What was Shelob, and more importantly, what was Ungoliant?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Stemmed? You folks make her sound like a blossom from the Evil tree. "The darkness" was the empty space that "lies about Arda," like the darkness around our own Earth. There's absolutely no reason to make her into some peculiar manifestation of evil.

I'll say it how I like thanks, but do read what has been posted instead of rushing ahead to 'make your point'. Where did I say the Void or the darkness was 'evil'? Where do I say Ungoliant is 'evil'? In fact I'm saying quite the opposite, that Eru created all these things if we take him as Omnipotent, and if Eru is the creator god of this place then he can't be 'evil' as we mere mortals understand it.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Obviously you can. You just proposed (above) that we seriously consider the possibility that Iluvatar had other creative projects from which Ungoliante might have emigrated, despite the fact that Tolkien never indicated that he did, nor even entertained the possibility. In doing this you have removed Tolkien from the creative role, leaving only Iluvatar. You attribute to Iluvatar the power to create without Tolkien's guidance.

Ha! In being so reductive you miss the essential irony inherent in Tolkien's conceit of this all being translated from existing texts. Of course we know in our superior position as the reader that Tolkien made this all up - but at the same time, an essential element to what he made up is that it isn't made up. Therefore in one sense, as Legate suggests, Eru does have the power to create without Tolkien's influence. These are the fuzzy edges which make Tolkien's work so attractive.

So as not to risk being called pretentious for bringing a little critical theory into this (there's a new one, it's usually me thinking others are pretentious...), it is highly relevant as Tolkien does not tell us outright where Ungoliant stemmed from, and he was also the one who gave us the other parts of our investigation, the omnipotent Eru, the metaphors of Light and Unlight, the existence of the Void, the creator conceit. All of those can be brought to bear on the fun of working out where Ungoliant might come from and what she is.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well, perhaps this can be viewed "structurally"? Some propositions:

1) "All Ainur who entered Ea" does not equal "The Valar + Maiar." This is nowhere stated, though often assumed; Maiar I feel confident refers to those lesser Ainur who entered the service of the Valar. This does not include, e.g., the Balrogs, who apparently had already fallen beforehand. Contrast Sauron, who was expressly a Maia of Aule's retinue, and who only (openly) joined Melkor later on.

2) "Ealar" does not necessarily equal "Ainur." Eru it would seem to me was capable of creating sentient spirits within Ea, as opposed to the Ainur who were created before it. E.g. the 'spirits' sent to dwell in the forests and become Ents; or the very anomalous status of Dragons and Eagles.

[The Might]

As far as this "result of natural forces" theory is concerned I can see why you would reffer to Bombadil as such and as I stated above I can also well think of Ungoliant as another such result as well.
Indeed there is no clear proof for this, however, in absence of any other better thery for her origin I personally also share Gwathagor's opinion.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by The Might

As far as this "result of natural forces" theory is concerned I can see why you would reffer to Bombadil as such and as I stated above I can also well think of Ungoliant as another such result as well.
Indeed there is no clear proof for this, however, in absence of any other better thery for her origin I personally also share Gwathagor's opinion.

The proof is not very clear, I agree, but it is both a reasonable and functional theory. My primary reason for viewing Ungoliant as a manifestation of dark natural forces (anti-Bombadil) is the bit in the Silmarillion that describes her as being descended from the darkness that lay about Arda. It's not much, but it works.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Well, perhaps this can be viewed "structurally"? Some propositions:

1) "All Ainur who entered Ea" does not equal "The Valar + Maiar." This is nowhere stated, though often assumed; Maiar I feel confident refers to those lesser Ainur who entered the service of the Valar. This does not include, e.g., the Balrogs, who apparently had already fallen beforehand. Contrast Sauron, who was expressly a Maia of Aule's retinue, and who only (openly) joined Melkor later on.

If there are other Ainur who were not designated either Maia or Vala (and even CT makes the assumption that the term represents one group with two parts in the Sil index), they were beings that are not referenced in the text--in other words, we have no explicit examples. You may not have meant to imply the contrary, but the Maiar are all those Ainur who served the Valar, not just the lesser ones. Balrogs are also expressly Maiar (See HoMe X, p. 411; also Umaiar: see HoMe X, p. 79), though the names of their prior masters are not given. And, in fact, the whole of the corpus appears to take for granted that "primeval spirit" and variants thereof refer either to a Vala or Maia. Melkor is said to have had many Maiar in his service, and the Balrogs are said to be the greatest of his servants, though they are lesser spirits than Sauron.

2) "Ealar" does not necessarily equal "Ainur." Eru it would seem to me was capable of creating sentient spirits within Ea, as opposed to the Ainur who were created before it. E.g. the 'spirits' sent to dwell in the forests and become Ents; or the very anomalous status of Dragons and Eagles.

Ealar does not equal Ainur in the sense that all ealar are not Ainur; yet all Ainur are ealar, so the distinction is not so great as to render two separate groups. The term is defined merely as a naturally discarnate being. I agree with the possibility that some ealar existed in Arda that were somewhat rogue, not adhering to the official roles given to the Valar and Maiar, simply because it seems plausible. However, HoMe X, p. 410 explicates that "only the Valar and Maiar are intelligences that can assume the forms of Arda at will."

