Why Does Good Suck So Much? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Galadriel55 · 04-05-2011, 06:27 PM

Definitely a heated debate, which I would not like argue about in this thread. However, it can be boild down to this: If there is free will, there is choice. If there is no choice, what's the point of free will?

Numenorians might not have started sacrificing people in the name of Morgoth (since they didn't know who he is), but weren't they doing it already, without naming him and doing a special ceremony? Elendili were put to death for disagreeing, anyone who spoke Elvish was severely punished (I don't remember if it was a death penalty, though)... In other words, whatever Morgoth would want them to do, just without he ceremonies.

Maybe without Sauron Pharazon wouldn't have rebelled against the Valar. But his son, or grandson, or great-grandson (etc) would have. The reason Pharazon didn't go right away was because of elemental fear. How many generations would it take for the fear to decrease enough?

Nikkolas · 04-05-2011, 06:34 PM

I don't remember them sacrificing people before Sauron suggested it. Then again I could be mistaken.

Anyway, it's entirely possible (and probable) that Numenor would have gotten itself sunk eventually. But what-ifs are not important. It remains that Sauron did poison the people against the Valar. It is Sauron who pushed them to madness and death and evil.

He is only there because the Valar allowed him to be. The Valar's failing is a cause of the death of Numenor is all I'm saying.

I am enjoying this discussion though.

Galadriel55 · 04-05-2011, 06:48 PM

I'm glad that your head is still intact from my babbling.

What I was talking about is not "official" sacrifices to someone specific (ie Morgoth), but rather murder that is ordered by the king that make Morgoth's dream (chaos etc) come true.

The Valar rarely interfere with the outside world. Not because they don't care. Because they leave a choice to the Eruhini. They sent the istari - you might think "big deal, 5 old wizards!" but it's more than that. It's a way to assist ME without completely controlling it.

Sauron came to Numenor because Pharazon took him there.

At the end of the 1st age, Sauron was left alive because of pity, as I said before. Later on, the Valar did not interfere in the world's affairs for a long time.

I'm trying to say something more complicated than my brains can hold. I'm confusing myself, and probably going in circles with my arguments. Gonna go hang my brain on a clothsline for a while to air out.

Nikkolas · 04-05-2011, 07:09 PM

I understand your points. ^^

I suppose you could look at them having "traitors" executing as the first step to sacrifices.

As for the rest, the Valar's actions are a bit erratic. Sometimes they don't want to interfere, and sometimes they do. If they had a single uniform policy of non-interference, I could respect that. But think of it from the perspective of a Numenorian.

"You helped the Elves and Men and everyone else! Why won't you help us?!"

i could not even begin to blame them for being bitter. The inaction of the Valar, and the completely monstrous act of sinking Numenor, make the controllers of the fates of Arda look quite malevolent or at least not benevolent.

As for Sauron, he at least had noble intentions. His design was to rule the world because only through dictatorship could order and peace be achieved. It's understandable that he would think this way given the chaos he's seen. Unfortunately for him he overestimated his own ability to right all the wrongs of the world.

Galadriel55 · 04-05-2011, 07:25 PM

NOTE: the Valar didn't sink Numenor. Eru did.

The Valar (and Eru) didn't act until Pharazon completely decided that he wants to wage war against Valinor. There were warnings for him while he still was in Numenor. He didn't heed. He was given a last chance, and he almost took it - just before he stepped onto Aman - but pride was stronger. It's his pride that killed him.

I have to agree that the Valar are fairly inconsistent, with other issues as well. For example, they give Tuor immortality when they can't give it to Beren.

I guess that they think they are too uninvolved, so they stick their noses in, decide that they are messing around too much, go back into seclusion...

Nikkolas · 04-05-2011, 07:48 PM

Well I've quite enjoyed our little discussion. But I have a throbbing headache and can't really stare at my computer screen. I'll respond tomorrow I guess.

Been nice chatting with you.

tumhalad2 · 04-05-2011, 08:28 PM

Nikkolas - a fascinating and thought provoking response to The Silmarillion - perhaps my favourite of Tolkien's works.

I think there is a great deal of truth in what you say about the Valar. The question is, is there the interprative space within the text itself to allow for a reading of them that emphasises their negative qualities, as opposed to their positive ones. Given that the metafictional conceit of The Silmarillion is that it was written by Elves (or Numenoreans through Elvish traditions) we must be cautious when answering this question: naturally the Elves (or the High Elves, at any rate) are predisposed to think highly of the Valar. Nonetheless, I think it is certainly reasonable to assign some degree of blame to the Valar, say, for allowing Sauron to continue inhabiting Middle-earth, or to Melian for abandoning Doriath.

One aspect of The Silmarillion that has really grown on me is the sheer selfishness of the motivations of the characters who oppose Morgoth. Unlike Gandalf, characters like Feanor or even Hurin don't oppose him because he is "evil": they oppose him because he is either a threat to their status (Morwen and Hurin are very concerned for Turin partly because he is the "heir" destined to inheret wide lands) or because he commited a crime against property (stole the Silmarilli). Unlike the War of the Ring in the Third Age, the Wars of Beleriand, pitting the Noldor and the Sindar against Morgoth, are offensive in their design; their goal is not merely to overthrow Morgoth because he is an existential threat, like Sauron.

