"Do You Hate Women?"

[Nerwen]

I agree that technically Sauron is "a" devil rather than "the" Devil (that being Morgoth)- but how does that change the basic point made by Faramir and Zigur
at #49 and #50?

By the way, I gather that for you "pagan" and "heathen" are just synonyms for "non-Christian"? (c.f. #51). I believe this needs to be clarified as, not being standard, it's liable to lead to confusion at some point. I don't think anyone has been claiming the inhabitants of Middle-earth practise Christianity- as you say, it wouldn't make sense.

[Nerwen]

Also-

Lake-Town remains both Pre-Industrial, and essentially "Feudal." The occupants are the displaced inhabitants of Dale, a former Kingdom of the Northmen of Rhovanion (or, from HoM-e, more likely one of the Principalities of the Northmen of Rhovanion).

I don't understand this. You're saying that a place cannot be a republic if the ancestors of some of its inhabitants lived in a kingdom?

Lake-Town itself is a caricature, or critique of Modernity, where we can clearly see that Lake-Town is in a "Fallen" state, failing to attain the rightful Glory of the prior Incarnation of the Realm of Dale due to its clinging to "Modern Ideals."

But you just said it was "essentially Feudal"...

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Also-

I don't understand this. You're saying that a place cannot be a republic if the ancestors of some of its inhabitants lived in a kingdom?

No, I am saying that to Tolkien, the place represented a corruption of the Natural Order, where the population was cursed because they rejected the Natural Authority of the King of that Realm.

If you go up to the post I made where I linked to two YouTube videos, the second of which is just an audio-interview of Tolkien, and listen to the second one....

In it, Tolkien is asked directly about his Political Views, Monarchy, and Feudalism.

He is VERY CLEAR in that he considers Democracy to be a bad way to run a country, or government, and that Kings present the rightful means of "doing business" (with government).

This is an aspect of Tolkien that most people today have a hard time accepting, as it is a Reactionary Conservative view that is totally at odds with Modernity (as was Tolkien - He rejects the Enlightenment as well).

I even struggle with accepting that view. But in as far as I love Middle-earth, I wish to understand its creator (or, as Tolkien would say "Subcreator" - look more deeply into what he means by that, and you might find some pretty disturbing things out about Tolkien), and thus I need to understand both what he believes and why, as they are manifested in his works.

I even need to find those things I disagree with (although currently I am beginning to suspect he may be correct about Democracy, as much as it pains me to think that).

That the world is Feudal is not negated by the existence within it of a Democratic City-State. All this means is that there exists an exception to The Rule, and one that was fairly short-lived, and immediately corrected upon the destruction of Smaug, when Bard again took up the Crown of Dale, and his rightful place in Society.

But you just said it was "essentially Feudal"...

Again. it being Feudal isn't contradicted by the existence of a small, isolated realm that was momentarily (and disastrously) flirting with Democracy.

This is akin to saying that a person isn't "Essentially biological" if they happen to wear False-Teeth, or have a Prosthetic Limb.

Especially in a case where that same person re-grows their teeth or missing limb (Dale again becoming a Monarchy that ruled even the re-established Lake-Town).

That is misunderstanding how Falsification or Counter-Examples work.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Personally, I think that in Letter 175 the reference to "the Devil" is a figure of speech; Sauron is, after all, "a reincarnation of evil". Hence, for all intents and purposes, at the time of The Lord of the Rings he, not Morgoth, is "the Devil" - but specifically in that context.

I would say that, most literally, "the Devil" is Melkor, specifically Melkor - not Morgoth (although Morgoth is still "the Devil", as he is referred to in Letter 294 for instance, but bear with me); Melkor is the originator of evil. Morgoth is only part of Melkor - Melkor after he has spent much of his power trying to dominate Arda. Morgoth is Melkor's mind and personality, but with much of the potency and substance of his fëa split, separated from himself and attached to other things, like Orcs, Balrogs, dragons and the "matter" of Arda in general. Morgoth thinks of himself as Melkor; we know from his conversation with Húrin that he still referred to himself by that name, but as Húrin says, "you have spent your strength upon yourself and wasted it in your own emptiness. No more are you now than an escaped thrall of the Valar." There is continuity between his experience as Melkor and as Morgoth, but he is not really Melkor anymore.

