Turin the Hopeless?

[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.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Well, this doesn't seem to be accurate in light of earlier comments, which I trust are accurate, that Children of Hurin was meant to be part of a trilogy along with Gondolin and Beren & Luthien. JRRT's intent, then, would seem to have been some light, whereas due to the exigencies of JRR's and Christopher's limited time, only the one book comes to light.

I wonder me, if anyone will have been created "literary executor" upon the passing of Christopher? If so, it would be nice to get editions (literally) of the other two tales (if possible).

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Well, this doesn't seem to be accurate in light of earlier comments, which I trust are accurate, that Children of Hurin was meant to be part of a trilogy along with Gondolin and Beren & Luthien. JRRT's intent, then, would seem to have been some light, whereas due to the exigencies of JRR's and Christopher's limited time, only the one book comes to light.

Yes - or if the Turinsaga was read as part of The Sil as a whole - or if the prophecy of Turin's ultimate defeat of Morgoth had been included. I'm talking about CoH as we now have it - as a standalone work, & the effect it has on the reader. Tolkien could have (simply by including that prophecy) have introduced a glimmer of hope into CoH. He chose deliberately not to do that. Hence, we have a post-Christian novel (not, as I stated a 'fairy story' according to Tolkien's own rules). I asked at the start (only half jokingly) whether LotR should be appended to CoH to give the reader that glimpse of final victory).

One can put it down to 'the exigencies of JRR's and Christopher's limited time', (or 'chance - if chance you call it') but what I'm arguing is that the work as we have it is a perfect post-Christian/post-religious novel, & therefore a much more contemporary work than LotR.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

There's something in all of this also which points to some of the events of the Twentieth century - people fighting beyond hope, without any, but fighting because there was no choice. I'm thinking of events such as the Battle of Stalingrad or even the Miner's Strike (yes, really!) where there was no option but to stand up and fight - it was either that or lay down dead and accept Fate. And indeed, the Somme itself was this kind of battle; it was 'pre-ordained', 'fated', however you want to call it - those involved had no choice but to go over the top and in all likelihood lose their lives and the battle.

[davem]

Just on the point of reading CoH 'in the context of' the Legendarium, & supplying the missing 'hope' either via the ultimate victory over Morgoth at the end of the First Age, over Sauron at the end of the Third, or in terms of the Prophecy & Turin's ultimate defeat of Morgoth – it seems to me that the problem with that is that it reduces CoH to 'more of the same'. The vision is the same as in LotR – there is darkness that is ultimately defeated & good wins out. From that point of view CoH is unnecessary & tells us nothing new.

However, CoH as a story without ultimate hope, where the hero is destroyed by a fate he cannot understand or hope to conquer (he hopes, but his hope actually betrays him), it seems to me is something unique from the pen of Tolkien & shouldn't be seen as merely a part of something else. To bring hope from the wider Legendarium is in a way to cheapen the tragedy – as if it was to turn out that Niniel wasn't really Nienor, that it was just a case of mistaken identity, & to have her turn up at the end with Hurin & Morwen after the death of Glaurung & to even have Niniel have fallen onto a ledge just below the precipice, so that everyone could live happily ever after. That would be a perfect Eucatastrophe, revealing a light & joy beyond the walls of the world, & make the tragedy more palatable. For Tolkien to deliberately miss out any hope or joy from the story is more than an interesting curiosity. As I said, we may wish that the world was like LotR, we may even believe that in the end it will be, that there will be an ultimate victory of good over evil, but what we know (after the Somme, Auschwitz, Hiroshima, 9/11, after all the personal tragedies we live through) is that the world is more like the one we see in CoH. We are more like Turin than Frodo.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

One can put it down to 'the exigencies of JRR's and Christopher's limited time', (or 'chance - if chance you call it') but what I'm arguing is that the work as we have it is a perfect post-Christian/post-religious novel, & therefore a much more contemporary work than LotR.

I hope not, because contemporaneity has as its corollary that this work will some day become passé; which I highly doubt.

It is, however, perfectly honorable to say that one likes one work better than another by the same author because it jibes with one's beliefs.

[Sir Kohran]

Absolutely fantastic posts, everyone.

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.

I do admire Turin. But not for being a hero, for slaying the dragon and being such a great warrior...but for failing. I can empathize with him exactly. He drives forward, blundering through his life, blindly fighting and failing, achieving small successes but overall making mistakes everywhere. And that's how my life really is. I'm not like Aragorn or Ecthelion or Faramir or Eomer or Gandalf or Elendil; I don't live a perfect life with epic achievements at every throw. I don't defeat my enemies; more often than not they defeat me. I don't have a stunningly good record, I've done many things I'm ashamed of. But like Turin, the victory or defeat is not important - what is important is the trying. I admire Turin for trying at life and failing - for being weak and breakable. It sounds like a paradox. But for some reason I like him, more than most of Tolkien's other characters.

I think it's right to say that Turin and indeed the world he lives in are much more like our modern time. The world of The Lord Of The Rings is the time around and after World War II. You can see plenty of parallels. Though both the real war and the War of the Ring are devastating, they are also 'glorious', in a way - the 'good' leaders are inspirations to their soldiers through the speeches of Churchill and Theoden, the heroes' cause is just, the enemies are clearly evil and need to be defeated whether they are Orcs or Nazis, the battles are decisive victories from Pelennor Fields to the Bulge, the good guys win in the end as the Dark Tower falls and Hitler is found dead, and happiness is achieved as people in both worlds celebrate the epic victory. The people are strong - they believe in their ideals and faith, as Damrod invokes the Valar to protect him and Allied soldiers pray before battle. Even through the dark nights of the Blitz and the enemies besieging Minas Tirith, there is always that comfort at the back of our minds that God is there with us, on our side, supporting us in everything we do, and assuring the eventual victory. Whilst the impact and effects of both wars is felt even after them, through both the Cold War and the Scouring of the Shire, ultimately good has won. Though thousands die in World War Two, a new, safer generation will take over, just as when Frodo departs forever, Sam and the other hobbits rebuild their realm to an even better state than it was before.

The world of The Children Of Hurin, in contrast, is much bleaker, as is perhaps our own world. No longer do we have the unshakeable comfort of God in the back of our minds - many people now question the credibility and even the worth of religion, just as no-one can tell Turin where his dead sister has gone, because none of them can quite agree or even understand. Questions that were once obvious now stand unanswered. No longer are the wars glorious, simple and decisive - just as Fingon confidently looked out over his armies and allies, and drove forward against Morgoth, so did George Bush and the Coalition armies drive into Iraq, confident of victory. And in both situations the outcome was terrible, as the well-laid plans and sturdy soldiers and epic speeches went awry and dismayed both worlds. The 'bad guys' are no longer so obvious, nor as defeatable as they once were - Turin never gets his chance at defeating Morgoth because he is constantly deceived and turned aside by him, just as hidden criminals and corrupt politicians walk freely upon our streets. People are not as united as they once were - Turin encounters distrust in most places he visits and in fact spreads much of it himself. Our world is much less certain, just as Turin's is, the people less strong, the orders less firm. We are no longer in the comfortable, safe world of The Lord Of The Rings in the 20th Century - now we live in the grim, insecure world of the The Children Of Hurin in the 21st Century.