Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
09-01-2010, 05:43 PM | #81 | ||||||
Wisest of the Noldor
|
Quote:
Quote:
2. We "think" we know better? Um... it does rather appear to be set in the same world as the rest, doesn't it? You know, names, places, and all that? If you think Tolkien meant it to be set in a separate world, one with a different background as regards history, the nature of the supernatural, etc. then I rather think the burden of proof is on you. Once again, I'm not saying the book can't be read, or doesn't work, on its own. What you're saying here actually goes considerably beyond that: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now, look, guys, I don't have a problem with anyone who prefers to read it as a stand-alone work. What I am disputing is that a.) this is an inherently "better" reading, b.) that it's what the author intended, c.) that reading it in the context of the Legendarium necessarily "cheapens" or "disses" it, and d.) that wishing so to read it is a sign of weakness or moral failing (or– in tumhalad's words, is "fatuous"). I don't know if you all intended this last, but that's kind of how it's coming across. Can't you see this is a matter of personal taste, and nothing more?
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo. Last edited by Nerwen; 09-01-2010 at 07:08 PM. Reason: added comment; added more comments |
||||||
09-01-2010, 08:22 PM | #82 |
Wisest of the Noldor
|
Also, since having an overall happy(ish) ending does not erase individual suffering– what's the problem? I quite agree, for instance, that Turin & Co. had no way of knowing Morgoth would be eventually defeated. Therefore I don't see why reading the whole thing– or reading CoH with the rest in mind– somehow "invalidates" Turin's anguish.
My guess– though this may be way out, and possibly offensive, for which I apologise in advance– is that the answer perhaps lies in what some of you imagine is taking place in the minds of people reading it the "wrong" way. I mean all this talk of "shoving it into the world of LOTR to 'make it fit in'", of people having a "determination to see it as simply part of a greater tale where good wins out & everyone lives happily ever" of the in-context reading being "easier on the reader". It is my belief that in saying this you're attributing "bad" (as you see it) motives to other people which aren't necessarily there. Once again, you are all free to read any book any way you like. If you don't like one of the author's concepts, why, then, reject it. One is not obliged to take a writer's whole philosophy onboard, anyway. I never do.
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo. Last edited by Nerwen; 09-01-2010 at 08:28 PM. Reason: typo |
09-01-2010, 09:16 PM | #83 | |
Curmudgeonly Wordwraith
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ensconced in curmudgeonly pursuits
Posts: 2,508
|
Quote:
Contextually speaking, the fall of the House of Hurin is completely compatible with the long defeat of the Elves. Just as Hurin is forced by Morgoth to watch the hideous doom against his family unfold, so too did Morgoth chain Maedhros by the wrist atop Thangorodrim for many years. The Valar, the angelic intermediaries of Eru (whose hands-off attitude towards his creation is completely at variance with the Judeo-Christian god of the bible), simply do not interact with Middle-earth save for extraordinary circumstances. The Valar's seeming indifference causes untold suffering for nearly an entire age of Middle-earth, and Hurin's family, just like countless other families, are left to the diabolical whims of Morgoth, including captives the Dark Lord released to cause further pain to both those he had freed as well as the relations they returned to. Therefore, to say that CoH is incongruous or better as a stand-alone tale separate from the rest of the history of the 1st Age is spurious. Hurin valiantly cries out, "Day shall come again!" seventy times as he hewed down trolls. Unfortunately, the day that dawned came too late for Hurin and his family, but that does not mean that he was not prescient in what he said. Very few prophets live to see the outcome of their revelations.