Thus both Morgoth and Sauron are "incarnations of evil"; thus they are "the Devil" in the sense that they are "incarnations" of evil (ie of the malevolence of Melkor at work in the world).

Morgoth is still more directly "the Devil" than Sauron is, naturally. He is some of Melkor, while Sauron is a different being. But Sauron in the Second and Third Ages is the "incarnation of evil", evil as a physically present demonic tyrant trying to take over the world. After the defeat and explusion of Morgoth and the final defeat of Sauron (the destruction of the Ring), "the Devil" now exists solely in the more Biblical or Christian sense - not an incarnate presence, but an insidious, invisible permeation of the world drawing and tempting people towards evil (ie, the spirit of Melkor infused throughout all Matter, which cannot be eradicated without the destruction of Arda itself).

That might be a bit figurative for some but that's one way in which I think it might be interpreted, possibly.

Isn't this kind of equivocating on the meaning of the word "The Devil?"





MB

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

Isn't this kind of equivocating on the meaning of the word "The Devil?"

Perhaps. Allow me, if you will, to approach it from another direction.

In Letter 175, Professor Tolkien says that Willowman is not "an ally of Mordor" and is not "in league with the Devil".

Now if we argue that Mordor is "in league with the Devil", ie Morgoth, surely that can only really be true in a fairly abstract sense; Morgoth was expelled into the Void over a thousand years before Sauron founded his realm in Mordor, so surely Mordor cannot really be "in league" with Morgoth in a personal sense. It might be "in league with the Devil", meaning in this case Morgoth, in the sense that it is the primary stronghold of evil at the time Professor Tolkien is talking about, and Melkor-Morgoth is the originator of evil.

Surely by that logic, Willowman is also "in league with the Devil" because he is an evil being as well, or at least a malevolent and malicious one, "hostile to men and hobbits", and as Melkor-Morgoth is the originator of evil, Willowman is just as much "in league with the Devil" as Mordor is; ie, only rather indirectly.

But if Willowman is neither "an ally of Mordor" nor "in league with the Devil", surely then "the Devil" cannot mean Morgoth.

Then again, maybe I'm making Willowman out to be more evil than he actually was, and thus he is not "in league with the Devil" while Mordor is. But to me I feel the implication is that if being "an ally of Mordor" means being "in league with the Devil", in the context of that letter "the Devil" is a figure of speech referring to Sauron as the "incarnation of evil" of that time, or at least more generally referring to "the chief evil of that time" (which at that time happened to be Sauron).

At any rate, this thread has spiralled wildly off topic, and it's partly my fault, for which I apologise.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

At any rate, this thread has spiralled wildly off topic, and it's partly my fault, for which I apologise.

Not really, Zig. Peter Jackson is "the chief evil of our time" (and if we consider the malign nature of Warner Brothers he is "in league with the Devil"). He has a Ring and with it meant to do good, but through him the Ring wielded a sophomoric and asinine power that completely corrupted Middle-earth with far more precision than either Morgoth and Sauron combined. Jackson enfeebled Elrond (having him mope about opining that "Arwen is dying"), stripped Denethor of any nobility, almost made Faramir a carbon copy of failed Boromir, stoned Radagast on mushrooms, made dwarves pretty, caused Sam to abandon Frodo, made Thranduil a constipated and dyspeptic moose-rider, and he even caused Aragorn to french his horse! Sauron could not do that.

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Not really, Zig. Peter Jackson is "the chief evil of our time" (and if we consider the malign nature of Warner Brothers he is "in league with the Devil"). He has a Ring and with it meant to do good, but through him the Ring wielded a sophomoric and asinine power that completely corrupted Middle-earth with far more precision than either Morgoth and Sauron combined. Jackson enfeebled Elrond (having him mope about opining that "Arwen is dying"), stripped Denethor of any nobility, almost made Faramir a carbon copy of failed Boromir, stoned Radagast on mushrooms, made dwarves pretty, caused Sam to abandon Frodo, made Thranduil a constipated and dyspeptic moose-rider, and he even caused Aragorn to french his horse! Sauron could not do that.

I cannot tell you how happy it makes me to hear those words spoken about Peter Jackson regarding what he did to Middle-earth (even if you are joking, which would make me a little sad).

