Lord Melkor Rightful Master of the Fates of Arda

[Thenamir]

My sincerest apologies, Lal -- that was inadvertenly copied from the original post. The incident to which it refers was already dealt with over in the "Rooting For The Wrong Side" thread.

[Durelin]

Originally Posted by alatar

Did Melkor just need a true friend, a hug, more attention from Eru?


alatar begins to look for Melkor's address to which to send a Teddy-gram..

I have always attested such writings as Marcus Aurelius' Meditations to one fateful day in third grade, February 14th, when the poor writer received not a single Valentine. Perhaps writing in his journal was not manly enough for Melkor, or maybe he lacked the artistry, and so resorted to self-destructiveness, which naturally grew into overall destructive behavior.

Ah, maybe that's it - he desired a creative outlet but Eru failed to give him even enough skill to draw stick figures or write nonsensical haikus?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

I respectfully look forward to your reply.

Melkor:

• Melkor liked Beren.

• He thought Tinuviel and Varda were 'hot.'

• Melkor invented orcs. Without such creatures, we never would have been blessed with hearing Viggo Mortensen say, "orc" like he had a clothes pin on his nose.

• Someone has to play Judas in the play.

• Who else was mighty enough to restrain the Balrogs from flying around Thangorodrim like bats?

• As stated, flour comes from milling. Melkor was the millstone.

Sauron:

• He pumped up the Witch-King in RotK.

• Sauron started the Werewolf-game madness.

• Without Annatar, jewelry in Middle Earth just wouldn't be the same - just necklaces and shiny brooches.

And the most probable (and coherent?) reply will be that all that you've stated is one point of view, from the Elves and their lackeys, and we never get to read Melkor's side, as, well, he lost, and to the victors go the publishing rights...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

My sincerest apologies, Lal -- that was inadvertenly copied from the original post. The incident to which it refers was already dealt with over in the "Rooting For The Wrong Side" thread.

Ah now I see what you did! I was a bit shocked there! But no harm done!

Anyway, Melkor. Of course he's the bad guy in the story, that's how he's set up - it doesn't stop anyone from reversing that if they like though. That's just another way of reading it. Course, some people do it just to wind Tolkien fans up, including other Tolkien fans, as we can be a bunch of sensitive little flowers at times My particular 'blue touchpaper' is when people start on about Hobbits being 'cr*p' etc.and how Saruman should've killed them all. Set me off on that one and I'll be all touchy! There isn't necessarily anything wrong in someone liking Melkor though - after all we don't know why they do, and what they're really like. That shouldn't form our judge of character - and if it did I'd be a poor judge because I've met enough Elf fans who were complete %^&*(s....

But he has to be there, as has been said, or there'd be no story anyway.

[Thenamir]

...and as I was once told, "if the learner hasn't learned, then the the teacher hasn't taught."

I am by no means impugning the right and privilege of any person to read JRRT as he/she/it sees fit. (Though I also defend the right of those who disagree, especially myself , to do so.) In Neithan Tol Turambar's case, I am merely pointing out that Neithan has established two, mutually contradictory points of view -- One, that Tolkien's work is inviolable, and Two, that Melkor is something or someone that Tolkien says he most definitely was not.

[Elmo]

I think Neithan in this thread was, as we say in Bonnie Scotland, extracting the urine with this thread. (something I have been guilty of in the past but this became boring)

[The Might]

After noticing Neithan hasn't posted, Gandalf says to Sam:

‘A great Shadow has departed,’ said Gandalf, and then he laughed and the sound was like music, or like water in a parched land; and as he listened the thought came to Sam that he had not heard laughter, the pure sound of merriment, for days upon days without count. It fell upon his ears like the echo of all the joys he had ever known. But he himself burst into tears. Then, as a sweet rain will pass down a wind of spring and the sun will shine out the clearer, his tears ceased, and his laughter welled up, and laughing he sprang from his bed.

[Thenamir]

To be fair, he earlier said he was off to work, and he has to sleep sometime, herald-of-Sauron or not.

[The Might]

Gandalf never lies...I hope.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by hewhoarisesinmight

I think Neithan in this thread was, as we say in Bonnie Scotland, extracting the urine with this thread.

You mean I put off important life-changing work to reply to this thread for nothing?!?

The verve...I mean the nerve of some.

Originally Posted by alatar

So, having no 'earthly' accomplishments about which to boast, Melkor has fallen to name-dropping. He was 'owned' by Beren and Luthien, and I doubt that Melkor and the Camlost ever shook hands, even the one that remained, in this life or the thereafter (assuming that Melkor could even wiggle a hand free of his chains). Does Melkor know Paris Hilton too?

By the by, I've glad that this topic has arisen as it's given me a new perspective on Melkor. Assuming Eru 'begat' in some way Melkor, technically that could mean that Eru is Melkor's mommy. So, while many of the other Valar are married, Melkor sits alone, living in Angband, as I now see it, in his mother's basement! From there he dreams and schemes, and in the end it's all for not. When, perchance, a beautiful maiden stops by, he can only look. Her singing makes him impotent..I mean, ineffective for a time, and she walks out with the guy that that brought her to the dance (which, as we've read, is now a friend of the Dark Lord, because that's as close as he's going to get to fair Tinuviel). Wow! And all this time I thought the guy scary, but now realize how sad he was.

