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

[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).

[Gwathagor]

I get it, I get it. And I'm not even Canadian.

[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

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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

Would you agree that it is better to say, instead, that it is all a part of Him, since it came from Him? I think it's an important distinction, in the same way that a genus is not part of a species.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

Would you agree that it is better to say, instead, that it is all a part of Him, since it came from Him? I think it's an important distinction, in the same way that a genus is not part of a species.

Not that I would agree with Lal about Eru, but even this formulation of yours is getting very close to something that is called pantheism, which I think is also not Eru's case. Obviously, Arda is not a "part of him".

Anyway, what was the topic of the thread? *hint hint*

[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.