__________________
And your little sister's immaculate virginity wings away on the bony shoulders of a young horse named George who stole surreptitiously into her geography revision. |
|
09-01-2010, 10:26 PM | #84 | |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 95
|
Quote:
For all Hurin knows, and for all we should care, Morgoth is telling the truth. Manwe doesn't deign to intervene until the very end of the war, when the Noldor are utterly defeated and Hurin and his family have all died. Yes, the War of Wrath constitues a eucastraphe, an underserved episode of grace. But still, I'm uncomfortable with the notion that we should be complicit in it. As Nerwen pointed out, it is completely acceptable to see the suffering of Turin's family in the context of a final victory against Morgoth without diminishing it. However, I think where I'm getting at is that CoH, in its novelistic form, seems to undermine this construction; it seems to make eucatastrophe gratuitous. Now, I'm not saying we should take this interpretation because our own lives are bleak and nasty; I don't have such a life either, but I am saying that to my eyes the text itself seems to lend weight to such an interpretation. Now, we then have the issue of interpreting it along side its peritexts, the Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings. Should we then, treat Middle-earth as a kind of ontologically consistent history? Or should the novels absolutely stand on their own? Well, I think a balance is required. Certainly, CoH is set in the same world, as Nerwen points out, in so far as names, places and people are familiar. But it is this qualitative difference, this much terser, less aesthetic use of langauge that characterises CoH that worries me. It is entirely unlike either the LOTR or the Sil. It brings to bear its own style, and thereby its own unique tone and atmosphere. How is this to be understood? |
|
09-02-2010, 08:56 AM | #85 | |
Curmudgeonly Wordwraith
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ensconced in curmudgeonly pursuits
Posts: 2,508
|
Quote:
__________________
And your little sister's immaculate virginity wings away on the bony shoulders of a young horse named George who stole surreptitiously into her geography revision. |
|
09-02-2010, 08:58 AM | #86 |
Dead Serious
|
One thing that has occurred to me in reading through the recent discourse here, is to what extent it is fair to say that Tolkien always considered CoH as a part of the "The Silmarillion" and not as an independent story. Obviously, I think, you cannot divorce it from the wider Legendarium (and I would consider anyone who attempted such an endeavour to be a fool). At the same time, however, "The Silmarillion", as it stands, is not really a single tale, but a compendium of related tales. It is somewhat like the Bible, in that respect, the Bible being a collection of books (a library) rather than a single book.
It's more complicated than just saying "The Silmarillion" is just a library of tales, however. Like the Bible, there is a single story throughout, and unlike the Bible, it is the work of a single human editor, who was specifically interested in following a specific story. It is worth noting that I am not speaking of "The Silmarillion" here as the 1977 volume published posthumously, and including "The Ainulindalë," "The Valaquenta," etc. Rather, I mean the "Quenta Silmarillion," considered as a single narrative tale. "The Silmarillion," then, considered as a single narrative, is really the story of the Silmarils, the story of the Noldor, the story of the House of Fëanor, and the story of Morgoth. It intersects with the stories of the House of Húrin, of Gondolin/Eärendil, of Beren and Lúthien, and so forth... but these other stories are, for "The Silmarillion" really only chapters, and not fully considered tales in their own right. From the point of view of "The Silmarillion," the real chief characters of "The Lay of Leithian" are Celegorm, Curufin, and Morgoth--they are the continuing characters of the previous chapters, who are now jointly spited by the interloping lovers. From the perspective of "The Silmarillion," Beren and Lúthien only start becoming really important AFTER they have the Silmaril--in other words, when they become entangled in the Doom of the Noldor, and avenge Thingol's killers, and thus set up Doriath for both the creation of the Nauglamír and the revenge of the Sons of Fëanor--and the deaths of Celegorm, Caranthir, and Curufin. What about the love story, however, of the Man and the Elf, and the doomed romance of death and inevitably sundered destinies and the eucatastrophe of Mandos bending Lúthien's doom? This barely plays from the perspective of the main narrative in "The Silmarillion," because it is not the point there. I think this difference of focus is even stronger with CoH, because CoH features even fewer of the main players of "The Silmarillion" story, and is an even more insignificant chapter in that narrative. The Nirnaeth, which is the biggest "Silmarillion" event in CoH is given a separate chapter and treatment in "The Silmarillion," and within the context of the wider work, is not really seen as a part of the story of Húrin so much as of Maedhros. And