Anyway, that may be a harsh way of saying that Melkor had no or lost his creative powers as life became all about him. What does this say about giving one's children too much? Spoiled is a really fitting word here.

And I'm not even going to bring up that Melkor had to chain Húrin to the mountainside just for some company...

But I do understand the point that Melkor did serve a purpose, as without him, the First Age may be summed up to be "The Elves had tea; Men showed up and made coffee." Boring!

...but to Urin[hurin] he gave a measure of vision, so that much of those things that befell his wife and [daughter] he might see and be helpless to aid, for magic held him in that high place. "Behold!" said Melko, "the life of [your daughter] shall be accounted a matter for tears wherever elves and men are gathered for the telling of tales."; but Hurin said: "at least none shall pity [her] for this, that [she] had a craven for father."

Originally Posted by hewhoarisesinmight

Neithan Tol Turambar has a job Sorry that was a joke my little Melkorite

I could rip you to shreds for that, but you have secret admiring guardian angels, boy.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Love or a giggle perhaps. Perhaps he just never found a cartoon or comic that gave him a really good laugh.

not true not true! I loved the Savage Sword of Conan! wench.

[QUOTE=Thenamir]Alright, Neithan Tol Turambar, I'm calling you out. Your verbose and insufferable tirades, your name-calling, and your general attitude (not to mention your deluded self-proclamation as Lord Sauron's "herald and messenger") have earned you the negative rep you so richly deserve. Prepare to defend yourself.

In your introductory post on the "Introduce yourself here" thread, you posted the following:


Now aside from the fact that you revere the Learned Professor's work so much that you can't even spell his name correctly, your entire premise in beginning and carrying on this thread is entirely antithetical to every spoken and written opinion of Tolkien himself. I defy you to produce one iota, a single scintilla of evidence to show that Tolkien himself, whom you claim to revere and defend, intended that Melkor (or Sauron) was the master, savior, and liberator which you claim. Otherwise you are attempting to alter and revise that work of which you say
I agree with that sentiment, and I here and now accuse you of that vile and atrocious arrogance and call you to defend your position against the following quotes from LOTR and the Silmarillion (words of Tolkien himself! ), reproduced from an earlier discussion on a similar topic.

-----

Morgoth:

...Thus with lies and evil whisperings and false counsel Melkor kindled the hearts of the Noldor to strife; and of their quarrels came at length the end of the high days of Valinor

Sauron:




So, now, let's review. Even for Lalwendë who has her fingers in her ears and isn't listening anymore.

• Arrogant and contemptful of everything except themselves
• Liars without shame
• Selfish in the extreme
• Use fear and intimidation to dominate other wills
• Turn good things to evil purposes
• Usurpers of the rightful realms of others
• Coveting everything for themselves
• Appear in dark and terrible forms
• Tortured, maimed, killed, enslaved, perverted the elves
• Completely loveless
• Envious, jealous and bitter
• Ever striving to insert strife and dissent
• Cunning dissemblers and deceivers
• Instrumental in the downfall of Numenor and the consequent deaths of almost an entire race
• And in the end complete losers and failures.

Now you tell me how you can simultaneously maintain your mutually-contradicting positions of "Melkor is the Benevolent Savior and Master" and "Tolkien's work is untouchable. "

I respectfully look forward to your reply.

You have agreed with me in a circular way at every point, but cannot make the proper conclusion at the end of your reasoning. Let me say this: I agree with you.
What incredible examples of the worlds finest writer. I thank you. For Tolkien was, I firmly believe the finest writer of all time and his passages arouse in me the most brilliant and compelling visions I have ever experienced. He can conjure up images of power so strong I feel them and see them he moves me!!!!
Your right. Tolkien did write those passages. He also wrote the narrative of Morgoth's perspective, an inseperable part of the whole. Melkor has glory within the revelation as an inextricably intertwined part of the story without which[EVIL] their can be no good. Think Man! By God you are at the very door!!
IN THE ABSENCE OF DARKNESS LIGHT HAS NO GLORY. EVIL REFLECTS THE GLORY OF GOD.

I laboriously type again....

"Then Illuvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Illuvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, "Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not it's uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'

Now you think about that. And if you still don't know what I am doing here, then I declare outside of all eccentricity and sarcasim and from the depths of my true heart say to you sir you have no understanding. Please do not react, THINK.

You people can thank the moderators for heavily censoring my posts, in which, while in the spirit, made a stunning and careless error, that you could have taken advantage of. WHAT A DRAG! IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PERFECT ILLISTRATION OF THE WISDOM OF GANDALF. I worried all day when in the midst of lifting over 3000 pounds in twenty minutes...."The magnitude of my folly was revealed to me in a blinding flash...." Wonder what it was? TOO BAD!!! I 'M NOT TELLING!!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA OOOHHHH------(cough cough..uhckk ttwwoooo cough cough) AHHH HA HA HA HA unghckk cough cough cough)

I have a new thread that I think is just going to blow people away, sorry, I really do!
I'm going to write it soon, and it will be serious, and pure, and empirical, and GOOD.
I, We, promises to be very, very good. nice moderator! wretched we are wretched!
Neithan promises! He will be very very good! Nice Moderator! Don't censor us! don't censor us! achsss sss gollum!

