day light, while there still was light.

So burning them alive would have been ok if there had been proof? Its not that burning someone alive is wrong in & of itself, only if you have no evidence?

I am aware that the younger those people, the lesser their fault (although their marring might be just as strong). For this, I propose we consider: the "mother" situation I presented to Lal; beyond all, the fact that Eru can turn any divine punishment into a divine gift.

And you're still saying its ok to kill 'evil' children.

These circumstances are beyond his control, if he is to guarantee free will.

Killing someone does not guarantee their free will.