The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

My tendency is to do the same, but the problem is that the beliefs which motivate the protagonists are entirely un-compelling without Deity. It becomes a book about bodily functions - still beautiful though.

How come Lord of the Rings was so popular between 1954 and 1977 then?

Are you suggesting that the 'secular' (whatever that means - horrible metaphor in my opinion) viewpoint is one which the reader should consciously adopt in reading Tolkien? Or just that you enjoy doing so?

Most readers probably do read Tolkien's work in that way or at the very least from different belief perspectives, as the majority of readers will not be active Christians, and of the Christian readers very few will probably pick up on any Christian element until they are told about it. They might at a push think "hmm, that reminds a bit of this..." but they will need external influence to start forging links, and who doesn't read a text, any text, and see links to all manner of things?

Originally Posted by davem

To read LotR from a 'secular' perspective makes the display of courage far more moving. Imagine there is no eternal reward, that Frodo is giving up everything for others knowing that there is nothing beyond the life he is sacrificing, no healing in the West, because going into the West is simply to die. Not Tolkien's intention, certainly, but still a possible reading - does that make it more or less affecting?

The odd thing about Frodo going into the West is that he probably did die, and possibly much more quickly than if he had stayed in The Shire (laying aside the possibility that he may well have committed suicide had he not got any healing). Valinor is no place for a mortal:

'The Doom of the World,' they said, 'One alone can change who made it. And were you so to voyage that escaping all deceits and snares you came indeed to Aman, the Blessed Realm, little would it profit you. For it is not the land of Manwe that makes its people deathless, but the Deathless that dwell therein have hallowed the land; and there you would but wither and grow weary the sooner, as moths in a light too strong and steadfast.'

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by davem

What it seems to do is make him more of a cypher than he originally was.

Yes, and I think that was the point of Tolkien's alterations. Eru is mysterious. But then, so is the existence and character of everything else.

Originally Posted by davem

The myths Tolkien loved are effectively both polytheistic & dualistic & the myth he creates is, in fact, exactly the same. Its as if he feels for philodsophical reasons he must keep a 'God' figure, but he wants to remove him as far as possible from the work. He wants to have his cake & eat it. I suppose a more complex Eru would have required him to be a more active participant in the story. Yet at the end (Athrabeth) he seems to want him to be just that.

What, really, would a "more complex Eru" have been like? How could he have been much different from one of the Abrahamic Gods? I think that Tolkien makes Eru more vibrant through his addition of estel to the Legendarium, an addition that would not work if Eru were as active in the world and as promising as the Christian God is portrayed to be. Admittedly, estel only shows up decades after the major changes to Eru's character are made, but they fit very well with Eru's presentation, much better than they would if Eru were very different than he is. Tolkien used a typical "God figure" to draw the (typical Western) reader into the story, and then used Eru as a vehicle for bringing out different themes and concepts than are often discussed in Western religion.

Originally Posted by davem

Ok, in other words, I accept that what you say is correct - except I'd argue that he doesn't so much develop the character as remove the little 'character' that he seems to have. After that he seems to lose interest in him at all. I wonder whether the changes are for philosophical or narrative reasons?

Though I have no way of ever knowing, I tend to think more philosophical. The original version of the Ainulindalë was written, of course, just about at the time that Tolkien was fighting in World War I. To me, Eru's speeches in the original read very much like Tolkien was, through his words, grappling with the troubles in the world that he had encountered. He would not put words into the mouth of the God he actually believed in, of course, so he used the similar-seeming deity in his newly-constructed world to work out his concerns about good and evil. As time went on, however, he did not need Eru for this role, and so he took out many of these lines and made him more opaque. That's just how I see it, anyway.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The odd thing about Frodo going into the West is that he probably did die, and possibly much more quickly than if he had stayed in The Shire (laying aside the possibility that he may well have committed suicide had he not got any healing). Valinor is no place for a mortal:

But then, it wasn't to Valinor that he was going. Technically, Frodo went to live in Tol Eressëa, which may not have had the same effects on mortals as the land of the Valar proper (I tend to think it didn't). Admittedly, I am biased by my hope that Sam got to see Frodo after sailing into the West in his old age.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

But then, it wasn't to Valinor that he was going. Technically, Frodo went to live in Tol Eressëa, which may not have had the same effects on mortals as the land of the Valar proper (I tend to think it didn't). Admittedly, I am biased by my hope that Sam got to see Frodo after sailing into the West in his old age.

I suppose I ought to have said the Undying Lands really, as I think it's any of the land masses which can be perilous places to live for mortals (Valinor being to the Undying Lands as Britain is to the United Kingdom, i.e. the largest land mass); looking at the Akallabeth it seems that any of the islands lying off the Eastern coast are also part of the perilous realm.

Though I am not intending to shatter illusions and dreams about what happens to our heroes. Maybe Frodo managed to hold on long enough after his Elven healing to see his Sam? I like to think that myself; it would be like old Bilbo holding on to see them all again at the end.

[davem]

Tar-Telperien Accepting much of what you say, it still leaves us with Eru as a cypher, while every other character is drawn in depth. He doesn't seem to fit. Maybe Tolkien didn't want to say to much about him for the reasons you give, but it still leaves him as as little more than a name. We don't know why he does most of what he does, what his intentions are, or why he bothers to do anything at all. He seems to exist only to make the world monotheistic. I suspect this is what leads readers to project their own God concepts onto him, & lead to religious arguments which get nowhere. He is probably the only character Tolkien invents who is not a 'character' at all.

