Turin the Hopeless?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by davem

But the bigger point is, neither Eru nor the Valar actually step in to help him. Of course, with Morgoth & Glaurung making him the focus of their malice he has no chance - he needs divine help - but he doesn't get it. He is left to deal with the horror & suffering of his house - & does it as best he may.

Turin is not an athiest - he acknowledges the existence of the Valar - he just considers them to be either useless or uncaring. They play no part in his thinking.

Well, not exactly. I think Túrin might be an "atheist" in the meaning of the word, not that he does not know about Eru or Valar, but it means nothing for him. The switch is on the other side - we know Valar came to help the people of Middle-Earth when Eärendil came and asked for it in the name of both Men and Elves. Túrin is in the state of division, as Noldor were, and he (as well as the Noldor in all their great deeds) is not able to defeat the Dark Enemy, as you said, simply because he doesn't have enough power for it. From the side of Noldor it was foolishness at first, lately just pride not to turn back and ask for help, then, as time passed by, they even "forgot" the possibility of turning back for help: and here the despair comes, which all the other nations "caught" from the Elves, and this concerns even Túrin. Túrin, as well as all the folk around him, does not even think of the possibility that Valar could help the folk in Middle-Earth. This does not necessarily mean he would think "nah, they didn't came thus far, they probably do not care anymore about us" or "they are so angry on Noldor still that they wouldn't help us" (the latter was quite common among the Elves at in the start) - he might not thought about it at all, he might just take it as fact, so may have forgotten even the original question why. After Nirnaeth, Beleriand is in the state of "forgetfulness about mercy of Valar", there are very few who get the idea about asking the powers for help: only people around Tuor and Turgon, for example (and even here it is Ulmo who comes first, unasked!).

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien tells the story of a great victory (LotR) first, & follows it up with a tale of despair & defeat without hope. I also note that the planned sequel to LotR also looked to be full of despair & lost hope. Was Tolkien disillusioned after end of the WWII? Did he look around him & see that his England was not about to return to Christianity (remember the hopes of the TCBS?)?

Is the world of CoH the world that Tolkien saw coming, the world of LotR the one that he now realised had passed away?

I think so. I think the Roger Waters-like thought "what happened to the post-war dream" was quite common at that time. Although Tolkien says that e.g. the Scouring of the Shire was logical ending even before the WWII ended, it pretty well catches the point that by the victorious war, world's trouble is not miraculously solved. And as time passed, the world didn't seem to change into a more peaceful place, but rather fall under the shadow of the Cold War. We might of course say, that the tale of Túrin had some shape even before that time and we don't know what shape it had in author's mind (as well as what it represented to him), so it (or its main points, at least) might not necessarily get affected by the changes in the world that much (as the mentioned thing about the Scouring of the Shire).

[davem]

SPOILERS

Of course, one could argue that CoH doesn't obey the rules (principally the absence of a Eucatastrophe) of Fairy story as laid down by Tolkien. Which begs the question: Is CoH actually a fairy story? LotR is, so is TH, so is The Sil as a whole. Yet CoH apparently is not. There is no 'glimpse beyond the walls of the world'. The tale ends in despair, with no glimpse of hope. What there is, is courage against all odds, a flawed human being defying evil alone, even though he is in the end destroyed by it.

Yet in the end he gives in to despair & takes his own life. He has nothing to live for, having apparently accepted that he cannot escape his doom, & throws himself on his sword. It could be argued that he never had a chance. The trigger had been pulled & the bullet was in flight. It was simply a matter of time before it struck him down. Breaks all the rules.

Yet if is is not a 'fairy story' what is it?

Do we admire Turin? He is, on the surface, a hero - he slays Morgoth's ultimate 'WMD'. He defies his fate. The 'incest' is hardly a 'sin' because he is not aware that Niniel is his sister, so he cannot be blamed for it. But is his suicide a 'sin'? From a 'Christian' viewpoint, yes, but from a Pagan one, or a pre- or post Christian one it is not - necessarily. It is a tragic end for a tragic hero. In the pre-/post-Christian worldview there is no moral judgement. Turin can commit suicide without being judged 'sinful' because in the world of the story his act is tragic but understandable, & he is still a 'hero', because he hasn't 'broken the rules'.

Yet, if Frodo had thrown himself on Sting at the end of LotR we would have been shocked. It would have been 'against the rules'., because while LotR is not a 'Christian' story it is one where a deity is a guiding force, & certain rules apply. Denethor ought not commit suicide either, because that act is against the rules. The fact that he does makes him wrong. Turin & Nienor are not wrong in taking their own lives. In fact, if Mablung had done a 'Gandalf' & started 'moralising' to Turin about having 'no authority' to take his life we'd have responded by thinking him a prig. Gandalf is not a prig - Gandalf is right to upbraid Denethor about neglecting his duty, because in the world of LotR there are certain rules - but those rules do not apply in the world of CoH, which is both an older & a more contemporary one.

Turin has not chosen to reject the Valar, he has not chosen not to have faith - he never had any to begin with - because, as Garth stated

As a boy, Turin poses immense questions of fate & death, but no-one in this benighted world knows the answers. If The Lord of the Rings is an expression of faith in a God who turns events to good, The Children of Hurin expresses a visceral sense of evil undermining everything of worth.