[Thenamir]

Neithan, I'm unsure at this point whether you are a troll, a madman, or a thinker (of sorts), so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt at this point and attempt to see through the blinders you seem to think we're all wearing.

It is oft said that disasters bring out the best in people, or that without the contrast of the hard times we would never properly appreciate the good times, or that "every dark cloud has a silver lining". In this sense I can understand that, as Tolkien himself said, there would never have been certain beauties (as of snow) unless Melkor had brought the icy cold.

However, it is on one side of the line that one can assert that Eru can make make even the selfish evil of Morgoth work to his purposes, but let us not take the step over the line to assert that Melkor himself is good, or that evil in and of itself is good, thus confusing the two and removing all meaning from the words. The destruction and death that resulted from World War II can make us grateful for the life we have and the peace we enjoy, but let us not call Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito great men of history because of that reminder -- the price paid was far too high.

If good can be brought out as a result of evil, that does not justify the evil. The fact that Eru foresaw and incorporated all of the things that I quoted in my prior post, and eventually caused a the strength of evil to be overcome by the weakness of good, that is a testament not to the glory of Melkor for being a "free thinker", but to Eru, for taking Morgoth's free but twisted will and still making something good from it. Eru is therefore not a tyrant, as you claimed, but the true benevolent creator and savior of all.

You have said that the Valar are only puppets, aping what Eru "progammed" into them. Where Tolkien said that Iluvatar gave only a theme, a "subject" or "Guideline" from which they could use their individual gifts and talents to create the Music themselves:

Then Ilúvatar said to them: 'Of the theme that I have declared to you, I will now that ye make in harmony together a Great Music. And since I have kindled you with the Flame Imperishable, ye shall show forth your powers in adorning this theme, each with his own thoughts and devices, if he will.

You have said that the Flame Imperishable is greater than Eru. Tolkien says the Fire itself is with Iluvatar and inseparable from him.

He had gone often alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame; for desire grew hot within him to bring into Being things of his own, and it seemed to him that Ilúvatar took no thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness. Yet he found not the Fire, for it is with Ilúvatar.

He would have found what he was seeking if he had but turned TO Iluvatar rather than AWAY from him.

Of Sauron you say "they lie who say that He is a Tyrant wreathed in shadow." I do believe it was our beloved professor T. who wrote that of Sauron -- and I thought you despised those who altered his works and his vision.

You have said that Morgoth "hath made valleys, and Eru's slaves filled them; Melkor hath made mountains, and Eru hath cast them down", which is the very opposite of Tolkien's writing on that topic:

The Valar endeavoured ever, in despite of Melkor, to rule the Earth and to prepare it for the coming of the Firstborn; and they built lands and Melkor destroyed them; valleys they delved and Melkor raised them up; mountains they carved and Melkor threw them down; seas they hollowed and Melkor spilled them; and naught might have peace or come to lasting growth, for as surely as the Valar began a labour so would Melkor undo it or corrupt it.

Finally, and I think perhaps this is a telling point, you ask "What would the world be without Melkor's Theme?" First of all, there was no "Melkor's Theme", only

a clamorous unison as of many trumpets braying upon a few notes. And it essayed to drown the other music by the violence of its voice

But more to the point, if there had been no Melkor, theme or no theme, then we would all go on living our lives in the REAL world. For Melkor is a fiction, a non-entity, words on a page (albeit words of genius) composed by a man we all revere, but who in the last analysis, deplored the cult status his words attained. Let us never forget that.

I have not yet made up my mind whether you have some method to your madness, or if you're just one of those folks who wander in to a forum or chat spoiling for a fight, pushing everyone's hot buttons, and watching their predictable knee-jerk reactions. Or perhaps you just quaff too many pints, or there's something "special" in those ciggies you smoke, or perhaps that fried chicken is just a wee bit past its freshness date. Nevertheless, I perceive that there is some valuable intelligence behind this belligerent facade, and I hope that it can spill forth here with less rancor and more gentleness, less veiled vagueries and more directness.

I'm off to bed. I bid you and all my readers a good night.

I rush forward in blitzkrieg attack and, being engrossed in my task, make no considerations of empathy.
Therefore I was shocked to see that The Might and Hookbill the Goomba (sp) were 18 and 20, respectively.
I was strangely and profoundly moved.
While I take back nothing, not a word, I want to say that you guys should not let a word I say bring you down. I am
how shall I put it?
very impressed with your insight, thoughtfulness and level of maturity.
The what I've been told is dog latin inscription ( can I say that? Should I look it up? I keep a dictionary right here) as my secondary signiture is latin, a living langauge, which means, "Don't let the bastards grind you down".
Now you men think carefully about all that I have said, and look in the books, and Idaresay, seek for themes within our own history that fit within analogous perception, but only and I say only! ONLY! after you aquire knowledge. And not the disgusting Melkorian knowledge you find on discovery, but true knowledge that you can only get by special order catalogues and sometimes once in a while from a inter library loan.
And use a dictionary. Never read passed a word you do not know. If you do you are a fool and unworthy. Look it up. LOOK IT UP AGAIN. look it up and write the definition down. Look it up five times if the word doesn't sound like the meaning, as is often the case, and so, hard to memorize.
You both have the talentgift of writing and insight. Make sure you get to be experts with the thesaurus. With a thesaurus you conquer, without you fail. The best in the world know this but they will never tell you.
And Hookbill, I know why you call yourself that. My oldest best closest friend, my brother, who is dead because of my carelessness, had a really big nose too.
Most girls didn't like him, and they mostly didn't like anyone at all, but by God, and you'll see, some girls do.

