The Quenta Silmarillion Eucatastrophe-less

[Imladris]

Yes...I know that the Quenta Silmarillion is part of a larger story, yet I also think that it is a myth in and of itself. It has a beginning, middle, and at the end everything is neatly tied. The story of the Silmarils is done...so, as a myth, it is also deserving of a eucatastrophe. Yet, in my opinion, it does not have one.

The Silmarils are all safe and sound, yes. Yet, what of Maedhros and his brother? They who kept their oath even though hated it...what do they get? They finally regain their father's Silmarils, and it burns them. In my mind, the jewels should not haved burned them, for they kept their oath against all odds.

And at the very end, they are denied the Silmarils (I guess the Valar forgot about that oaths are binding), Maedhros throws himself into a lava pit with the Silmaril, and his brother throws his into the sea and wanders alone full of angst. How is that happy -- it's not even a happy disaster. Why? There is no joy. Only one Silmaril is regained. The Light of the Trees is only partially recovered. So many people die.

Fingolfin died, Thingol died, Turgon died, and countless others. And for what? Where is the eucatastrophe?

[Firefoot]

I agree very much - there is really no joy in the Quenta Silmarillion. In fact, a lot of the time it is downright depressing. The whole book is basically fighting the long defeat. The conclusion just cements it:

Here ends the Silmarillion. If it has passed from the high and beautiful to darkness and ruin, that was of old the fate of Arda Marred; and if any change shall come and the Marring shall be amended, Manwë and Varda may know; but they have not revealed it, and it is not declared in the dooms of Mandos.

I think a part of the eucatastrophe is an essence of hope. The end of the Sil does not possess that hope, in my opinion. Morgoth is banished to the Void (not even destroyed!) and his hate and other seeds of evil live on. This does not present an option of redemption for Arda Marred. The sense of eucatastrophe is much stronger in LotR than in the Sil, and I think this is largely because of the hope that exists in LotR.

According to Tolkien, eucatastrophe is the 'piercing joy that brings tears' - a bittersweet type feeling. Well, the Sil can certainly be bitter, but there isn't a lot of sweet. The story that perhaps comes closest is that of Beren and Lúthien: they are in the end reunited in their love, but Lúthien becomes mortal and the fairest of all the Elves passes away for ever. I don't know that this is poignant enough to be considered eucatastrophe, however.

Maybe part of the reason for the lack of eucatastrophe (aside from the plot itself) is the style in which it is written. In many places, it is much more 'documented' than LotR is. For many people, it is much easier to sympathize with Frodo than with Turgon, for example. Character development is still there in the Sil, but it is more stark, for lack of a better word. The Quenta Silmarillion can and does evoke emotion in many places, but it tends to be more devastating than anything else.

So yes, I would tend to agree that the Sil tends to be lacking in eucatastrophe. While it is a great book, it doesn't have the hope and joy along with the sorrow to produce a state of eucatastrophe.

[Kuruharan]

I think you are focusing on the wrong thing.

The eucatastrophe was that Earendil won through to the West, the Valar came and defeated Morgoth, Morgoth's body was executed and his spirit cast out. On the face of it the odds of this happening were at least as bad as Frodo making it to Mount Doom and casting the Ring into the Fire.

The end of the Sil does not possess that hope, in my opinion. Morgoth is banished to the Void (not even destroyed!) and his hate and other seeds of evil live on.

Neither was evil destroyed at the end of LOTR. Sauron was overthrown, but other seeds of evil lived on.

Maybe part of the reason for the lack of eucatastrophe (aside from the plot itself) is the style in which it is written. In many places, it is much more 'documented' than LotR is.

I think this has a lot to do with it. The description of Earendil's journey could (generously) be called detached. We don't know what they went through. If the rendering of the story had been more personal the effect would have been quite different.

[EDIT] Also note that Earendil and Elwing paid a price for the accomplishment of their quest, similar to Frodo.

[Imladris]

No offense, but the fact that Earendil made it through to the west only after he regained a silmaril is not much of a eucatastrophe. I suppose that I am mainly upset with the unforgiveness of the Valar...you know what I mean?

What I'm saying is that that one small victory is not enough to make it a Eucatastrophe.

[mark12_30]

When Turgon led his hosts out of Gondolin, I stood up and cheered.