04-05-2011, 06:27 PM	#1
Galadriel55 Blossom of Dwimordene Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: The realm of forgotten words Posts: 10,517	Definitely a heated debate, which I would not like argue about in this thread. However, it can be boild down to this: If there is free will, there is choice. If there is no choice, what's the point of free will? Numenorians might not have started sacrificing people in the name of Morgoth (since they didn't know who he is), but weren't they doing it already, without naming him and doing a special ceremony? Elendili were put to death for disagreeing, anyone who spoke Elvish was severely punished (I don't remember if it was a death penalty, though)... In other words, whatever Morgoth would want them to do, just without he ceremonies. Maybe without Sauron Pharazon wouldn't have rebelled against the Valar. But his son, or grandson, or great-grandson (etc) would have. The reason Pharazon didn't go right away was because of elemental fear. How many generations would it take for the fear to decrease enough? __________________ You passed from under darkened dome, you enter now the secret land. - Take me to Finrod's fabled home!... ~ Finrod: The Rock Opera

04-05-2011, 06:48 PM	#3
Galadriel55 Blossom of Dwimordene Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: The realm of forgotten words Posts: 10,517	I'm glad that your head is still intact from my babbling. What I was talking about is not "official" sacrifices to someone specific (ie Morgoth), but rather murder that is ordered by the king that make Morgoth's dream (chaos etc) come true. The Valar rarely interfere with the outside world. Not because they don't care. Because they leave a choice to the Eruhini. They sent the istari - you might think "big deal, 5 old wizards!" but it's more than that. It's a way to assist ME without completely controlling it. Sauron came to Numenor because Pharazon took him there. At the end of the 1st age, Sauron was left alive because of pity, as I said before. Later on, the Valar did not interfere in the world's affairs for a long time. I'm trying to say something more complicated than my brains can hold. I'm confusing myself, and probably going in circles with my arguments. Gonna go hang my brain on a clothsline for a while to air out. __________________ You passed from under darkened dome, you enter now the secret land. - Take me to Finrod's fabled home!... ~ Finrod: The Rock Opera

04-05-2011, 07:25 PM	#5
Galadriel55 Blossom of Dwimordene Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: The realm of forgotten words Posts: 10,517	NOTE: the Valar didn't sink Numenor. Eru did. The Valar (and Eru) didn't act until Pharazon completely decided that he wants to wage war against Valinor. There were warnings for him while he still was in Numenor. He didn't heed. He was given a last chance, and he almost took it - just before he stepped onto Aman - but pride was stronger. It's his pride that killed him. I have to agree that the Valar are fairly inconsistent, with other issues as well. For example, they give Tuor immortality when they can't give it to Beren. I guess that they think they are too uninvolved, so they stick their noses in, decide that they are messing around too much, go back into seclusion... __________________ You passed from under darkened dome, you enter now the secret land. - Take me to Finrod's fabled home!... ~ Finrod: The Rock Opera

04-05-2011, 06:34 PM	#2
Nikkolas Haunting Spirit Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 55	I don't remember them sacrificing people before Sauron suggested it. Then again I could be mistaken. Anyway, it's entirely possible (and probable) that Numenor would have gotten itself sunk eventually. But what-ifs are not important. It remains that Sauron did poison the people against the Valar. It is Sauron who pushed them to madness and death and evil. He is only there because the Valar allowed him to be. The Valar's failing is a cause of the death of Numenor is all I'm saying. I am enjoying this discussion though.

04-05-2011, 07:09 PM	#4
Nikkolas Haunting Spirit Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 55	I understand your points. ^^ I suppose you could look at them having "traitors" executing as the first step to sacrifices. As for the rest, the Valar's actions are a bit erratic. Sometimes they don't want to interfere, and sometimes they do. If they had a single uniform policy of non-interference, I could respect that. But think of it from the perspective of a Numenorian. "You helped the Elves and Men and everyone else! Why won't you help us?!" i could not even begin to blame them for being bitter. The inaction of the Valar, and the completely monstrous act of sinking Numenor, make the controllers of the fates of Arda look quite malevolent or at least not benevolent. As for Sauron, he at least had noble intentions. His design was to rule the world because only through dictatorship could order and peace be achieved. It's understandable that he would think this way given the chaos he's seen. Unfortunately for him he overestimated his own ability to right all the wrongs of the world.

04-05-2011, 07:48 PM	#6
Nikkolas Haunting Spirit Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 55	Well I've quite enjoyed our little discussion. But I have a throbbing headache and can't really stare at my computer screen. I'll respond tomorrow I guess. Been nice chatting with you.

04-05-2011, 08:28 PM	#7
tumhalad2 Haunting Spirit Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 95	Nikkolas - a fascinating and thought provoking response to The Silmarillion - perhaps my favourite of Tolkien's works. I think there is a great deal of truth in what you say about the Valar. The question is, is there the interprative space within the text itself to allow for a reading of them that emphasises their negative qualities, as opposed to their positive ones. Given that the metafictional conceit of The Silmarillion is that it was written by Elves (or Numenoreans through Elvish traditions) we must be cautious when answering this question: naturally the Elves (or the High Elves, at any rate) are predisposed to think highly of the Valar. Nonetheless, I think it is certainly reasonable to assign some degree of blame to the Valar, say, for allowing Sauron to continue inhabiting Middle-earth, or to Melian for abandoning Doriath. One aspect of The Silmarillion that has really grown on me is the sheer selfishness of the motivations of the characters who oppose Morgoth. Unlike Gandalf, characters like Feanor or even Hurin don't oppose him because he is "evil": they oppose him because he is either a threat to their status (Morwen and Hurin are very concerned for Turin partly because he is the "heir" destined to inheret wide lands) or because he commited a crime against property (stole the Silmarilli). Unlike the War of the Ring in the Third Age, the Wars of Beleriand, pitting the Noldor and the Sindar against Morgoth, are offensive in their design; their goal is not merely to overthrow Morgoth because he is an existential threat, like Sauron.