after that? Well... Nargothrond falls, and Morgoth eventually loses his new prototype weapon, after having proved its effectiveness--and Glaurung will soon be replaced by Ancalagon and the winged dragons anyway, so perhaps it's best that he was put out of his misery by Túrin. It's only once Túrin is dead, and Húrin can then be released, that Morgoth starts getting what he's looking for: the approximate location of Gondolin, the other shoe falling for Thingol having taken the Silmaril. My point is not that CoH--or "The Lay of Leithian," or the Gondolin/Eärendil saga, for that matter--is insignificant in and of itself, nor that "The Silmarillion" can go on without it. No story can go on as if some of its chapters, in which the plot is advanced, were not written. My point, however, is that the emphasis on what is more broadly "important" changes depending on whether one is following the story of the Silmarils in the chapter on Túrin, or whether one is following the tragic tale of the Children of Húrin from beginning to end. In the former, it is crucially important that Nargothrond fall and Húrin be broken to Morgoth's will. In the latter, the emphasis is on Túrin and Nienor, and their own, personal tragedy. Morwen is of very little consequence to "The Silmarillion" narrative--she is too far from the main events to really matter as the source of crucial action--but in CoH, she is at its very heart, and it could not be understood without her. I have one last point before I end, and since my copies of the HoME are boxed away somewhere in my van, I cannot offer any proof of what I am about to say, so bear with the possible misremembering. However... As far as my memory goes, the Fall of Gondolin, the Lay of Leithian, and Turin and the Dragon are the oldest components in the Book of Lost Tales, the first "Silmarillion." "The Book of Lost Tales," by itself, is a more compartmentalised account than the "Quenta Silmarillion," and the focus is much more on the individual tales than one the broader arc. What is more, we really only have these three tales in their later Lost Tales form, and not in the very germ of story-thought in which they were conceived. Knowing the source of "Beren and Tinúviel" in Tolkien's own marriage, and more strongly of "Turin and Glómund" in the Finnish Kallevala, it seems to me entirely possible that these three tales were NOT, in origin, conceived as part of a cohesive whole--possibly part of a related mythology, but that is several steps from the united tale of "The Silmarillion." I think, if I am right here, that this original conception of these tales as independent, and less as part of the cycle, gives them a tenser relationship with the rest of "The Silmarillion" than, say, "The Account of the Sun and Moon." Tolkien continued to work on larger, "independent" accounts of these tales from the 1920s through the 1950s, the same period that saw the formation of "The Silmarillion" largely as we know it. This gives us the abortive tale "Of Tuor and his Coming to Gondolin," the text of CoH as we have it, and poetic accounts of both Túrin and Leithian. In short--if I can be short--there is a back-and-forth between inclusion in "The Silmarillion" and their own stand-alone qualities, which goes back through their whole history of creation, and is, I think, quite deliberate on Tolkien's part. From this, I hardly think it is legitimate to either separate the tales totally from this context, or to attempt to examine them exclusively within this context. Depending on the situation, and the need or the desire, either or both approach is valid.
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
|
09-03-2010, 05:48 AM | #87 | |||||
Wisest of the Noldor
|
Quote:
What I've been specifically arguing against is the claim that this particular tale is so radically different from the rest of Tolkien's work that it can only be properly understood out of context... even that it is somehow "wrong" to keep the rest in mind while reading it. Quote:
Quote:
What seems to be the sticking point for you, as far as I can work out, is this: Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo. |
|||||
09-04-2010, 03:47 AM | #88 | |||
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 95
|
Quote:
I am not claiming that CoH can only be understood "out of context". I'm arguing for a more nuanced understanding of the the context of Tolkien's work in the first place; a wider understanding that encompasses the very different worldview postulated in the Children of Hurin. I'm not saying CoH and LOTR are diametrically opposed, but as Davem has noted in the past, they contain starkly contrasting approaches to the canvass of Middle-earth. In the Mieville thread, Puddleglum posted a quote from the Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth dialogue found in Morgoth's Ring: Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by tumhalad2; 09-05-2010 at 09:48 PM. |
|||
10-04-2010, 10:52 AM | #89 |
Pile O'Bones
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 14
|
I agree that the omission of any mention of Turin's return from Mandos (whether to slay Ancalagon at the War of Wrath or to slay Morgoth at the Dagor Dagorath) changes the feel of the story dramatically.