The dragons are easily explained either as Maiar incarnated (fully) in shapes of Melkor's design, or shapes animated by Melkor but lacking a true fea. The eagles also provide little difficulty either as somewhat aloof Maiar (and there were plenty of other Maiar even less involved in the affairs of Middle-earth) or as trained beasts. The Ents are admittedly more anomalous, but, in any case, they are not ealar since they are naturally incarnate.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I'll say it how I like thanks, but do read what has been posted instead of rushing ahead to 'make your point'. Where did I say the Void or the darkness was 'evil'? Where do I say Ungoliant is 'evil'? In fact I'm saying quite the opposite, that Eru created all these things if we take him as Omnipotent, and if Eru is the creator god of this place then he can't be 'evil' as we mere mortals understand it.

By positioning Ungoliante in opposition to Iluvatar you appeared to be implying that she was the Bad to his Good. If you intend merely to define her without judgment as Unlight (stripping away also the judgment of Iluvatar as Good) then my disagreement is lessened, but I agree with Thinlo and Legate and believe that you accord her more importance than she is due.

It's not a bad point for discussion, however, since it creates an interesting trinity in Iluvatar, Melkor, and Ungoliante: Iluvatar and Ungoliante at opposite ends as Light and Unlight, and Melkor all over the middle, not as Darkness (sorry Legate), but rather as Nihil: creative power inverted. Still, I think that defining Melkor in this way creates an overlap with Ungoliante's status as Unlight and the exaggeration of her importance begins to show more clearly. Melkor is the Enemy, not Ungoliante, and I think that describing Ungoliante as "unlight" without judging her evil is glib: Light and Life go hand-in-hand, as you point out; so, then, do Unlight and Death. If Melkor was evil, it is because of his extinguishing of light and life, and therefore Ungoliante too must be evil as this is her sole purpose.

As for the point of Iluvatar, as creator, being the source of Melkor's theme and its "evil" manifestations, I have posted my thoughts elsewhere: 1, 2, 3

Ha! In being so reductive you miss the essential irony inherent in Tolkien's conceit of this all being translated from existing texts. Of course we know in our superior position as the reader that Tolkien made this all up - but at the same time, an essential element to what he made up is that it isn't made up. Therefore in one sense, as Legate suggests, Eru does have the power to create without Tolkien's influence. These are the fuzzy edges which make Tolkien's work so attractive.

No, I do not miss that at all. It has nothing to do with the question I was answering. You asked:

Can we as modern readers with critical minds ever truly think that this has a separate existence to Tolkien?

And I pointed out that you had just said:

We still cannot rule out the chance that there are other existences than Arda, which may have been created by Eru.

Either we view Tolkien's world as a living thing, the histories of which Tolkien merely transmitted to us, leaving open all kinds of possibilities that he neglected to mention, such as the possibility that "there are other existences than Arda...created by Eru." Or we view it as a finite story, complete despite gaps in our knowledge because what we have is all that Tolkien wrote, in which case there is no possibility of "other existences than Arda..." because Tolkien never directly created them or even implied them.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by obloquy

By positioning Ungoliante in opposition to Iluvatar you appeared to be implying that she was the Bad to his Good. If you intend merely to define her without judgment as Unlight (stripping away also the judgment of Iluvatar as Good) then my disagreement is lessened, but I agree with Thinlo and Legate and believe that you accord her more importance than she is due.

It's not a bad point for discussion, however, since it creates an interesting trinity in Iluvatar, Melkor, and Ungoliante: Iluvatar and Ungoliante at opposite ends as Light and Unlight, and Melkor all over the middle, not as Darkness (sorry Legate), but rather as Nihil: creative power inverted. Still, I think that defining Melkor in this way creates an overlap with Ungoliante's status as Unlight and the exaggeration of her importance begins to show more clearly. Melkor is the Enemy, not Ungoliante, and I think that describing Ungoliante as "unlight" without judging her evil is glib: Light and Life go hand-in-hand, as you point out; so, then, do Unlight and Death. If Melkor was evil, it is because of his extinguishing of light and life, and therefore Ungoliante too must be evil as this is her sole purpose.

Now I also do not position Ungoliant as some kind of opposite to Eru in terms of Good/Evil. That's far too reductive and also I think simply wrong. In essence you are coming at it from the same approach as I don't think we can possibly say Eru=Good, certainly not in mere human terms. Why? Because if Eru is omnipotent then we must also accept that it was he who produced Melkor and hence what Melkor did has its roots in Eru...and if you look at what is said about Melkor's deeds, this is perfectly acceptable even to those who want to see Eru as 'perfect' as Melkor's deeds result in greater deeds which end up to the glory of Eru. Etc etc...I've been over that one many a time

Ungoliant as Unlight and Eru as Light does not merely boil down to one being bad and one being good. Life itself in Tolkien's creation is tied up with a lot of 'darkness' in that Elves are doomed to be tied to the world as long as it lasts and Men must accept their doom in the form of Death. Ungoliant may or may not symbolise this fate, this counterpart to Light/Life, and not as a bad thing, but as a necessary thing. Where Melkor comes into this is that he tries to exploit that in his destructive aims, and note that Ungoliant in the end abandons him. It's important to note that Melkor seeks to corrupt and to create as well as destroy - whereas Ungoliant merely seeks to feed, not to make a mockery of Eru and the creation he and the rest of the Ainur conjoured up, even if it is Light which she finds so tasty.