[Thenamir]

By the heavens, Neithan, the regulars and bystanders who post on this site are some of the finest, most knowledgeable Tolkien fans on the Net, and for you to come in here as a rank (in every sense of the word) newcomer and talk down to us as you have been doing is intolerable. If you have something to say, say it and let's discuss it, but don't pretend to have some "secret insights" and patronize our supposed ignorance by hints and vagueness.

You're going to have to prove your bona fides here with much more than bluster before you can get away with that.

And by the way, your sig should read Illegitimi non carborundum. For one who claims that Latin is a living language, you sure don't treat it like one.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Dude, give it up. Tolkien himself said Morgoth was an evil, selfish thing and that Sauron was just a lesser creature than that.

Originally Posted by Thenamir

Neithan, I'm unsure at this point whether you are a troll, a madman, or a thinker (of sorts), so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt at this point and attempt to see through the blinders you seem to think we're all wearing.

It is oft said that disasters bring out the best in people, or that without the contrast of the hard times we would never properly appreciate the good times, or that "every dark cloud has a silver lining". In this sense I can understand that, as Tolkien himself said, there would never have been certain beauties (as of snow) unless Melkor had brought the icy cold.

However, it is on one side of the line that one can assert that Eru can make make even the selfish evil of Morgoth work to his purposes, but let us not take the step over the line to assert that Melkor himself is good, or that evil in and of itself is good, thus confusing the two and removing all meaning from the words. The destruction and death that resulted from World War II can make us grateful for the life we have and the peace we enjoy, but let us not call Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito great men of history because of that reminder -- the price paid was far too high.

If good can be brought out as a result of evil, that does not justify the evil. The fact that Eru foresaw and incorporated all of the things that I quoted in my prior post, and eventually caused a the strength of evil to be overcome by the weakness of good, that is a testament not to the glory of Melkor for being a "free thinker", but to Eru, for taking Morgoth's free but twisted will and still making something good from it. Eru is therefore not a tyrant, as you claimed, but the true benevolent creator and savior of all.

You have said that the Valar are only puppets, aping what Eru "progammed" into them. Where Tolkien said that Iluvatar gave only a theme, a "subject" or "Guideline" from which they could use their individual gifts and talents to create the Music themselves:

You have said that the Flame Imperishable is greater than Eru. Tolkien says the Fire itself is with Iluvatar and inseparable from him. He would have found what he was seeking if he had but turned TO Iluvatar rather than AWAY from him.

Of Sauron you say "they lie who say that He is a Tyrant wreathed in shadow." I do believe it was our beloved professor T. who wrote that of Sauron -- and I thought you despised those who altered his works and his vision.

You have said that Morgoth "hath made valleys, and Eru's slaves filled them; Melkor hath made mountains, and Eru hath cast them down", which is the very opposite of Tolkien's writing on that topic:

Finally, and I think perhaps this is a telling point, you ask "What would the world be without Melkor's Theme?" First of all, there was no "Melkor's Theme", only But more to the point, if there had been no Melkor, theme or no theme, then we would all go on living our lives in the REAL world. For Melkor is a fiction, a non-entity, words on a page (albeit words of genius) composed by a man we all revere, but who in the last analysis, deplored the cult status his words attained. Let us never forget that.

I have not yet made up my mind whether you have some method to your madness, or if you're just one of those folks who wander in to a forum or chat spoiling for a fight, pushing everyone's hot buttons, and watching their predictable knee-jerk reactions. Or perhaps you just quaff too many pints, or there's something "special" in those ciggies you smoke, or perhaps that fried chicken is just a wee bit past its freshness date. Nevertheless, I perceive that there is some valuable intelligence behind this belligerent facade, and I hope that it can spill forth here with less rancor and more gentleness, less veiled vagueries and more directness.

I'm off to bed. I bid you and all my readers a good night.

Responses like that make it all worth it. By Jove man don't you think I know how crazy these Tolkien fans are? For days I have lived in fear thinking that a truckload of them might suddenly appear, tires squeeling in some alley behind the market on my way home . . ."We got you now, don't we!"

But really- do you think I am just fumbling around here with no strategy?
Can I use conventional methods to convey inconventional ideas?
Can I go deeper into the depths without sacrificing myself, for no man can hold his breath that long, and surely I must fail, not at reaching the depths, but only by knowing that I have not enough to get back to the surface.

I disagree with you at two points:

[and since my computer skills are nil I can't remeber what you said and I'm afraid to lose my text so far...

"Eru foresaw and incorporated . . . .and eventually . . .

No. Do Not make excuses for Eru based on secret imagined faults which are not really his, but your own unvoiced or unrecognized limitations.

Eru was not inept and yet fortunately was able to some how in the end eventually make everything all right and use Melkors evil to defeat him. You still cannot fully accept the fact, as revealed, that the whole scope of the music was with Eru from the beginning and even the end, though we are at it's beginning, is within Eru AT PRESENT. According to your reasoning their is an unknown varible in the equation. Melkor, though not as great as Eru, and Eru, not entirely omnipotent, and the conflict between, whereby Eru proves by the end that he is master.