I'm not sure what other choice CT had, though, as Tolkien never settled on a final version of that bit. I think it was a matter of the original Turin story being incompatible with the universe of Arda as it developed, with Turin and Nienor becoming Valar, as the Doom of Men became a central element of the legendarium (as it wasn't in the Book of Lost Tales era, where 'Turin and Nienor become Valar and Turin kills Morgoth' came from) -- but Tolkien wasn't willing to discard the conception of his return in some form at least. In a way, Tolkien thoroughly changed his views of the role of Men in relation to Elves in the final fate of Arda. In the early texts it's said that the fate of Men after the end of the world is not spoken of in the prophecies of Mandos "save of Turin only, and him it names among the Gods"; but later that is changed to it being said that Men will participate in the Second Music of the Ainur, and the fate of Elves is not spoken of. And then there is some discussion in Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth about Men healing Arda in the end. Essentially, the role Turin was meant to play (as representative of Men in the end of Arda's evils) became both irrelevant and impossible with later developments in the legendarium. So I'm not sure there was really any better solution than to leave the matter entirely out of Children of Hurin -- though it does seem crucial to his story. Last edited by Vultur; 10-04-2010 at 10:58 AM. |
10-05-2010, 05:29 PM | #90 |
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
|
Gotta say I've never understood the point of view which holds that LOTR ends on a "hopeful note"...the Elves have departed Middle-earth and taken with them all that remains of the light of the Eldar, the power of the Rings to preserve and inspire is gone, the Dwarves are still dwindling, Gondor is restored but explicitly only for a time and as a lesser reminder of past glories, the Hobbits have retreated even further into their realm and into their hopless parochialism unable to appreciate even the heroes in their very midst, the Ents have no Entings...in short, the Age of Man has begun, which is our own age. Having fallen so fully for the enchantment of Middle-earth (which you would have had to have done to reach the end of LOTR at all) that is the most depressing part: that world is gone, replaced by our own, and in particular by the 20th century.
Sure individual characters have happy endings, but on the whole things look really bleak. Sauron is gone, but we know from history and precedence that something will be back to replace him, as he replaced Morgoth. And sure, it won't be as 'bad' but neither is there anything as 'good' left to confront him: Aragorn is the last of his kind; Arwen is the last of her kind; Frodo has left Middle-earth; Sam can no longer go adventuring; Merry and Pippin are old soldiers reliving their past glories for an increasingly amused progeny. Sorry if I'm a bit of a downer. (Get it: Downer? )
__________________
Scribbling scrabbling. |
10-11-2010, 01:20 AM | #91 | |
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
|
10-12-2010, 04:39 PM | #92 | |
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
|
Quote:
__________________
Scribbling scrabbling. |
|
10-12-2010, 10:10 PM | #93 | ||||
Wight
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 145
|
Quote:
Instead he wrote ("The Last Debate", Return of the King) Quote:
There was sadness mingled in, but that adds richness to the good that was gained. It is human nature to appreciate more that which costs more. Tolkien understood this and folded it into his story - from one end to the other. It makes the story MORE meaningful and full, not less. Recall what else Gandalf said at The Last Debate Quote:
Remembering that the story is from the vantage of the Hobbits, Tolkien sums up the GOOD ENDING in Frodo's words to Sam in this way ("Grey Havens") Quote:
Last edited by Puddleglum; 10-12-2010 at 11:34 PM. |
||||
10-13-2010, 11:12 AM | #94 |
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
|
Hey man, I'm not saying anything so daft as, "LotR doesn't have a happy ending" as it most palpably does. I'm just disputing the premise of the book review that begins this thread that "The Children of Hurin" is diametrically opposed to LotR along simplistic binary lines of "hoplessness" vs "hope" -- I just don't see LotR as ending "hopefully" in the sense that we are presented with a world that is now going to get better and better (which is, I think, the false sense of the book that the reviewer is working from) in opposition to CoH in which the reviewer sees a more 'realistic' view that the world will, at best, stay pretty much the same in terms of good and evil...which is what I see at the end of LotR. You are right, Sauron the super-baddie, the one who is as bad as all the worst human tyrants put together, he's gone. But soon, so too will Aragorn be gone (the epitome of all good humans), Galadriel, Elrond, Frodo, Bilbo, Gandalf are leaving too...so the superbad and the supergood are gone leaving just the bad and the good. The situation is the same, only diminished.
__________________
Scribbling scrabbling. |
11-20-2010, 01:11 PM | #95 |
Blossom of Dwimordene
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The realm of forgotten words
Posts: 10,365
|
LOTR didn't end good. It's not a waht you'd call a "happily ever after" story. I mean, I love the end, but the characters might not.
