Turin the Hopeless?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

CoH is not 'stunted' as far as I'm concerned. I find it one of the greatest, most profoundly interesting & challenging works Tolkien produced - as it is. Its only going to seem 'stunted' or 'incomplete' to those who want it to be something other than it is, to have a different 'message'. In itself it is as full & complete as LotR - it simply says something different..

Then please outline what LotR says, and what CoH says that is different. I'd like to see your comparisons, point for point. In other words, please prove what you're saying.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Then please outline what LotR says, and what CoH says that is different. I'd like to see your comparisons, point for point. In other words, please prove what you're saying.

I already did. I 'outlined' what I think LotR is saying in the CbC thread - I think, (apart from Esty's intros for each chapter) that I was the only one who contributed to every chapter. I've outlined what I think CoH is saying on this thread. As you know, I'm not someone who goes in for needless repetition.....

EDIT

Just linked to this article on the 'Christopher Tolkien' thread, but I think it contains some support for my position that CoH is essentially different in mood, tone, & 'message' to LotR.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle1742663.ece

[littlemanpoet]

Not being a student of other members here, I'll pass on the invitation to research.

Obviously, the mood and tone are different. As to message, it is a mistake to glory in Turin's Nordic zeal, which leads him lockstep into all of his tragedies. Turin is to be pitied. One pities fools who cannot learn from past mistakes. Turin may be a heroic fool, but he brings his tragedy upon himself. Morgoth brought his curse to bear upon him, but the story reveals that Turin could have overcome it. No, Turin was responsible for his own downfall. Morgoth is of course responsible for all the evil he brought to bear upon Turin and his family. But that does not excuse Turin his murders, his wasting of many others' lives, his rejection of all beneficence that requires a shred of humility. Turin is not someone to be admired, except perhaps for his courage; but even that is flawed since he flees from his own name and thereby causes his own doom. What one sows, so he reaps.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Obviously, the mood and tone are different. As to message, it is a mistake to glory in Turin's Nordic zeal, which leads him lockstep into all of his tragedies. Turin is to be pitied. One pities fools who cannot learn from past mistakes. Turin may be a heroic fool, but he brings his tragedy upon himself. Morgoth brought his curse to bear upon him, but the story reveals that Turin could have overcome it. No, Turin was responsible for his own downfall. Morgoth is of course responsible for all the evil he brought to bear upon Turin and his family. But that does not excuse Turin his murders, his wasting of many others' lives, his rejection of all beneficence that requires a shred of humility. Turin is not someone to be admired, except perhaps for his courage; but even that is flawed since he flees from his own name and thereby causes his own doom. What one sows, so he reaps.

Yes, & he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone. It is, as I argued, Turin's flaws that makes it possible for us to relate to him as we do. Its his defiance, & refusal to be broken - the fact that he always comes back fighting - that endears him to us, for all the wrong he does. We root for Turin all through, because we want him to win, & that's why we're so affected by his death. We also know that Turin is a victim. He's a victim of his own pride & bloody mindedness as much as he's a victim of Morgoth, but a victim nonetheless.

This is what is so powerful about the work. Yes, Turin murders innocent people (directly & indirectly), & wrecks the lives & hopes of those around him. He also brings peace & stability to the land, thwarts Morgoth's plans, & kills, through an act of supreme courage, his most devastating 'weapon'.

And thoughout it all, in Turin the thug, the murderer, the walking disaster, the hero, we see Turin the boy, asking Labadal 'What is Fate?', & being sent away from the mother he loves, the mother he will never see again.

Turin is of his time (& as I argue, of our time too). He lives in a world which has lost hope in itself, a world in which no-one has any simple answers to the essential questions. Its not a world in which some kindly counsellor is going to sit him down & tell him 'Your father was meant to have the Helm of Hador, & so you, too, were meant to have it, & that may be an encouraging thought' - because in the world of CoH things don't work that way. There is no Shire. There are isolated, embattled islands of temporary safety. People exist on the edge of death - their own & that of those they love, & there's no Gandalf or Aragorn to teach & guide them. In place of a wise counsellor like Gandalf, who can tell Frodo what's happening, why its happening, what he should do, & be there to help him do it, Turin has Labadal, a broken old man, who can tell him precisely nothing, answer none of his questions, & offer him no protection at all.