Wrong wrong wrong. Eru does not struggle to prove that he is master somehow by the end, but declares and reveals openly that he is the ultimate souce of all in the beginning. Eru Takes responsibility for evil, that is his greatness, do not rob him of it because you canot accept this or that faced with his glory, you connot fathom, so you humanize him by giving him a slight dose of human frailty, to make him understandable. The fault is not in him, but in you. Accept this.
Want to get serious?
The Hebrew God does not take responsibility for creating evil. He demands that you must take responsibility for evil, or, as seems to be the case, that his Own Son must be tortured and murdered at his own people's request.
By God man that doesn't make me feel saved. It makes me feel wretched.
Tolkien's mythology makes me feel saved. Am I mad?
If Tolkiens mythology is not real then neither is Christ or Moses or any of that. You cannot have your Tolkien and eat it too.
And Tolkiens work is far more moral and complete and plausible and holy than anything found in what is called the Bible.
Do not tell me that Arda is not real or never was. I can't prove it. But I have faith.
I want to continue this. I'll met you again later. Sleep tight preciousss!

[davem]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

You do realize that everyone was happy and good even before Morgoth did his crap, right?

But did they realise they were good & happy? Did they realise anything at all?

What's the matter tenimer? can't sleep wondering what I'll say next?

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by davem

But did they realise they were good & happy? Did they realise anything at all?

Yeah, they did.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Neithan Tol Turambar

And Hookbill, I know why you call yourself that.

Ah! You're a fan of the Super Mario games are you?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

But did they realise they were good & happy? Did they realise anything at all?

Well, nobody even existed prior to Melkor's work apart from the Ainur. The Children were simply thoughts in Eru's mind, and from the way the Sil is worded, it seems maybe only Elves existed, and that Eru may have created Men as a response to Melkor:

Then the discord of Melkor spread ever wider, and the melodies which had been heard before foundered in a sea of turbulent sound. But Iluvatar sat and hearkened until it seemed that about his throne there was a raging storm, as of dark waters that made war one upon another in an endless wrath that would not be assuaged.
Then Iluvatar arose, and the Ainur perceived that he smiled; and he lifted up his left hand, and a new theme began amid the storm, like and yet unlike to the former theme, and it gathered power and had new beauty. But the discord of Melkor rose in uproar and contended with it, and again there was a war of sound more violent than before, until many of the Ainur were dismayed and sang no longer, and Melkor had the mastery. Then again Iluvatar arose, and the Ainur perceived that his countenance was stern; and he lifted up his right hand, and behold! a third theme grew amid the confusion, and it was unlike the others. For it seemed at first soft and sweet, a mere rippling of gentle sounds in delicate melodies; but it could not be quenched, and it took to itself power and profundity.

Bold one - Elves
Bold two - Men - made in response to Melkor?

If so, that's quite fabulous, as Men were created to respond to and to resist Melkor's themes.

Anyway, to draw out some sense, I've argued before that using the text strictly, Darkness (note, not 'evil', but 'Darkness') must stem from Eru ultimately. From the start he is called the All Father and he is Omnipotent, and the very nature of that means that he creates everything, or causes every possibility.

Eru creates the Ainur from his own thought:

There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Illuvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought, and they were with him before aught else was made

Melkor then, from what he has been given by Eru, which must include the potential to self-realise and imagine, makes up his own themes, different from the tune Eru has asked them to sing:

But as the theme progressed, it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own imagining that were not in accord with the theme of Iluvatar; for he sought therein to increase the power and glory of the part assigned to himself.

And then the Killer Quote from Eru, where he tells Melkor that although he may wish to make up his own theme and may believe he is being a true rebel, those thughts and ideas of Darkness all have their source in Eru:

Then Iluvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Iluvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful which he himself hath not imagined.'

And what's more, because Everything stems from Eru, even if he who reveres Darkness thinks he is doing something different, heis not because Eru planted that there too, along with the fluffy stuff. And the Darkness only serves to make the Light that much brighter.

A lot of readers might not like that as they have the notion that Eru was all 'goodness' in our terms, yet this is at odds with an Omnipotent Eru who states he is the source of everything. This might make some uncomfortable as they believe their God is all 'good' - and I admit I too would be uncomfortable with this perception of God as someone who can cause things I see as quite dark. To me, there is no point in having a God if he is not all sweetness and light in contrast to the evil that people inflict on one another - why believe in a deity that can hurt you for no fathomable reason?

But this is Eru, and we cannot possibly hope to know Tolkien's own relationship with God and if he saw God as the source of all in the Real World, including Darkness, but if Eru is his representation of his own God then he may well have done. It's a common enough belief, especially in Catholicism, that everything stems from God, even the 'bad' things ('bad' because we see them as bad, but does God? Does he abhor war? Does he control tornadoes? Or is this all in his plan?) - it's simply his mysterious way; just take a look at The Book of Job to see an unfathomable God exercising his Omnipotence. By the by, this is assuming Eru is a representation of what Tolkien saw in God - it may well not be at all!

But we will never know. All we have to work on is what Eru is like in the text and in the Sil he creates All, including the potential for Darkness, and just as say Yavanna makes strawberries with her potential, Melkor makes cold temperatures with his. Eru gives them that potential and asks them to sing for him, and not all sing what he wanted them to sing because he also gives them the freedom to do as they will with the potential he has bestowed on them from his own thought.