Turin is a man of his (& our) time. No-one knows the answers to his questions, because there are no answers that work. There is no overarching religious vision or philosophy - his world is cut off from meaning & all a man can do is fight wrong to the best of his ability. His actions may be wrong, stupid, reckless, even cruel, but they are not seen as 'sins'. One cannot imagine Turin in the world of LotR, because he is of a different time & place. CoH is almost an 'anti-LotR' - different values, different rules. One cannot 'escape' into CoH as one can escape into LotR. For all the suffering, the tragedy & loss in LotR, there is a sense that there is a guiding hand, that somehow it will all be well in the end - because the characters will get what they deserve. Good will win out & evil will be overcome. CoH stands apart from that vision.

Of course, one can read it as part of The Sil, & see it as the darkness before dawn, yet in a sense that is to cheapen the tragedy, & thereby make ourselves 'comfortable' with the horror. Many of the reviewers of CoH have expressed a dislike of CoH - some of them lovers of TH & LotR. Perhaps that's because, deep down, CoH is the more challenging work, uncomfortable reading without a glimmer of hope. There is no 'escape' in CoH, no happy ending, no eucatastrophe to give us hope. As I said, CoH 'balances' LotR, it is an 'anti-fairy story'.

[littlemanpoet]

How does Turin stand up morally against the Nordic code? (I'm using the word "code" to signify "standard of behavior", just for the sake of clarity)

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

How does Turin stand up morally against the Nordic code? (I'm using the word "code" to signify "standard of behavior", just for the sake of clarity)

I think he'd be seen as 'cursed' rather than 'immoral' or 'sinful' in his actions. His desire to rule in his father's place, to be a warrior, defender of his people, enemy of Morgoth, would be seen as right & praiseworthy. Of course he would also have been seen as overly proud in some things & as one who contributed to his own downfall. Yet, he tried, whenever his temper didn't get the better of him, to do the right thing. Principally, he wasn't a coward - which would count for a great deal in such a society. He would, I think, be held up as a tragic hero who defied his fate. In short, his behaviour & attiude wasn't 'out of line'. He faced the Dragon with courage.

(Sorry, that's a bit rambling....)

[Lalwendë]

It's this idea that Tolkien intended to have a version of Ragnarok at the end of time which fascinates me - in which Morgoth, newly returned from the Void, and Turin would fight. In the Norse sagas, Loki is the one newly freed from captivity and Heimdal is the one who fights him at the end of Time. Tolkien clearly envisaged an end to the world he had created drawn directly from the old sagas - but with this kind of intention, does it mean Turin was hopeless? No, he had it laid out in his fate that he would return and finally achieve his victory - and it's also quite fabulous that the end of Morgoth would be brought about by a mere Man.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It's this idea that Tolkien intended to have a version of Ragnarok at the end of time which fascinates me - in which Morgoth, newly returned from the Void, and Turin would fight. In the Norse sagas, Loki is the one newly freed from captivity and Heimdal is the one who fights him at the end of Time. Tolkien clearly envisaged an end to the world he had created drawn directly from the old sagas - but with this kind of intention, does it mean Turin was hopeless? No, he had it laid out in his fate that he would return and finally achieve his victory - and it's also quite fabulous that the end of Morgoth would be brought about by a mere Man.

That was what I mentioned earlier. But only mentioned. The point is that this is not mentioned in the story, nor in the new CoH (as far as I am aware), so "common reader" might not even know about it. Whether it is right or wrong not to write about that, is another topic.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

That was what I mentioned earlier. But only mentioned. The point is that this is not mentioned in the story, nor in the new CoH (as far as I am aware), so "common reader" might not even know about it. Whether it is right or wrong not to write about that, is another topic.

Of course - what a writer omits to mention is often more important than what he includes. In the Narn Tolkien chose to omit any 'light', any glimpse of a Eucatastrophe. Does the reader need that?

What the reader is given is not the whole story of Turin, but a version of the story, or if you will an 'episode'. But Tolkien chose to tell the story as he did, & it is a story of hopelessness, despair, & tragedy. It didn't have to be. He could have added the tale of Turin facing down & destroying Morgoth if he'd wanted to. Yet....

That would have turned it into a fairy story, with a 'happily ever after' ending. Tolkien could have turned up the lights at the end. Instead he blows out the candle & leaves the reader alone in the darkness. That is his intent, that's the story he wanted to tell.

I wonder whether LotR reflected the world as he wanted it to be, while CoH reflected the world as he had experienced it? Garth's point about CoH coming from the pen of a Somme survivor is relevant here, I think.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

How does Turin stand up morally against the Nordic code? (I'm using the word "code" to signify "standard of behavior", just for the sake of clarity)

There's also Tolkien's own comments about heroism and chivalry and excess of personal glory. How does CoH stack up against Tolkien's comments in The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth?

The hero has an obligation to his people, to do all he can to ensure victory--survivial--for his people in Tolkien's idea of the "heroic northern spirit." Does the ominous [i]lofgeornost'/i], "most desirous of glory", linger over Turin?

I suspect this gets away from the topic at hand, though, which examines hope.

So much for my 'unalloyed' reading of CoH.