But to my mind, Jackson did no less than Rape the works of Tolkien.

He debased them, and defiled them, as Morgoth did to Ard-Galen and the Springs and Pool of Ivrin in Beleriand, or as Sauron, through the Nazgûl did to Minas Ithil. Or as the Orcs did to Celebrían or Finduilas.

I realize that is giving him too much in the way of Intentionality, as Jackson's goal wasn't to rape the works. But that was the result, regardless of his intent.

Did you know that there is Thranduil/Moose fan-fiction? That is something that the world could do without, and it exists because of that insipid man from New Zealand, his wife, and that faery-F***er Boyens, who cannot tell the difference between Celtic, British, and English, much less between Nordic, Swede, Dane, or Fin.

Jacksons! We HATES it forever!!!

To be fair... I don't "hate" Peter Jackson, precisely. He is one of those people whom I admire personally (for many things he stands for). Yet I DETEST their "Art."

At least I can sit through a Bruce Springsteen or Jon Von Jovi song.

But I cannot stand to see anything of that man's movies. He has a LOT to atone for.

And what he, New Line, and Warner Bros. did to the Tolkien's was deplorable.

I am not very religious, but I hope they burn in hell for that alone.


Oh! And you missed something in your critique that many people overlook:

Elves with Crooked Swords.

There is a reason (several reasons) that Tolkien used words like "crooked" and "bent" for the Swords of the various Evil Men or creatures (Orcs), instead of the more obvious word: "curved".

For one, it was an English word (words: Both "crooked" and "bent" have Saxon and Goth roots, whereas Curved is from the Latin).

But the biggest reason is that Tolkien's works contain a sizable influence of what is called "Physiognomy" (from the roots "Physio" - the Body - and "Gnomon" - To Know).

Physiognomy is the Philosophy that "The Appearance" (body) reveals the "Mind/Spirit/Quality."

Thus something that is Beautiful will be "Good" and something that is Ugly will be "Evil."

Obviously there are exceptions to this, but in a world where forms of Property Dualism are True, then the inverted aspects of Physiognomy (such as Gil-Gilad, Círdan, Elrond, and Galadriel seeing through Sauron's guise as Annatar). Those who possess a keen sense of "Spiritual Insight" and "Spiritual Beauty" will "know" those whose Body does not match their Soul.

But back to "Crooked Swords."

Here is an example of Physiognomy: The Sword reflects the Soul of the bearer. It is "Bent" and "Crooked" or "Corrupted" from the Straight, Honest, and True Sword.

Remember Tolkien rarely did not deeply consider the words he was using to describe things.

And Jackson giving the Elves "Crooked Swords" is akin to having Catholic Priests pray using a Rosary with a Pentagram rather than a Crucifix.

Chivalric Romances also use this depiction of a Sword to show the Nature of a Wielder.

Those who bear a Straight, Unblemished, Double-edged, Cruciform sword will be Faithful, Righteous, and Good.... Incorruptible.

Yet those whose swords are Tarnished, Bent, or Curved will be Unfaithful, Wicked, and Evil.

Jackson could be forgiven for missing something so subtle if he did not screw-up so much else.

And... It is likely that if he hadn't screwed-up so much else, he would have noticed some of the more subtle things.

MB

Sorry I run on at the mouth so much.... I don't get out much (have a hard time walking).

[Nerwen]

Marwhini,


1. Faramir's example of Laketown was to show that you are over-generalizing. You've responded with a string of non sequiturs (as I pointed out) followed by a blanket statement that his argument doesn't count anyway, followed in turn by the assertion that he, or I (not sure which) suffer from "a misunderstanding of how Falsification or Counter-examples work". And this is a general problem I'm having with your posting- to me it appears- perhaps incorrectly- to arise from a basic assumption of absolute rightness, such that you often feel the need merely to declare your beliefs and interpretations right and others' wrong, rather than actually addressing their arguments or considering their points of view.

Now, by saying what I've just said I'm breaking a forum rule against criticising other's posting style. Okay, well, I still stand by it- you've been a very active poster and have some interesting things to say, but I believe you need to work on the "discussion" aspect.