And here's a good statement of the Catholic position http://anamchara.blogs.com/

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Yes, & he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.

One cannot cast stones at a fictional character.

Turin is of his time (& as I argue, of our time too).

What you describe says that Turin is a universal figure rather than particularly of our time.

[davem]

I see you picked up on the salient points of my post & rightly ignored the irrelevancies.

[Aiwendil]

Well, I think my posts on the LotR read through more or less confirm that as my position, yes.

Well you've signed off on some rather strange claims.

Numbers 1 and 2 are the sort of literary snobbery I'd expect from Edmund Wilson. Number 3 implies that there should be no such thing as literature. Number 4 is demonstrably false. There seems little point, then, in arguing against them.

But number 5 sounds reasonable enough that someone might fall for it. Yet it's also false, and I think that is nowhere clearer than in Tolkien's writings. To paraphrase Turin, tragedy is tragedy, however small, nor is its worth only in what follows from it. But the tragedy of the 'Narn' is not small; it is deep and potent. The ultimate defeat of Morgoth no more wipes away the suffering of the 'Narn' than the defeat of the Nazis wipes away the holocaust.

In my opinion (as I think I've harped on elsewhere) the synthesis of antitheses is one of Tolkien's chief strengths. In LotR two very different concepts of evil are synthesized (as Shippey discusses in Author of the Century). In the tale of Turin, fate and free will are synthesized. And in the Silmarillion as a whole, Norse hopelessness and Christian hope are synthesized. Now it is the special power of Tolkien's synthesis that neither of the apparently contradictory elements is mitigated. Contradictory though it may seem, in the Silmarillion as in life, the deepest sorrow and the highest joy co-exist, and neither invalidates the other.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

I see you picked up on the salient points of my post & rightly ignored the irrelevancies.

Whether this comment is meant at face value or as ironic, I don't know. I was pressed for time.

Originally Posted by davem

...he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.

The analogy invoked implies a desire to condemn to death. This cannot be accomplished, even were the character not fictional, as he has already killed himself.

Originally Posted by davem

It is, as I argued, Turin's flaws that makes it possible for us to relate to him as we do. Its his defiance, & refusal to be broken - the fact that he always comes back fighting - that endears him to us, for all the wrong he does.

This is an interesting point. I was sympathising and relating to Túrin right up until, having joined the outlaws, he did nothing to stop them from their crimes. This showed either cowardice or extreme self-centeredness, narcissism. From then on I wanted Túrin to make virtuous, or at least right, choices, fully aware that he would not, and made note of not only the incidences of his continued failed opportunities as well as the motivations behind them. Not a pretty story.

One particular incident comes to mind. Túrin was spelled by Glaurung (as was Nienor later), and therefore it could be argued that his failure to save Finduilas was not his fault but Glaurung's. Such would be a mistaken view. Túrin was so full of wrath and revenge, not to mention guilt at having brought Nargothrond directly to its destruction, and so filled with reckless courage (which is to say foolish - "where angels fear to tread") that it doesn't occur to him not to look in Glaurung's eyes.

Compare this:

Bilbo was now beginning to feel really uncomfortable. Whenever Smaug's roving eye, seeking him in the shadows, flashed across him, he trembled, and an unaccountable desire seized hold of him to rush out and reveal himself and tell all the truth to Smaug. In fact he was in grievous danger of coming under the dragon-spell. But plucking up courage he spoke again.

Obviously, a comparison of Bilbo and Túrin requires plenty of qualification. Bilbo was not known for courage, but had just enough to "pluck up". One thing is certain, though: Bilbo was not given to rashness. Nor did he have a Morgoth-sized Curse upon his family. That notwithstanding, he hung on and did not come under the dragon-spell. One might object that Tolkien's purpose was entirely different in the two stories. To that I answer that, as Aiwendil has suggested, Tolkien has here yet another contrast, and both fall within his creative ouvre, and are thus worth comparing. They shed light on each other.