Yet at the end of it all, even though Melkor does choose to use his potential in that way - it only serves to further glorify Eru, thus proving that in Arda, Eru has the Last Laugh.

And that's way, way more than I wanted to write...

[The Might]

By the by, when I first saw your name I looked it up on Wikipedia since it sounded strange, and yet familiar.

"Neithan, I'm unsure at this point whether you are a troll, a madman, or a thinker (of sorts)"...I seem to feel the same

Can duplicate accounts actually be started without anyone noticing here, because, if yes, there is a more likely possibility...

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

If so, that's quite fabulous, as Men were created to respond to and to resist Melkor's themes.

Both races were created in the third theme:

Originally Posted by Ainulindale, Silmarillion

For the Children of Iluvatar were conceived by him alone; and they came with the third theme, and were not in the theme which Iluvatar propounded at the beginning, and none of the Ainur had part in their making.

That no Ainu had a part in their making is reinforced in the letters too (such as #200). I would have problems with picturing the Eruhini as a generated response by Melkor; Tolkien holds that their intrusion is the chief one; moreover:

Originally Posted by idem

And they saw with amazement the coming of the Children of Iluvatar, and the habitation that was prepared for them; and they perceived that they themselves in the labour of their music had been busy with the preparation of this dwelling, and yet knew not that it had any purpose beyond its own beauty.

which implies that the Children existed in design before the themes.

Originally Posted by Lalwende

But this is Eru, and we cannot possibly hope to know Tolkien's own relationship with God and if he saw God as the source of all in the Real World, including Darkness, but if Eru is his representation of his own God then he may well have done.

I presume he does; the closest he comes to confessing this, that I know:

=Letter #153]I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them. That God would 'tolerate' that, seems no worse theology than the toleration of the calculated dehumanizing of Men by tyrants that goes on today.

this theme of respect of Free Will by the Creator is also mentioned previously, in regards to the literary works:

Originally Posted by idem

Free Will is derivative, and is.'. only operative within provided circumstances; but in order that it may exist, it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it, whatever betides : sc. when it is 'against His Will', as we say, at any rate as it appears on a finite view.

Morality implies free will, which implies possibility of evil - even at grand scales, such as that of angels, with all their terrible effects.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by The 1000th Reader

Yeah, they did.

Hmmm... care to elaborate? I agree with Lal here: nothing existed so no one could be aware of being happy. Though we could speculate if Ilúvatar and Ainur were happy or aware of it...

Originally Posted by The Might

Can duplicate accounts actually be started without anyone noticing here, because, if yes, there is a more likely possibility...

I think they can be made - why couldn't they? If this is some regular downer's joke, I think it's a very bad one.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

You do realize that everyone was happy and good even before Morgoth did his crap, right?

Originally Posted by davem

But did they realise they were good & happy? Did they realise anything at all?

The ainur used their free will to compose their music, so they must have had conscioussness. That they were good before Melkor's discording music is an fundamental idea in the Legendarium. I don't know of any 'evidence' concerning the level of their happiness, but even in this 50/50 situation, I believe it is safe to speculate they were doing quite alright. Ainulindale speaks of them experiencing amazement, harmony, communion, awe, even if only in relation to the music.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

The ainur used their free will to compose their music, so they must have had conscioussness. That they were good before Melkor's discording music is an fundamental idea in the Legendarium. I don't know of any 'evidence' concerning the level of their happiness, but even in this 50/50 situation, I believe it is safe to speculate they were doing quite alright. Ainulindale speaks of them experiencing amazement, harmony, communion, awe, even if only in relation to the music.

No. They were innocent befoe Melkor's discord - which is not the same thing at all. They could not have been 'good' because a) to be good is a moral choice, not a default position & b) they couldn't have known what 'good' actually was, since no alternative position existed. they didn't know they were happy because they had no experience of unhappiness. They didn't know what harmony amazement or communion was either, never having known disharmony, bordom or isolation. In short they didn't actually know much of anything till Melkor intervened & made them aware of other options.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

They were innocent befoe Melkor's discord - which is not the same thing at all.

I am not sure what notion of good and evil you apply here. If being good means using free will in accordance with the stated and perceived intent of Eru, then they were good; and if they had reason, then they were able to differentiate this from its opposite, which would constitute evil.

Originally Posted by davem

they didn't know they were happy because they had no experience of unhappiness. They didn't know what harmony amazement or communion was either, never having known disharmony, bordom or isolation.

These would be true if we assume that they cannot experience different degrees of these feelings, and thus unable to discerne, from relative difference between such degrees, their scale. The phrasing of the Ainulindale indicates otherwise. Although this announces to be an interesting speculation, I am not sure that we can apply human psychology to them. We are bound by our own human limitations; plus, I believe it is safe to assume that they experienced communion with Eru on various levels, and that they learned much through empathy from Him - not just from His music, or, later, from their actions.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I am not sure what notion of good and evil you apply here. If being good means using free will in accordance with the stated and perceived intent of Eru, then they were good; and if they had reason, then they were able to differentiate this from its opposite, which would constitute evil.
.

Then 'good' is simply what Eru decides it is, not some objective standard. In which case all the Ainur could know is what corresponds to the intent of Eru & what does not. How they can make a moral choice on the basis of such limited knowledge is beyond me. They could not even know that Eru was 'good' until they had Melkor to compare him to.