In Children of Hurin the ending is pure dramatic irony. It does fit the story very well, though. Turin's doom is anready planned out. The most interesting thing there is that everyone knows a little more about Turin than he knows about himself.
__________________
You passed from under darkened dome, you enter now the secret land. - Take me to Finrod's fabled home!... ~ Finrod: The Rock Opera |
01-18-2011, 05:46 PM | #96 | |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 95
|
Quote:
Please demonstrate to me, in some textual way, how exactly you think the metaphysics of CoH and LOTR are similar? Or are they similar only in terms of the "larger context"? I don't understand your point. How does the "larger context" make CoH consistent with LOTR, and why should it even be expected to do so? Is it because there really is suffering in both, but in the end good comes of it? Perhaps that is true of LOTR, but it is manifestly not of the story of Turin. No 'good' comes of it at all. So, I want to be clear. -CoH is part of a larger story arc. -It can be read as part of this larger story arc. Of course -How does this diminish the metaphysical, aesthetic, tonal, and qualitative difference between it and LOTR, whether it is read as part of the Silmarillion or not? Specifically? |
|
01-18-2011, 07:31 PM | #97 | ||
Wisest of the Noldor
|
*sigh* Unfortunately, after the lapse of several months, I no longer have all the arguments posed on this thread at my fingertips, but I'll do my best.
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, my purpose here was to argue that it is at least equally valid to read it as part of the whole. Furthermore, I was talking about the legendarium as a whole at that point, as I think we all were. If you can't understand my point about context... well, I'm at a loss, because it seems a very simple one to me.
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo. Last edited by Nerwen; 01-18-2011 at 07:37 PM. Reason: fixed quotes |
||
01-18-2011, 07:41 PM | #98 |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 95
|
I will roll my eyes if I wish. Thanks.
Apparently I have not been clear enough. I argue that it can be read "out of context" or "in context". Clear? I have never argued it belongs out of the rest of the creation. I argue it contrasts on many points with other aspects of it. Perhaps we agree more than you think. Yes, it can be read in context. Whatever. I don't care, and I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in the story, and whether you read it in context or not, how it contrasts with LOTR in particular. I have not about faced, nor have I contradicted my argument. If you think I really have, show me a quote. Last edited by tumhalad2; 01-18-2011 at 08:30 PM. Reason: more thoughts |
01-18-2011, 08:12 PM | #99 | |||||
Wisest of the Noldor
|
Quotes? Okay, here you go.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Incidentally, before you get angry– please recall that I stated repeatedly on your "CoH film" thread that I was not interested in starting up this debate again. I'm not– I got bored with it long ago. I replied to you only because you specifically, not to mention rather aggressively, demanded a reply. Now you've had it. Enough. EDIT:X'd with tum's self-edit.
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo. |
|||||
01-18-2011, 08:23 PM | #100 | |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 95
|
Quote:
Last edited by tumhalad2; 01-18-2011 at 08:29 PM. |
|
01-18-2011, 08:25 PM | #101 |
Wisest of the Noldor
|
tumhalad, please calm down. I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings– and yes, I'll admit I do quite enjoy baiting you. I don't really mean any harm by it, though. (However I am probably often the first to respond to your posts simply for time-zone reasons.)
Anyway, since other people may want to continue the topic, I suggest you delete those last two paragraphs before one of the mods closes the thread. They usually do when things get this heated. ~Nerwen, Internet Bully. EDIT:X'd with tumhalad again.
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo. |
01-18-2011, 08:28 PM | #102 |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 95
|
Okay, lets agree to get along then
It is evident we have different ideas about things, but that's okay. In future, and I am trying to be as friendly as possible here, please desist "baiting" me. I don't appreciate it, and I'm not sure why you do it. That way, I'm less liable to reply in turn, and our disagreements are less likely to end in me getting frustrated and annoyed at you. Other than that, your ideas are always interesting and thought provoking Last edited by tumhalad2; 01-18-2011 at 08:38 PM. |
01-18-2011, 08:47 PM | #103 |
Wisest of the Noldor
|
We-ell, I'll try...
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo. |
|
|