Of course, it was short-lived, and they got trounced shortly thereafter. But it was a glorious moment.

[Imladris]

Yes it was...but could it be considered a eucatastrophe?

There are so many cheering moments...but it's all for nothing. No eucatastrophe...

[Kuruharan]

I still think you are looking at this from the wrong perspective.

The War of Wrath was not a small victory. It was a far larger victory than the overthrow of Sauron.

I suppose that I am mainly upset with the unforgiveness of the Valar...you know what I mean?

Actually, I'm not sure I do.

It is a funny thing about the Curse of the Noldor, but it was a necessary thing to teach the Noldor the value of what they had before. They refused to obey the Valar, but the Valar had to let them go. It was the Noldor themselves who did not want to stay. Afterwards, they had to be prepared to return in their new forms to Valinor and not cause another riot.

And the Valar forgave them in the end.

Besides, eucatastrophe can be found in small things as well as great. Take Finrod. (Everyone loves Finrod.) He had a specifically mentioned happy ending that nobody could take away from him (unless, of course, one thinks that being in Valinor for all time is boring, but that is a topic for another time.)

[Aiwendil]

Imladris wrote:

The story of the Silmarils is done...so, as a myth, it is also deserving of a eucatastrophe. Yet, in my opinion, it does not have one.

And Firefoot:

I agree very much - there is really no joy in the Quenta Silmarillion.

I must disagree strongly. I would say that there is joy in the Silmarillion and indeed that there is eucatastrophe. And I would not call the Quenta Silmarillion as a whole a tragedy, though it does have tragedy within it.

Is there no joy in Valinor before the making of the Sun? Is there no joy in Doriath during the same time? Is there no joy in the story of Beren and Luthien?

As for a eucatastrophe - the success of Earendil is in my view the quintessential eucatastrophe. Imladris writes:

No offense, but the fact that Earendil made it through to the west only after he regained a silmaril is not much of a eucatastrophe. I suppose that I am mainly upset with the unforgiveness of the Valar...you know what I mean?

What I'm saying is that that one small victory is not enough to make it a Eucatastrophe.

But it is not "one small victory". The ultimate evil being is defeated. All the lands and people that were under his rule are freed. The slaves come forth from Angband. And it is all unforeseen and unexpected. The Valar are not unforgiving - that's the point. It is precisely the mercy of the Valar that defeats Morgoth.

Yes, people die. That shouldn't be too surprising, considering that the subject of much of the tale is a six hundred year long war. And the ending is certainly not unmitigated cheerfulness. But neither is the end of LotR. Personally, I think that the moment when Earendil appears in the sky and battles Ancalagon is the most piercingly eucatastrophic moment in Tolkien's writing.

Edit: Cross-posting with Kuruharan, who makes the same points that I do more concisely.

[Kuruharan]

But once the reader has experienced it, and is therefore expecting it, isn't it diminished the second and third etc time round?

Well, actually, the two parts of my previous statement were intended to be taken separately. The first part referred to the reader and the second to characters in the story.

I suppose in re-reading the readers experience might diminish but the reader can obviously re-read a particular passage as often as possible.

The part about not happening the same way twice is specifically intended as a comment on the construction of the story itself.

And if, each time, a Gollum popped out of a crevice and somehow vanquished Grendel, Grendel's mom, and the dragon-- then it would be repetitive, going against Tolkien's "Never to be counted on to recur." Am I getting close...?

Repetitive and strange.

the horns of Rohan will never interrupt the Witch-King's speech at the gate again;

Sam will never see another star above the Ephel Duath that affects him quite like that one;

Aragorn will never unexpectedly unfurl his banner from a corsair ship again;

the Morannon will never fall again;

A wounded ringbearer-hobbit sailing west cannot be counted on to happen again;

...but we, in rereading these things, may still catch a glimpse of…evangelium

Yes, exactly.

[Aiwendil]

Kuruharan wrote:

Take Beowulf for example. I admit that I never had a feeling of particular joy at any point when I read the story. I would say that perhaps, in order for me to be a consistent and clear-thinking individual (tee hee), I should view the slayings of Grendel, Grendel’s Momma, and the dragon as each being eucatastrophic events.

