Cursing In the Books

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I think from an inside perspective to the story there's really no telling what the curses were all about. Except perhaps that they are connected to the Great Music - in the Elder Days more accessible than later on one might assume - and that characters in a moment of epiphany might get a clear vision of the (always so ironic) future through a glimpse into the Great Music. Such as when Glorfindel prophets the end of the Witch-King. This fore-seeing is mostly associated with Elves but one might assume that some mortals also have this latent ability to hear the Music so to speak.

Well while I agree with your interpretation of prophecies or something, I firmly stand against that you could say anything similar about curses. It's not that Mim would see how Andróg is going to end - the less to say that he was connected to the Music, come on! - and also there's the obvious cause-effect relationship, the similarity between what's been done (breaking of the oath, killing somebody with a bow) with what is going to happen/has to be done (fulfilling the oath, being killed and/or lacking a bow in need). And you certainly cannot explain the case of the Oathbreakers with any "moment of enlightement" from Isildur's part: because if it were so, it would mean (by how you put it) that the Oathbreakers would become cursed in any case, even if Isildur did not have this "prophetic moment". I fundamentally disagree with that: the way curses work - in all these old mythologies you mentioned - is that somebody makes a curse, and then it works. I think this is something which should not be even questioned. And so I don't see a reason why it should work in any different way in M-E.

(Otherwise, see above in my post.)

[skip spence]

I won't argue against your objections. It was only a far-fetched, flash of the moment, pot shot-theory to be honest. My main point was that there is no fully logical or even probable in-story explanation to these things. The curses work because that's the way it has to be. Tolkien wrote them in because it rocked his boat, because he though the theme fitting. But from an in-story perspective, Mim did not make a formal request to Eru's Ministry of Curses and Prophecies, who later deemed it appropriate, or knew the curse spell at level 3 or something. Mim just did what he did.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Yes, in that case of course yes. Indeed - well, I think the closest we can get to deciphering it from the "inside" is thinking that it's a "principle" which works there, for some reason, just as much as the laws of gravitation or whatnot. "Law of curses". () That's just "how it works". And observing it, we can come to figure out how it might, and if nothing else, how it cannot work (which can be equally valuable).

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Yes, in that case of course yes. Indeed - well, I think the closest we can get to deciphering it from the "inside" is thinking that it's a "principle" which works there, for some reason, just as much as the laws of gravitation or whatnot. "Law of curses". () That's just "how it works". And observing it, we can come to figure out how it might, and if nothing else, how it cannot work (which can be equally valuable).

Yeah, I suppose you're right and I get what you are saying. In addition to our natural laws, Arda has additional natural laws, or magical laws as you might say, and we can explain why they exist as little as we can explain why own own natural laws exist. They are there but we don't know why.

Or how about this for an in-book perspective: not all curses work, but spectacular ones that do come true make it into history-books such as the Red Book. As far as we know there might have been thousands of treacherous Petty-Dwarwes casting all kinds of nasty curses but with little or no effect. But you don't get a story with curses that don't come off. Even from an in-book perspective.

[Mnemosyne]

Somewhat tangential, but I think the fact that Tolkien never exactly specified what constituted a working curse and what didn't really helps with the essential ambiguity in his greatest Curse Epic--the Narn i Chin Hurin. Melkor's one of the characters you can make the strongest argument for "his curse works," especially if you ascribe to the "Morgoth's Ring" theory stating that Morgoth put his power into the world itself and thus had control over what it did to people.

But you never find out how much of what happens to Turin is because he is cursed, or because he's a jerk. And I think maybe to have Tolkien delineate what exactly makes a curse work might take away some of the mystery of that.

Not that we can't dig into it, though!

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Well, I think, as it has been said in the very beginning, Morgoth's curse is a bit specific (and you could say that about any course that would come from a Vala, Maia or a being of similar power). Because essentially, it differs from let's say Mim's curse in the sense that Morgoth actually has the power to make his curse come true.

At the same time, we could ask however about Saruman's curse of the Shire. Remember?

Originally Posted by RotK

"But do not think that when I lost all my goods I lost all my power! Whoever strikes me shall be accursed. And if my blood stains the Shire, it shall wither and never again be healed."

