Was Tolkein a fatalist?

[Sauron 666]

I ask this question due to the fact that in Tolkein's works the word 'doom'is seemingly synomous with 'fate', giving off a feeling that one's fate or destiny is negative, and indeed in many of his tales there is joy and there is also hardship and sadness. (of course this is true of life in general). That connetation seems to something Hemmingway would've done. Another element which gives me this impression is when Gandalf states that Bilbo was 'meant' (intended) to 'find' the ring, therefore that Bilbo wasn't in charge of his destiny. I know this in particular has a very strong christian connetation to it but it seems to fit in well with what i would call (hesitantly) Tolkein's fatalism. I'm just looking for other peoples' opinion on this.

[Evisse the Blue]

I agree with you - except that 'fatalist' holds negative conotations, and I think that Tolkien was most of all an optimist, as are most religious persons.

Another word very often used, besides 'doom' (which btw, it doesn't always mean something negative in Tolkien's books - I don't have an exact quote, but look in 'tale of Aragorn and Arwen for a positive connotation of 'doom')is hope. Of course this hope I think stems also from the inner confidence in fate, that all things are 'meant to be'.

I was re-reading 'The Return of the King' these days and marvelled yet again at the intricacy of the plot. How everything fits so nicely, as if, indeed, it was pre-ordained, down to Frodo's every step and stumble in parallel with Gandalf's speech to the Mouth of Sauron in front of the Black Gate before 'the hour of doom'.

[Lord of Angmar]

This is a topic I have thought of often, and it has been debated in many ways, shapes, and forms throughout this website.

In Tolkien's books, there seems to me to be several different entities that are constantly at work, 'driving Arda', if you will. While certainly Tolkien believed in free will, one's own will is not the only thing that drives him or her forward within Tolkien's world. Countless times, characters in Tolkien's works have acted with seeming free will and yet have ended up bound in the fate that was prophecied or foreseen for them. The Noldor are a good example. Feanor thought they were using their free will, yet in the end they were condemned for the actions they took because of their doom. Ask yourself this: would they have acted differently if the Noldor were unaware of the doom laid upon them?

Turin is perhaps the best example. For all of his life he ran from the curse that Morgoth had laid upon him, thinking that he was exerting his own free will to prevent his ultimate destiny. And yet it was because of each and every one of his actions that his doom became full-wrought.

Did Tolkien believe in free will? I am almost certain he did. Yet perhaps he had a different vision of free will. Since he said that Eru knew all that could happen and would happen, then essentially he was saying that no man can walk a path which he is not expected to take. And yet walking that path he is still exerting his will as a being, making the choices that he wishes to make.

I believe Tolkien's world is a complex mix of free will, hope, chance and fate, all enmeshed in a complex web that I doubt even Tolkien fully understood.

[ August 04, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[Evisse the Blue]

I believe Tolkien's world is a complex mix of free will, hope, chance and fate, all enmeshed in a complex web that I doubt even Tolkien fully understood.

A lot like the real world.

[Yavanna228]

It may seem much like the 'real world' because it may have been Tolkien's interpretation of the chance of life, his way of feeling out the issue. As Sauron 666 pointed out, Tolkien was a very religious man, and those of religious backgrounds have dealt with the issue of free will vs. predestination. We still haven't figured it out. Maybe we are not meant to. If life is something God has planned out or not, I don't know that our feeble minds are meant to grasp it. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Peace

[Aredhel Idril Telcontar]

Tolkien stated, in the Sil, I think, that whatever evil one does, in the end, it is all a plan of Iluvatar. Therefore, I think, whatever chance, fate or free will, at the end of the day, it all turns out as it should be.

Seems as though Tolkien believed in that - in hope that things will turn out for the best.

-Aredhel

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Try checking out "doom", "fate", "hope" and "free will" in the search function - there have quite a few previous discussions on these topics. Please try not to duplicate those; especially the topic of "free will" has been done repeatedly.