Perhaps another idea to pursue may also be found in the law that every action has a reaction, and in Eru's use of Light to create life and existence he may also have created Unlight or negation. It may even be a necessary thing if he hopes one day to turn the Light off at Dagor Dagorath, which is referred to as the Unmaking of Arda if I recall correctly? Unmaking suggesting more than merely smashing it up into bits in a celestial temper but actually making it cease to exist entirely.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Either we view Tolkien's world as a living thing, the histories of which Tolkien merely transmitted to us, leaving open all kinds of possibilities that he neglected to mention, such as the possibility that "there are other existences than Arda...created by Eru." Or we view it as a finite story, complete despite gaps in our knowledge because what we have is all that Tolkien wrote, in which case there is no possibility of "other existences than Arda..." because Tolkien never directly created them or even implied them.

Seeking to apply theory to Tolkien's work is not mere clever-dickery in this case, it has a real application The major conceit of the stories is that they have been translated from existing texts. In which case we have to ask who wrote them. Elves in the case of what we have in the Silmarillion? In which case haven't we got an Elves' view of things? Elves who admittedly had no concept of where Ungoliant may have come from and what her purpose was apart from ruining their Trees? What would their ability to imagine the purpose/nature of Ungoliant be?

[Gwathagor]

I agree with obloquy that opposing Ungoliant as an Unlight to Eru's Light is essentially dualism, and not a good idea.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

I agree with obloquy that opposing Ungoliant as an Unlight to Eru's Light is essentially dualism, and not a good idea.

In this theory, it isn't an opposition but a necessary part of a whole.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

In this theory, it isn't an opposition but a necessary part of a whole.

But Eru is not part of the whole, for he created it.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

But Eru is not part of the whole, for he created it.

You mean he's a TimBit? (gotta be Canuck to get this).

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

But Eru is not part of the whole, for he created it.

It depends. If it all came from him then he is naturally a part of it as it all reflects his essence.

Originally Posted by obloquy

The idea that the texts Tolkien translated contain inaccuracies--or, at least, demonstrate a subjective viewpoint, limited in knowledge and/or understanding--is a good one. So good, in fact, that I pointed it out many posts ago with reference to Ungoliante's origin myth. But I do not see how this is what you were referring to in the first place where, it appears to me, you asked a question which you had already demonstrated your own answer to. You asked, Can we separate the mythos from Tolkien as creator? while you had already admonished us not to forget certain possibilities of which Tolkien was unaware, or at least not himself the creator. I have no substantial disagreement with the portion quoted in this post; though I would say that the Eldar's understanding of Ungoliante ought to be considered pretty good, keeping in mind their relationship with the Ainur. Whether the knowledge of the wiser Eldar is what is recorded in Tolkien's work I do not know.

And there's the rub. How you perceive Ungoliant and whether you speculate on things about her that are not written down by Tolkien depends upon whether you take onboard the 'translator' conceit and accept that as in any translation there can be odd things which do not cross over well and which after further investigation lead you to surprising conclusions (as for example in translations of Biblical text from the original Hebrew). Or if you take this text as simply something Tolkien wrote and which baldly does not allow for such exploration.

You can do either really, to fit your argument and it would still be OK

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Seeking to apply theory to Tolkien's work is not mere clever-dickery in this case, it has a real application The major conceit of the stories is that they have been translated from existing texts. In which case we have to ask who wrote them. Elves in the case of what we have in the Silmarillion? In which case haven't we got an Elves' view of things? Elves who admittedly had no concept of where Ungoliant may have come from and what her purpose was apart from ruining their Trees? What would their ability to imagine the purpose/nature of Ungoliant be?

The idea that the texts Tolkien translated contain inaccuracies--or, at least, demonstrate a subjective viewpoint, limited in knowledge and/or understanding--is a good one. So good, in fact, that I pointed it out many posts ago with reference to Ungoliante's origin myth. But I do not see how this is what you were referring to in the first place where, it appears to me, you asked a question which you had already demonstrated your own answer to. You asked, Can we separate the mythos from Tolkien as creator? while you had already admonished us not to forget certain possibilities of which Tolkien was unaware, or at least not himself the creator. I have no substantial disagreement with the portion quoted in this post; though I would say that the Eldar's understanding of Ungoliante ought to be considered pretty good, keeping in mind their relationship with the Ainur. Whether the knowledge of the wiser Eldar is what is recorded in Tolkien's work I do not know.