That one more of the aspects of Saruman which just makes me love his character, because there are so many things which "outreach" his frame and the frame of the story. So, of course we might ask - why didn't this come true? Because the feeling we get from the Scouring is that, effectively, the Shire was healed. However, of course, it is easy - at least in my opinion - to find an answer: it was not the Hobbits who struck Saruman down, so there was no reason for the curse to turn upon them or their land. This would, in turn, mean that curses are not as "mechanical" and "blind" as we know them from many other, e.g. ancient Greek tales - so it does not come into effect only mechanically, if Saruman's blood stains the Shire, but if it's in tune with the intent - i.e. the punishment of those who have killed him. If it wasn't the Shirelings, there is no reason to harm the Shire.

For that matter, of course this "curse" is an unusual one as well. First, it very likely might have been just a threat from powerless Saruman to prevent himself from being killed by the Hobbits. Secondly however, if it come down to that, I somehow believe that he would have been able to bring harm upon the Shire. That however leads us to realise - if we go with the scheme of how curses might work as I have outlined in my posts above - that he has no "right" to curse the Shire only out of spite (by the "curse law"), the only wrong the Shire would have done to him would be killing him (if it happened), but then again, Saruman has already done quite a lot of harm to the Shire before, so does he have the "right" to do more if the Shire takes a revenge on him? I would find it more likely that if some Hobbit wished "if he makes us his thralls, may his own thrall turn upon him!", he would have all "right" for his curse to come true.

But here again we come to that Saruman was a Maia - so I think his curse, if it were to come into effect, would have its base not in the general "curse law", but in the same spirit as Morgoth's - in his own personal power. And this power he can use as he sees fit, also to bring harm upon the land. It is probable that his death would somehow "amplify" the power of the curse (because if Saruman had enough power to do such a thing while he was alive, there's no reason why he couldn't have been walking around Rohan cursing fields or something like that). I think that's also a thing present in the folklore and old tales which Tolkien possibly might have used, had he stumbled upon such a situation during his writing (and this curse of Saruman itself proves, in my opinion, that he actually would, because he used it here - only it didn't meet its end), like "and with his last words, the Dark Lord said: 'Now thou hast killed me, but here be my revenge: All thy kingdom shall fall into dust in a thousand years!'" And so it would eventually happen...

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

I tend to think that Saruman's curse didn't work because he no longer had the power to back it up. As Gandalf had said earlier, he was a serpent who still had one tooth, the power of his voice. Other power he might have had in his embodied form as an Istar was no longer accessible to him with his expulsion from the order. Cursing the Shire was, I think, done for the purely petty purpose of frightening the Hobbits who had already seen the horrors done to the Shire at Saruman's behest. If it came to pass, it might have done so because the fear Saruman awakened in the Hobbits could make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they had believed he had the power to make the curse real, they might neglect the Shire, thinking that anything they tried was doomed to failure because of the "curse." Fortunately, the Hobbits were sensible enough to not let that happen.

As to the general efficacy of curses, I would think that some of the same factors that make oaths binding would also come into play. We know that part of what made the oath of Feanor so powerful and terrible was the fact that he called upon Eru and the Valar as witnesses to it. They are very real powers in Arda (heck, if TH is to be believed, some Vala has the job of enforcing the rules of riddle games). An oath is not the same as a curse, of course, so I doubt that Eru or the Valar would be inclined to make every curse called in their name come to pass. Some that are particularly justified, however, they might. When Melkor and Sauron retained enough power of their own, they were probably capable of making sure the curses they called down upon others actually happened. "Durin's beard," however, would not have the power to make a curse effective. "Mahal's beard," on the other hand, would invoke Aule, and if he thought the curse a valid one, he might act on it.

[Inziladun]

Very nice responses.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

As far as the Dead Men of Dunharrow are concerned, there was, for all we know, only One who could (at least temporarily) deny them the Gift of Ilúvatar. So we should probably read Isildur's curse as an appeal to Eru, and suppose that Eru, judging that the appeal was justified, decided to grant it by fulfilling the curse.
I wonder, however, what part, if any, guilty conscience on the side of the Oathbreakers themselves played in this. If they felt - as well they might - that they had deserved Isildur's curse by breaking their oath, they may not have felt free to move on as long as they had unfinished business in this world. Again, Eru probably agreed with their judgement of themselves, but what if He hadn't?