[Bêthberry]

Memory's a bit foggy this morning--not had the requisite jolt of java yet--but wasn't there that Void wherein lay Ungoliant, even before Melkor?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Then 'good' is simply what Eru decides it is, not some objective standard.

However, to imply the opposite would mean either that Eru Himself does not know this objective standard, which would go contrary to His presumed status as ultimate possible being, or that He knows it, but He is deceitful - which would also go against what we know of Him as the ultimate source of good.

Originally Posted by davem

In which case all the Ainur could know is what corresponds to the intent of Eru & what does not.

Hm, you lost me here, perhaps you could rephrase, so that I can answer this and the rest of the post.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Memory's a bit foggy this morning--not had the requisite jolt of java yet--but wasn't there that Void wherein lay Ungoliant, even before Melkor?

You are referring to the void around Arda, which is different from the original void:

Originally Posted by Of the darkening of Valinor, Silmarillion

The Eldar knew not whence she came; but some have said that in ages long before she descended from the darkness that lies about Arda, when Melkor first looked down in envy upon the Kingdom of Manwe, and that in the beginning she was one of those that he corrupted to his service.

Originally Posted by Footnote to Notes on motives in the Silmarillion, iii, Myths Transformed, HoME X

...the minds of Men (and even of the Elves) were inclined to confuse the 'Void', as a conception of the state of Not-being, outside Creation or Ea, with the conception of vast spaces within Ea, especially those conceived to lie all about the enisled 'Kingdom of Arda' (which we should probably call the Solar System).

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by davem

No. They were innocent befoe Melkor's discord - which is not the same thing at all. They could not have been 'good' because a) to be good is a moral choice, not a default position & b) they couldn't have known what 'good' actually was, since no alternative position existed. they didn't know they were happy because they had no experience of unhappiness. They didn't know what harmony amazement or communion was either, never having known disharmony, bordom or isolation. In short they didn't actually know much of anything till Melkor intervened & made them aware of other options.

Well, this is actually what I think is the root of the problem people have with opinions on good. The dualistic view, like you are presenting in the above, counts with that good cannot be known without its opposite in evil. However, there is the other point of view, where good can stand for itself. And here it is, I think, mainly about what we do imagine under the term "good". The first problem is, that a thing like "THE good" (unless you agree with Plato) does not exist. This is the trouble that has risen from the Greek philosophy, which was (in difference to its priors) able to - due to Greek language - make a noun out of an adjective simply by putting an article before it. Ask a philosopher, he could probably tell you more about it. But for our purposes, let's just say for example that I can have a good meal, see a good film, have a good time. Adjectives, we know what it is if a meal is good for me. But "the" good probably no one of us can imagine.
This I wanted to make clear in order for what I want to say now to be understandable. So: there is nothing such as "the good" or "the evil" (using the articles to make it understandable that I am speaking of nouns, of some principles), and when in the following text I am using the terms "good" or "evil" as stand-alones, it means "sum of all good things" and "sum of all bad things".
So, let's move on with the example used. I can have a good meal, and now the question is, can I say I had a good meal without knowing what a bad meal is? Davem presented here the point that I cannot. Let's now make clear if we are talking about words or real things now. If "good" for me defines merely the opposite of "evil" (rather "bad" in the case of a meal), then davem's right. However, if I take "good" not as a word, but as a state (i.e. "good=something healthy, useful etc. for me"), then I would say it can exist without opposite. I can eat only good food for all my life, realize it tastes well (I don't have to have anything to compare with it - anything "better" or "worse" - it is just good, it is good for my taste buds), is healthy for me, helps my growth, provides vitamines or whatever... and I don't necessarily need to compare it. So, if you want to say that "good" is better than "evil" (or that it is "the best alternative"), you have to have evil (or at least something worse than that good thing) to compare with it. But the sole existence of good things, even their attributes of being good (not in the meaning as "better" but in the meaning as "good"=healthy and so on, as shown in the example above) does not necessarily need the existence of evil or bad things as well.
Now to the possibility of choices. There might be an opinion, and with very good reason, that when I have only the "good" things, I don't have any choice. Well, that's not the whole truth. If I return to my example with food, then I can eat healthy food all my life (it's an example, so we are not assuming any negative parts in any of the food, so let's assume we have some really "ideal food" - old Plato would've been pleased) and still I can choose whether to eat X or Y for breakfast. It's both good, but I have the choice.

So, the Ainur could have been good - for example in the sense that they were good for the world. You could choose whether here would be a nice sea or here would be a beautiful forest, and nothing of that was bad in any sense of the word. This is a model situation, mind you, but I think it shows what I had in mind.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Neithan Tol Turambar

wench.

A typo? Did you mean wrench, as in torque?

but Hurin said: "at least none shall pity [her] for this, that [she] had a craven for father."

Thanks for the quote, but mine eyes have not seen the glory nor the point. Is Melkor riding the 'Children of Hurin" bandwagon as well? Book signings at Wal-Mart soon to come?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

And what's more, because Everything stems from Eru, even if he who reveres Darkness thinks he is doing something different, he is not because Eru planted that there too, along with the fluffy stuff. And the Darkness only serves to make the Light that much brighter.