2. Re: "heathen" and "pagan". Yes, I do understand that's what the words mean to you, but please consult a dictionary for current standard usage(s). It just helps if we're all on the same page, no? (NB even historically, they were used, so far as I'm aware, more often to mean non-Abrahamic rather than non-Christian.)

Here are some sources for "pagan".
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pagan

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de.../english/pagan

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pagan

http://www.patheos.com/Library/Answe...-not-Christian

Edit: x'd with Marhwini's last. Um. Look... in the end, they're just movies...

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Not really, Zig. Peter Jackson is "the chief evil of our time" (and if we consider the malign nature of Warner Brothers he is "in league with the Devil"). He has a Ring and with it meant to do good, but through him the Ring wielded a sophomoric and asinine power that completely corrupted Middle-earth with far more precision than either Morgoth and Sauron combined. Jackson enfeebled Elrond (having him mope about opining that "Arwen is dying"), stripped Denethor of any nobility, almost made Faramir a carbon copy of failed Boromir, stoned Radagast on mushrooms, made dwarves pretty, caused Sam to abandon Frodo, made Thranduil a constipated and dyspeptic moose-rider, and he even caused Aragorn to french his horse! Sauron could not do that.

Blasphemy! "The Tale of Aragorn and Brego the Horse" is one of the great love stories of Middle-earth!

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

At any rate, this thread has spiralled wildly off topic, and it's partly my fault, for which I apologise.

Zig,, the fair Elven vessel "On-topic" departed from the Havens long ago. I don't think you did any more to see it off than the rest of us...

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Perhaps. Allow me, if you will, to approach it from another direction.

In Letter 175, Professor Tolkien says that Willowman is not "an ally of Mordor" and is not "in league with the Devil".

Now if we argue that Mordor is "in league with the Devil", ie Morgoth, surely that can only really be true in a fairly abstract sense; Morgoth was expelled into the Void over a thousand years before Sauron founded his realm in Mordor, so surely Mordor cannot really be "in league" with Morgoth in a personal sense. It might be "in league with the Devil", meaning in this case Morgoth, in the sense that it is the primary stronghold of evil at the time Professor Tolkien is talking about, and Melkor-Morgoth is the originator of evil.

Surely by that logic, Willowman is also "in league with the Devil" because he is an evil being as well, or at least a malevolent and malicious one, "hostile to men and hobbits", and as Melkor-Morgoth is the originator of evil, Willowman is just as much "in league with the Devil" as Mordor is; ie, only rather indirectly.

But if Willowman is neither "an ally of Mordor" nor "in league with the Devil", surely then "the Devil" cannot mean Morgoth.

Then again, maybe I'm making Willowman out to be more evil than he actually was, and thus he is not "in league with the Devil" while Mordor is. But to me I feel the implication is that if being "an ally of Mordor" means being "in league with the Devil", in the context of that letter "the Devil" is a figure of speech referring to Sauron as the "incarnation of evil" of that time, or at least more generally referring to "the chief evil of that time" (which at that time happened to be Sauron).

At any rate, this thread has spiralled wildly off topic, and it's partly my fault, for which I apologise.

I guess my question would be:

Can there be TWO "Devils" in a world which is supposed to be somewhat representational of an Idealized (And I don't mean "Ideal" as in "perfect," I mean "Idealized" as in "someone's romanticized") Mythological Christian Universe?

But I suppose this tangent has run as far as it needs.

I understand the basic inference, but have lost track of where the original thread was going at this point...

MB

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I agree that technically Sauron is "a" devil rather than "the" Devil (that being Morgoth)- but how does that change the basic point made by Faramir and Zigur
at #49 and #50?

Personally, I think that in Letter 175 the reference to "the Devil" is a figure of speech; Sauron is, after all, "a reincarnation of evil". Hence, for all intents and purposes, at the time of The Lord of the Rings he, not Morgoth, is "the Devil" - but specifically in that context.

