Turin the Hopeless?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad

Obviously? I'm not entirely convinced about that. It is clear that he put most of his effort into finishing this story, as opposed to the other more hopeful ones, toward the end of his life. And he didn't write it happily, or with a sense of hope, as I said. Although he could have done so if he had felt so inclined.

Let me quote you again, tumhalad:

CoH is not set in this world at all; it is a world wherein hope itself is futile because there is no God; indeed, one is almost tempted to agree with Morgoth and say that there is "Nothing" beyond the void. For all the characters in the story know, this is perfectly true. We think we know better because we have the Silmarillion, which says that Eru created the world, etc, but once again I'm not certain CoH should be read through that prism.

1. Tolkien was a deeply religious man. While I certainly don't think his work is just a Christian allegory, I would highly doubt he'd write something overtly athiest as a stand-alone work.

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:

Originally Posted by tumhalad

Now, I think there are better readings and worse readings, by no means are all "equal". In this case, to completely diss the novel's major thematic, emotive energy in favour of a kind of reading that at best seeks to mitigate or at worst ignore the utter defeat and nihilism of it is, I think, fatuous.

"Fatuous". I see. You know, I could find some equally colourful ways to describe what I consider to be your leaps of logic (see above)– but heck, that's not how I play, my friend

Originally Posted by davem

Many people do live desperate, pointless lives, devoid of hope & purpose

And many people– almost all people, in my personal experience– don't. I don't. Thus, a world without hope altogether does not and cannot convince me.

Originally Posted by davem

Just because the stories are set in the same world doesn't make one of them less true - or even dependent on each other. And it certainly doesn't mean we should see one of them as untrue if read alone.

But davem, that's not what I said. I say that I find the story of the Children of Hurin more satisfying if read as part of the greater story. This is partly because of the general richness of the background, the sense of past and future history, and partly because for me a tale of total despair, presented as the last word on life, the universe and everything, does ring essentially false. (Once again, this is my temperament and my experience of life, neither of which we get to choose, I think.) For me, both these considerations make the "in context" version more real, and thus more emotionally affecting. I also think that the story is in its turn an integral part of the greater work, which would be diminished without it. Again, just my reaction.

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?