Initially, your post sparked thoughts of wavelengths, radiation and dark matter, but thankfully I've moved back from physics to literature and philosophy. It's been always hard for me to accept an omniscient creator god that somehow is not responsible for even the 'bad,' as others have argued here. At least in Tolkien's word, we (or at least I) see that the bad was to be part of the piece from the first note. That, to me, is different that the Christian Genesis account (and other books that refer to the Fall), where it seems that all wasn't to go sour but did.

And thanks to other posters for more good thoughts.

[davem]

Legate I still can't see how you could classify the meal as 'good' if you had nothing with which to compare it. If you only ever had 'good' meals you would not think of the meal as good - you would simply think of it as a meal. 'good' implies the existence of 'bad'. If only 'good' existed you wouldn't need the word 'good'. But this is not merely a linguistic debate. What of morality? Specifically how can anyone develop the capacity to make moral judgements if they are never faced with a choice between good & evil, right & wrong?

Of course, some people will think that in an 'ideal' world 'evil' would not exist - indeed their 'ideal' world would not even contain manifestations of 'evil (guns, violent pornography, violent movies/games - even 'bad' language would be banned). Of course, this would not produce a 'morally good' world - it would produce a world where no-one had the opportunity (or the need) to make moral choices. It would be at best an amoral world. One could argue that a truly morally good world would be one in which guns, violent pornography & the like was freely available, but everyone had made a free choice not to have anything to do with it.

Hence the necessity for evil to exist - if the human race is to become fully adult. One has to have the freedom to choose evil if ones choice of the good is to count for anything. If you only have various 'goods' to choose from then choosing the good is valueless - because you can't choose anything else. Of course 'good' can exist without evil - but good cannot be freely chosen, in full knowledge, without evil existing as a possibility. Remove evil & you remove freedom to choose good.

Which is why Morgoth's rebellion is necessary, why he could be said to be the 'liberator' of the Children - his rebellion not only enables, but actually forces them to choose between good & evil & to make a stand. He makes the choice of good matter, by making it a costly choice. If the only choice the Children faced was between various 'good's then what would choosing the good actually count for? Of course, Morgoth's intention was to enslave the Children, but (as Eru stated would be the case) his actions actually serve to liberate them by forcing them to grow up & choose the good over its opposite.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by alatar

Initially, your post sparked thoughts of wavelengths, radiation and dark matter, but thankfully I've moved back from physics to literature and philosophy. It's been always hard for me to accept an omniscient creator god that somehow is not responsible for even the 'bad,' as others have argued here. At least in Tolkien's word, we (or at least I) see that the bad was to be part of the piece from the first note. That, to me, is different that the Christian Genesis account (and other books that refer to the Fall), where it seems that all wasn't to go sour but did.

Even though I can only really accept a God that's all fluffy niceness - I see that this stems from a Protestant upbringing, where God is good and The Devil or Humans (in a world where the Devil does not exist, which is the plane I exist on) are the sinners and do the bad things. However in a more Catholic mindset, and maybe in other faiths that I don't know about, God works in far more mysterious ways and can do some truly scary things to seeming innocents. In many ways, that is in fact not scary, but comforting, as if something bad does happen to you and you're left wondering "What the ....?" you can shrug and say "God is mysterious". That's what they get in Middle-earth too - and that's why Numenor and the deaths of innocents are explainable within the context of Eru's world.

And going into what davem is saying, an example of why imperfection must exist alongside perfection can be found in the Cybermen! They of course want to 'upgrade' humanity and take away all the imperfections, make everyone utterly equal - in one of the episodes of Doctor Who (The Age of Steel??? Hookbill will know!) the Cybermen tell the humans how great this upgrade will be, how it will bring an end to strife and bring them peace because everyone will be perfect. But the thought of everyone being 'perfect' is horrific - humans will have their freedom of choice taken from them and will have No Option but to be perfect.

Without choices we become machines, Cybermen. We may then have an easy life, with no challenges to face, but without challenges how could we learn and grow?

I really, really like what Tolkien says about Darkness and Light, as it's quite comforting to think that even though there is Darkness, it only serves to make that Light so much brighter. You could draw all kinds of metaphors - from the sublime: seeing stars on a black night, the rising of the sun in the morning, the waxing of the moon, the bright light people see after death, to the ordinary: improving after an illness, fighting off an enemy, finding a tenner when you're skint, finishing work and getting out into the fresh air at long last, etc, all of them depend on both Darkness and Light to make them much sharper and more valuable. If life was all Roses they might not smell quite so sweet.

Originally Posted by The Might

By the by, when I first saw your name I looked it up on Wikipedia since it sounded strange, and yet familiar.

"Neithan, I'm unsure at this point whether you are a troll, a madman, or a thinker (of sorts)"...I seem to feel the same

Can duplicate accounts actually be started without anyone noticing here, because, if yes, there is a more likely possibility...

Yes, go on, what are you saying?

Originally Posted by Raynor

The ainur used their free will to compose their music, so they must have had conscioussness. That they were good before Melkor's discording music is an fundamental idea in the Legendarium. I don't know of any 'evidence' concerning the level of their happiness, but even in this 50/50 situation, I believe it is safe to speculate they were doing quite alright. Ainulindale speaks of them experiencing amazement, harmony, communion, awe, even if only in relation to the music.

For nothing is evil in the beginning, even Sauron was not so.