I'm not so sure. Eucatastrophe, even defined objectively, does not equal a fortunate event or a happy ending. When Merry and Pippin escape from the Orcs, for example, that's not eucatastrophe. Eucatastrophe is, I think, a very specific sort of fortunate event. It's in a way the positive aspect of the old "deus ex machina". The requirements, I think, are, very broadly speaking, hopelessness or near hopelessness initially, then a sudden and unexpected turn for the better which, nonetheless, can be seen to follow naturally from what has gone before. And not just a turn for the better - a profound turn for the better. It's easy to see how such a thing can cause "piercing joy", and in my opinion the War of Wrath fits this account perfectly.

[Guinevere]

I wish I had noticed this thread earlier...! Imladris takes up an issue that has bothered me as well for a very long time.

When I first read the Silmarillon I was struck with the deep sadness of it. The whole mood is so very different from the one in the LotR !
In LotR the sadness is mixed with hope, and overall I get a feeling that there is a meaning behind it all, a merciful providence that will guide everything to the ultimate best. The sacrifices that are made, are not meaningless, courage and loyalty and pity are rewarded.
It's just this balance between melancholy and hope that makes me love LotR so much.

In contrast to LotR, the Silmarillon seems so sombre and pessimistic! To be sure, there are some glimpses of joy, some instances where the Valar interfere with mercy , as in the story of Beren and Luthien, or in the instance where the eagle comes to bear Fingon up to rescue Maëdhros.
The story which depressed me most is of course the tale of Túrin.
After having read the "Narn i hîn Húrin", where the characters are more developped, the tragedy and injustice of the fates of this family touches me even more. I just can't get over it. Whereas I can see that Túrin (and Morwen) in some measure brings trouble on himself by his pride and rashness, I can see no such character flaws in Húrin. He is only valiant and faithful and has in no way deserved such a terrible fate: to be forsaken by everybody and to end his own life in complete hopelessness.
I kept asking myself why Tolkien would write such an utterly discouraging story ?
Was it an expression of his bleakest and most depressive mood ??

I have read this whole discussion with interest, and I found several points with which I agree very much.

Saucepanman wrote:

This to me seems to me to be the essence of this question. It is not the "facts" themselves, but the manner in which they are recorded that inspires eucatastrophe in the reader.

Turgon wrote:

yet if your perspective is that the Sil is "eucatastrophic-less" would that not add to the realism of the tale? Isn't life after all full of tragedy and ecstasy; with no clear idea of what may come next except the glimmer of hope?

Quite true: After all, real life is like that: one cannot expect justice.

Bethberry wrote:

quoting Tolkien:

This raises an important issue: if The Silm does not have Eu (no pun meant about Eru), does that mean either that Tolkien was wrong about fairy, or that The Silm is in fact not a fairy tale but something else? For instance, is it more fitting to describe it as myth rather than as fairy? Are the two terms interchangeable?

"LotR is a fairy-story, but one written for adults" Tolkien said in letter 181.
In my opinion the Silm is something different, as Bethberry here suggested above - more like a myth or an epic tale like "Beowulf".

Bethberry wrote:

We might, in fact, reach a better understanding of The Silm if we ask whether Tolkien's ideas about fairy were something he came to after the main body of his Legendarium was written, or if in the writing and reworking he came to understand something which his text initially did not demonstrate.

I think you're on the right track here! I feel this might be the answer to my nagging questions .

[Imladris]

Regarding Eucatastrophe:

I will be using On Fairy Stories definition because I think that that is the way Tolkien meant it to be used -- that is how he defines myth, or as he calls it, Fairy Stories.

But the "consolation" of fairy-tales has another aspect than the imaginative satisfaction of ancient desires. Far more important is the Consolation of the Happy Ending. Almost I would venture to assert that all complete fairy-stories must have it. At least I would say that Tragedy is the true form of Drama, its highest function; but the opposite is true of Fairy-story. Since we do not appear to possess a word that expresses this opposite -- I will call it Eucatastrophe. The eucatastrophic tale is the true form of fairy-tale, and its highest function.

The consolation of fairy-stories, the joy of the happy ending: or more correctly of the good catastrophe, the sudden joyous "turn" (for there is no true end to any fairy-tale)...it denies (in the face of much evidence, if you will) universal final defeat and in so far is evengelium, giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief.

So ecuastrophe is a glimpse of Joy. What is Joy?