Interesting notion about the Dead Men of Dunharrow possibly staying put on their own, out of a sense that Isildur was right to curse them, and they really had committed a serious sin by breaking an oath.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Mîm's curse, I think, is quite another matter. Implicit assent by the cursed person doesn't seem to have played any part in its fulfilment: even if Andróg felt any guilt about the slaying of Khîm, it's hard to conceive how this could have affected the manner of his own death. And as for intervention by Eru in this case, this is hard to reconcile with his portrayal in the Silmarillion as a remote deity who doesn't meddle with His creation except in special cases after a special appeal from the Valar. (Yes, I know, somebody's going to tell me that He pushed Gollum over the brink at Sammath Naur, and I concede that this reading is possible but would argue that it's not necessary.) So either Eru isn't quite as remote from His creation as we are led to believe, or there's something else at work here.

There's also that counterpoint to Mîm's curse, in which Andróg tries to return the favour:

'The curse of a Dwarf never dies, they say; but a Man's too may come home. May he die with a dart in his throat!'

In UT, an alternate version of Andróg's curse reads: 'May he lack a bow at need, ere his end'. Mím could well have wished for a bow as he faced an angry Húrin at Nargothrond.
If 'the curse of a Dwarf never dies' had become a saying in Middle-earth, maybe that speaks for Aulë having some unusual interest in his children, and interceding on their behalf on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Basically I think the thing is that it has to be "meant seriously", and also, it probably needs to have some "logical grounding". The first thing, in my opinion, would disqualify the quote presented by Inzil about Thorin, as there it was definitely spoken in affect and Thorin did not really sort of mean it. Or: he would probably say it differently had he not been in affect. Whereas many curses of course are spoken in affect - looking into old tales, that's actually when they are usually spoken - however I would think that at least in M-E, they might be disqualified if the person who spoke them would not say the some thing after it has calmed down. I.e. Mim would still want Andróg to die, but Thorin won't probably want his beard to wither (if nothing else then also for that it won't be a very effective punishment. If Thorin really hated Gandalf for what he did, he'd probably wish to Gandalf to get an apprentice who would prove as useless as Bilbo did to him, or something like that).

I mainly put Thorin's in there as an illustration that two Dwarves got two different results with their curses. Thorin's might not seem to be quite as seriously made as Mîm's, but then again Thorin did appear to be angry enough to toss poor Bilbo down the mountainside.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

But here again we come to that Saruman was a Maia - so I think his curse, if it were to come into effect, would have its base not in the general "curse law", but in the same spirit as Morgoth's - in his own personal power. And this power he can use as he sees fit, also to bring harm upon the land. It is probable that his death would somehow "amplify" the power of the curse (because if Saruman had enough power to do such a thing while he was alive, there's no reason why he couldn't have been walking around Rohan cursing fields or something like that). I think that's also a thing present in the folklore and old tales which Tolkien possibly might have used, had he stumbled upon such a situation during his writing (and this curse of Saruman itself proves, in my opinion, that he actually would, because he used it here - only it didn't meet its end), like "and with his last words, the Dark Lord said: 'Now thou hast killed me, but here be my revenge: All thy kingdom shall fall into dust in a thousand years!'" And so it would eventually happen...

To me, Saruman's threat that:

'Whoever strikes me shall be accursed. And if my blood stains the Shire, it shall wither and never again be healed.'

was part empty threat, part truth.
Frodo divined which was which:

'Do not believe him! He has lost all power, save his voice, which can still daunt you and deceive you, if you let it.

But still, Frodo cautioned against killing Saruman.

'He was great once, of a noble kind that we should not dare to raise our hands against'.

Frodo perceived that Saruman had not the power to make the Shire 'wither', but striking him, one of the 'angelic' Maia, was an act that would probably not have been taken lightly by Higher Authority, since the Hobbits had it in their power to show him mercy, and their killing him would have been an act of pure revenge. I do think whoever hurt his body in that circumstance would have been 'accursed'.