The atrocity of the Akallabêth

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...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

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.

This last is perhaps a significant point. The ancient world-view, not only in the Old Testament but also in the classical world, was concerned with national gods and their placation; the fortunes of the people as a whole depended on the deity's pleasure or displeasure. When Jeremiah rants that the destruction of Israel was punishment for its sins, he's certainly not claiming that every Hebrew child was a sinner, but rather that the aggregate sins of the people had reached a tipping-point, so that YHWH had withdrawn his favor and protection. Before you call this 'primitive,' remember that sophisticated Athens executed Socrates for largely the same reason: he was held indirectly responsible for an act of sacrelige which was believed to threaten the safety of the state.

This sort of collectivism is I think inevitable in Tolkien's mythological mode, where peoples often stand in for characters. The Doom of Mandos destroyed a lot of Noldor (and Sindar and Men) who weren't even born at the time of the Kinslaying.

[davem]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

This sort of collectivism is I think inevitable in Tolkien's mythological mode, where peoples often stand in for characters. The Doom of Mandos destroyed a lot of Noldor (and Sindar and Men) who weren't even born at the time of the Kinslaying.

Accepted....but we don't think in 'mythological mode'. We are 21st century readers with a 21st century perspective. The problem is, we could accept Morgoth or Sauron indulging in mass slaughter because that's the kind of thing the do - they are 'evil' & slay indiscriminately. Eru is supposed to fall into the other camp.

LMP's statement that Eru cannot be flawed makes the whole thing so much more difficult - we are required to accept that an omnipotent, omniscient deity will commit an act of horrific destruction without even questioning it. Eru did it so it is 'good'. But what standards are we applying - what constitutes 'good' - is it whatever Eru does? If so then Eru could go around hurling thunderbolts at all & sundry, good, bad, old, young, black, white & it would be 'good' simply because Eru does it. Yet no reader would accept that. The reader can only accept that Eru is 'good' if his behaviour conforms to some objective standard of 'good'. But does Eru's destruction of Numenor conform to this standard?

EDIT

Edit removed because not everyone watches The Catherine Tate Show & it seems they didn't get the joke.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

But does Eru's destruction of Numenor conform to this standard?

No one has been able to come up with a better solution to the Numenorean problem. So, as stated previously, I fail to see the point of the critique.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

No one has been able to come up with a better solution to the Numenorean problem. So, as stated previously, I fail to see the point of the critique.

'Better' does not equal 'best'.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

'Better' does not equal 'best'.

But surely you understand that if nothing is better than this, then it is, by definition, the best.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

But surely you understand that if nothing is better than this, then it is, by definition, the best.

But surely you understand that you haven't proven that nothing was better than this. I'm sure that in the sixties many people could not think of a better way of doing complex mathematical calculations than by using a slide rule. Calculators are now known to be better. Just because one cannot think of a better way to do 'x' does not make the way that is used the 'best' - just the 'best' one can come up with at the time.

But the point is we are dealing with an Omnipotent, Omniscient being here - & one who is supposed to be both good, merciful & compassionate.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by davem

Accepted....but we don't think in 'mythological mode'. We are 21st century readers with a 21st century perspective. The problem is, we could accept Morgoth or Sauron indulging in mass slaughter because that's the kind of thing the do - they are 'evil' & slay indiscriminately. Eru is supposed to fall into the other camp.

LMP's statement that Eru cannot be flawed makes the whole thing so much more difficult - we are required to accept that an omnipotent, omniscient deity will commit an act of horrific destruction without even questioning it. Eru did it so it is 'good'. But what standards are we applying - what constitutes 'good' - is it whatever Eru does? If so then Eru could go around hurling thunderbolts at all & sundry, good, bad, old, young, black, white & it would be 'good' simply because Eru does it. Yet no reader would accept that. The reader can only accept that Eru is 'good' if his behaviour conforms to some objective standard of 'good'. But does Eru's destruction of Numenor conform to this standard?

Well, I guess William Cloud Hickli actually knocked the right door. What davem says here is true, we are 21st century readers and Tolkien was 20th century writer. But the Elves, Men, Dwarves, Hobbits... are not 20th or 21st century beings. Middle-Earth is a world which does not have the modern or postmodern views on things, it is a mythical world. And people in the "mythical age" or how should I call it, all the cultures in past times of our Earth, had their myths that reflected reality in their understanding of it. And this is how Middle-Earth works, like a mythical world. The people back then didn't have that understanding of God as we have now - so their tales were quite generalized, as William Cloud Hickli said. This is for example the mentioned (and to Akkallabëth quite similar) tale of Sodom and Gomorrah - from our modern, also New-Testament-based view of the Christian God, it does not seem fitting for God loving its creation to wipe out whole city including even little children (and this is what makes it difficult for many people to accept the "drastic tales" of the original Hebrew Bible). But the point of that story lies elsewhere, and it is that the only one who was not wicked was saved - Akallabëth shows something very similar. The main thing is to realize that every tale has its context in the age in which it is presented, and understanding it depends on taking the viewpoint of people living in that age. I am not speaking now of simple reading the story for pleasure - we can enjoy the tale just by reading it; I think we all can read tales from, let's say, Greek mythology and not thinking about if it makes sense ("But Olympus was not that high", "But the Earth isn't flat"). But when we start digging deeper into it, we will ultimately hit some obstacle which wouldn't fit with our 21st century point of view. And here we have only two options: say "This is nuts, the story is silly, it does not make sense, we all know the Earth isn't flat" or try to look at the story from the point of its time. And the Akkallabëth, though it does not have any "real" background in the world (sorry to those who believe ME really existed back then ), is written in the language of myths, so we have to accept it. "The whole island was destroyed, with all its men, women, and children" - total destruction, you have commited crime, the crime that is so great that it has impact on the whole nation. Saying "And everyone died, only the little children were taken by Elendil who collected them from all the homes" or something like that will totally destroy the point of the story. The motive of the story is Trespassing, no Repentance, Punishment.

This does not, by any matter, discard the point that Lalwendë and others have raised here, that Eru as an omni-creator and omni-ruler does ultimately have the right to do this if he wishes. But as davem correctly said, Eru is presented as good, not evil, and so if we want to preserve the logic of his character, we must take the story this way - as a myth, and not bother about whether even little children died there. We are 21st century readers, but I doubt the people in Middle-Earth thought about it like we do, they are not 21st century people. The point it would have for the inhabitants of the Middle-Earth would be a tale of Gift, of misusing it, of greed and many others... and warning for the Men not to do this again.

[davem]

Its interesting. We read The Illiad & The Oddysey (& Gilgamesh & Mahabharata if it comes to that) as tales of Man 'at the mercy' of the gods, who are temperamental, tetchy, selfish & pretty juvenile. Eru is the God that the inhabitants of M-e have, & they must make do.

One could, I suppose, read the OT in the same way - YHVH is hardly always kind, tolerant & compassionate. Yet we live (in the West at least) with 2,000 years of Christianity in our psyches & because of this we 'expect' a God who is loving, self sacrificing, compassionate - one who would not behave in such an 'Old Testament' fashion. Christianity has shaped our perception of how 'God' is supposed to behave, so we (Christian or not) will judge Eru by that standard, & in the destruction of Numenor he does not.

Hence, the only thing we can do is to put aside this idea of 'equivalence' & simply accept Eru for what he is - not good or evil, but a 'force' of nature, conscious, directing, ultimately in control, but not the God of Christianity by another name.