The peculiar quality of the "joy" in successful Fantasy can thus be explained as a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality or truth. It is not only a "consolation" for the sorrow of this world...but in the "eucatastrophe" we see in a brief vision that the answer may be greater -- it may be a far-off gleam or echo of evangelium in the real world.

So, a eucastrophe contains Joy -- the Joy fo the Christian story, the Christian myth become fact.

...such joy as the very taste of primary truth...It looks forward (or backward the direction is unimportant) to the Great Eucatastrophe. The Christian joy, the Gloria, of of the same kind; but it is pre-eminantly (infinitely, if our capacity were not finite) high and joyours. But this story is supreme, and it is true...it has followed them, especially the "happy ending."...

I believe that it is very clear that Eucatastrophe happens at the end of a story. First, it is defined as the happy ending. Second, it is Eucatastrophe not Eucatastrophes. Thus I must eat my words about sub-Eucatastrophes.

Style has nothing to do with Eucatastrophe -- in fact a badly done story with a Eucatastrophe is often the redeeming grace of such a story.

Joy, I believe, is relative. If you see the fleeting glimpse of Joy -- the reflection of the Christian myth become fact, then there is eucatastrophe. I see the Christian Story in the Silmarillion -- in fact I see it all too clearly -- not even as a mere reflection. Do I see joy in the Christian story/Silmarillion? No, I do not. Thus...do I have Eucatastrophe?

[Kuruharan]

Style has nothing to do with Eucatastrophe -- in fact a badly done story with a Eucatastrophe is often the redeeming grace of such a story.

So if style has nothing to do with eucatastrophes then it is something built into the story and is not tied to the reaction of the reader.

[mark12_30]

Yes, the glimpse of joy, the glimpse Evangelium. In other words, the ultimate Myth -- the Christian story.

If we were to look at the phrase that began Tolkien's myth for him, the one in Old English concerning Earendel, ...

EDIT

Originally Posted by Crist of Cynewulf

"Eala Earendel engla beorhtast, ofer Middangeard monnum sended..."

Hail Earendel, angel brightest, over Midgard to men sent

... then one may reasonably conclude that Earendel would be analogous to the Messiah. There are a couple of ways one might look at the analogy, but if one made it as direct as possible, then (in the interest, or hope, of discovering the eucatastrophe from a comparison with Tolkien's One True Myth), -- if, I say, one were to construct such an analogy, then one might parallel them thus:

Christ --------- Earendil
Incarnation ---------parents Idril and Tuor
early life ---------Gondolin
ministry---------adulthood
final journey---------takes ship westward
passion---------offering of Silmaril
(at this point it gets hazy, but one take might be: )
death ---------placed in sky as morning star
resurrection ---------return to defeat Morgoth
ascension --------- back into the sky again
(admittedly there are other options that one might choose for parallels.
I myself prefer a slightly different one, I think. Maybe.
But I submit this simply for the sake of the argument that follows. )

Okay. Having said that:

Tolkien stated that the Gospel is the One True Myth, the incarnation & passion & resurrection of Christ is the ultimate eucatastrophe. So (if we were to go by comparison) then Earendil's voyage, placing, return, and re-return would be the analogous events.

However-- note that in all this, the surrounding folk don't have it so easy. Even those closely allied with Christ -- where was the 'happy ending' for them? No picnic there! Mary got to watch her son die a brutal, horrifying death. All the apostles but John were executed, many crucified. Lots of folk became lion fodder. Martyrdom abounded. Persecution was intense.

Early church life was as bleak as the Silmarillion in its own way. It was the Long Defeat. Or at least, it sure looked like one. So in the book of Acts, and even in the rest of the New Testament (excluding Revelation), where is the eucatastrophe?

It's not at the end of the story. It's not even in the middle. Its at the beginning.

The eucatastrophe that Tolkien calls The One True Myth, had comparitively little physical evdence. There were no crumbling towers, panicking armies, volcanoes, or the like. The main evidence was located in humble places where the historians of the time paid little or no attention.

However, that life, the beginning and the 'earthly ending', is the event which Tolkien calls the ultimate eucatastrophe. It took place almost entirely invisibly. Yet to the christian it is the pivot point of history. Physically it is immersed in suffering, hardship, executions, persecution and martyrdom; the essential monumental moment of victory is invisible.

That is, unless you happen to be standing in Valinor, as Earendil offers up the Silmaril.