I would say that, most literally, "the Devil" is Melkor, specifically Melkor - not Morgoth (although Morgoth is still "the Devil", as he is referred to in Letter 294 for instance, but bear with me); Melkor is the originator of evil. Morgoth is only part of Melkor - Melkor after he has spent much of his power trying to dominate Arda. Morgoth is Melkor's mind and personality, but with much of the potency and substance of his fëa split, separated from himself and attached to other things, like Orcs, Balrogs, dragons and the "matter" of Arda in general. Morgoth thinks of himself as Melkor; we know from his conversation with Húrin that he still referred to himself by that name, but as Húrin says, "you have spent your strength upon yourself and wasted it in your own emptiness. No more are you now than an escaped thrall of the Valar." There is continuity between his experience as Melkor and as Morgoth, but he is not really Melkor anymore.

Thus both Morgoth and Sauron are "incarnations of evil"; thus they are "the Devil" in the sense that they are "incarnations" of evil (ie of the malevolence of Melkor at work in the world).

Morgoth is still more directly "the Devil" than Sauron is, naturally. He is some of Melkor, while Sauron is a different being. But Sauron in the Second and Third Ages is the "incarnation of evil", evil as a physically present demonic tyrant trying to take over the world. After the defeat and explusion of Morgoth and the final defeat of Sauron (the destruction of the Ring), "the Devil" now exists solely in the more Biblical or Christian sense - not an incarnate presence, but an insidious, invisible permeation of the world drawing and tempting people towards evil (ie, the spirit of Melkor infused throughout all Matter, which cannot be eradicated without the destruction of Arda itself).

That might be a bit figurative for some but that's one way in which I think it might be interpreted, possibly.

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I agree that technically Sauron is "a" devil rather than "the" Devil (that being Morgoth)- but how does that change the basic point made by Faramir and Zigur
at #49 and #50?

By the way, I gather that for you "pagan" and "heathen" are just synonyms for "non-Christian"? (c.f. #51). I believe this needs to be clarified as, not being standard, it's liable to lead to confusion at some point. I don't think anyone has been claiming the inhabitants of Middle-earth practise Christianity- as you say, it wouldn't make sense.

Pagan, and Heathen mean basically the same things.

One of the words is Latin, the other Saxon/Goth (or, rather Goth/Saxon, since the Saxons are an offshoot of the original people who are the Goths).

As I explained, both mean "rural bumpkins" to the Latins, or the Anglo-Saxons of Sub-Roman Britain.

But to the Early Church, "Heathen" (In England) or "Pagan" (In Rome - whether that is Latin Rome or Byzantine Rome) Heathen/Pagan meant "Any non-Christian."

Toward the Renaissance, the meanings of the words bifurcated, and the word "Heathen" was used to mean "Any non-Christian" and the word "Pagan" was then used to refer specifically to Classical Antiquity Polytheism (2000 BCE to 400CE), or to European Polytheism of the same period. Heathen tended to refer more to the Polytheists found in Northern Europe among the Germanics and Nordics (500CE to 1100CE).

After the Renaissance, the words were used to refer to anyone "un-saved," but "Heathen" tended to dominate by the 1700s, as the English by then had begun their ascendency to Global Empire, and the English term pervaded the New World.

But in terms of Middle-earth... The Occupants are "Heathen" in the sense of "un-saved."

As Tom Shippey Points out, they are the "Virtuous Pagans" (where we return to Pagan and Heathen having the same meaning) that one finds in the Beowulf Myth.


Unlike C.S. Lewis' Narnia, which is an Explicit Allegory (and Tolkien spoke very derisively of it as a result) of Christianity, very poorly disguised, in fact, Middle-earth has had Religion very nearly completely excised from it.

In Tolkien's criticism of his own writing in the Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth, he scorns himself for such a transparent Christ-Myth in the dialog/narrative of Andreth regarding the human incarnation of Eru (and utterly rejects it - his wording was very strong for a person who never cursed/cussed).

And, as I pointed out, Europe, The Levant, Eurasia (Anatolia and the Crimea - basically the Black Sea Regions), and much of the Middle East ALL contained Monotheistic Religions that were NOT Christianity (including the many Christian Heresies).

Middle-earth contains no real "Religion" (that word has a very specific meaning, involving having an organized structure - even if having no fixed churches, an official dogma - statement of belief like the Catholic Credo, and recognizes rites/rituals).

The Occupants of Middle-earth are not "saved" (they are explicitly Non-Christian).

Thus the terms "Heathen" or "Pagan" not only directly apply, but are the only terms we have to apply.

MB