[Sauron 666]

I apologize but I don't feel like browsing through 50 pages work of posts. I only have internet access at work and i'm not here all the time (though it does feel that way [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img])

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

The search feature is there to save you that trouble. A lot of the old threads are well worth reading.

[Sauron 666]

I Actually didn't know there was a search feature. Thanks [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Morgoth the Great]

i believe that Tolkien unwillingly did focus on death, and if you look at his history, it's hardly surprising really, is it?

[lindil]

the ever astute Lord of A. posted --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe Tolkien's world is a complex mix of free will, hope, chance and fate, all enmeshed in a complex web that I doubt even Tolkien fully understood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TO this I would add that as Gurjieff has struggled to make plain, their is a state called wakefullness that is beyond that which we call 'not asleep'. We use it in slang [ Gandalf telling Pippin in the Minas Tirith chapter - 'IF you have walked all these days with your eyes shut and your ears closed, then wake up!' is an excellent example].

To be 'awake' means to have your mind clear, your heart open and to be 'present' in your body and truly experiencing your senses, all at the same time. This is rare, but I always had the feeling that JRRT managed to convey this with the Elves and also with Faramir and Aragorn. They were especially 'present'. Also Frodo gains this quality after Mordor.

So to relate this to the original point re: freewill and whther Tolkien was a fatalist, I think we can see that in addition to the above factors mentioned by LoA, there is what Gurdjieff called quite rightly, 'the Law of Accident'. It is this law that Anarion succombed to when smote upon the Helm in the seige of Barad-Dur. It is this law that says even the pure motived Vanyar summoned to fight Morgoth at the War of Wrath, when thousands of Arrows are shot at them, some will fall.

To become free of the Law of Accident is a great thing, it means that you have some how become important enough in God's plan to be worth saving [temporally - the question of the spritual ramifications are far more complex] from a tight situation. Merry and Pippin's escapte from the Uruk-Hai seems a good example, as is the 'rescue' of Frodo, Sam and Pippin by Gildor and Co.

Also in the final analysis, JRRT's hope [and the hope of the Dunedain and Men in the LEgendarium] was clearly stated to be 'beyond the circles of the world'. I.E. with God, and as far as possible for him, in harmony with his Revelation.

[Lush]

lindil, that was a very eloquent explanation of a very complex theme in Tolkien's work. I salute you.

Per the contrasting of Tolkien and Hemingway in the original post of this thread: perhaps the way that Hemingway dealt with the nature of fate was less dramatic, but with all due respect to old Ernest, look at who out of the two killed himself and who ended up living a full life.

If one is to give the title of "fatalist" a negative connotation, then based of what we know of Hemingway's personality, we can crown him the winner of this "contest." Yet my dictionary, for example, says that a fatalist is one that believes "that events are determined by fate." Nothing more, nothing less (then again, it is not the best dictionary in the world, and I'm sure, for example, that the one that Squatter has on his desk is more useful).

[ August 15, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Alatariel]

I do not think that Tolkein's works were works of fate and doom, but rather of hope. He consistently states that there is no need for despair, because despair is only for people who can see all ends. As has been noted before, "fatalist" has negative connotations, and I think that Tolkein meant his works to be positive and optomistic. Even in the face of all things evil and bad in the world, good can still prevail, even from the smallest person.

[Guinevere]

Alatariel : I agree with you when I look only at LotR. But when I read the Silmarillion, it looks different. Most of it is deeply sad, "doom" is ever present and some of the tales end without any hope, especially the one about Túrin. This bothered me a good deal when I read it (and still does)
I think what the Lord of Angmar said in his post sums it up nicely.
I just remembered something which Tolkien stated in one of his letters (#195)

I am a Christian,(....) so that I do not expect "history" to be anything but a "long defeat" - though it contains (and in a legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory.

[ October 03, 2003: Message edited by: Guinevere ]