An author can't do this! A theologian may speak of the 'ineffability' of God, but a storyteller must create characters - or if he doesn't he isn't doing his job right. If someone had just popped up in Mordor to hand Sam & Frodo a canteen of water & then just wandered off again, with no explanation as to how or why he was there, we'd rightly dismiss him as a 'get out of jail free' card Tolkien was playing. We'd demand to know who he was, why he was there. We might assume there was a reason for him being there, but if there was no reason to be found (if his appearance could not be accounted for in any way & if his existence in the story was logically impossible) we'd have to say Tolkien had failed in his creation of a logically consistent secondary world - particularly if he admitted that he'd put the character in there simply because he didn't want Frodo & Sam to die of thirst & couldn't be bothered to come up with a better idea.

Yet this seems to be exactly what he does in the case of Eru - he needs 'something' to make the world monotheistic, one who can 'fill the gaps' in the narrative, & so comes up with Eru.

Now this is not to say that Eru cannot be perceived by other characters as 'ineffable', but he shouldn't be so to the reader (or the writer), because the writer in this case is not writing a work of theology, but a story, & characters in a story must fit logically into the story & be explainable within the rules of the story world.

So, I find Eru unsatisfying, & try to ignore him, or put down his appearances to the character's belief systems. Accepting him as an actual character within the secondary world is too much for me. Ainulindale as 'fact' (the 'fundamentalist' approach) is something I can't stomach. Ainulindale as an Elvish creation myth, a metaphor or parable, just about works for me.

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by davem

Accepting much of what you say, it still leaves us with Eru as a cypher, while every other character is drawn in depth. He doesn't seem to fit. Maybe Tolkien didn't want to say to much about him for the reasons you give, but it still leaves him as as little more than a name. We don't know why he does most of what he does, what his intentions are, or why he bothers to do anything at all. He seems to exist only to make the world monotheistic. I suspect this is what leads readers to project their own God concepts onto him, & lead to religious arguments which get nowhere. He is probably the only character Tolkien invents who is not a 'character' at all.

I thought I explained that not "knowing his intentions" is vital for the creatures he desires to make. They have to trust and learn for themselves. If there's one moral a person can get out of the "Tale of Adanel", it's that Eru isn't pleased when his creatures beg for easy answers, from him or anyone.

Of course, you are perfectly free to see him as a cipher. But then, I think that was exactly the effect Tolkien wanted. I have strong doubts that it was unintended by him.

Originally Posted by davem

An author can't do this! A theologian may speak of the 'ineffability' of God, but a storyteller must create characters - or if he doesn't he isn't doing his job right. If someone had just popped up in Mordor to hand Sam & Frodo a canteen of water & then just wandered off again, with no explanation as to how or why he was there, we'd rightly dismiss him as a 'get out of jail free' card Tolkien was playing. We'd demand to know who he was, why he was there. We might assume there was a reason for him being there, but if there was no reason to be found (if his appearance could not be accounted for in any way & if his existence in the story was logically impossible) we'd have to say Tolkien had failed in his creation of a logically consistent secondary world - particularly if he admitted that he'd put the character in there simply because he didn't want Frodo & Sam to die of thirst & couldn't be bothered to come up with a better idea.

What makes Tolkien's stories great is that he wasn't just "an author". He was a world-builder. And when you devise and describe an entire constructed world, yes you can put irreducible mysteries in it like this. After all, what do you think Tom Bombadil is if not an irreducible mystery? People have had "arguments that go nowhere" concerning his nature for decades, but you aren't complaining about that. And the mysteries must only get deeper and yet more impenetrable when you're dealing with the One who created them in the first place.

Originally Posted by davem

Now this is not to say that Eru cannot be perceived by other characters as 'ineffable', but he shouldn't be so to the reader (or the writer), because the writer in this case is not writing a work of theology, but a story, & characters in a story must fit logically into the story & be explainable within the rules of the story world.

Tolkien wasn't just writing a story, he was writing a history. And what is, for example, the Bible if it is not a history (especially to the people who believe in it most)? Yet the reader of the Bible perceives God as being quite ineffable indeed. So why shouldn't Eru be viewed the same way, if Tolkien's intent with how the text is to be read was similar?

Originally Posted by davem

So, I find Eru unsatisfying, & try to ignore him, or put down his appearances to the character's belief systems. Accepting him as an actual character within the secondary world is too much for me. Ainulindale as 'fact' (the 'fundamentalist' approach) is something I can't stomach. Ainulindale as an Elvish creation myth, a metaphor or parable, just about works for me.

I encourage you to read it as a parable. That is what the Elves themselves did, apparently.

Originally Posted by Note on the 'Language of the Valar', from "Quendi and Eldar

If we consider the First History, which is called the Ainulindalë: this must have come from the Aratar themselves (for the most part indeed from Manwë, it is believed). Though it was plainly put into its present form by Eldar, and was already in that form when it was recorded by Rúmil, it must nonetheless have been from the first presented to us not only in the words of Quenya, but also according to our modes of thought and our imagination of the visible world, in symbols that were intelligible to us.

[davem]

Of course this means that Eru is not actually a character as such - which is waht I've been arguing. I'm not sure the analogy with Tom works. Tom is enigmatic, but he has a character & plays a specific role in his world & in the story He is a person. Eru seemingly exists only to make the mythlogy monotheistic. Eru is so far outside the world & the events of the story that effectively he is not a part of it.

Yet Tolkien insists on bringing him into the story as an active participant at certain points, & this causes a problem due the fact of his one dimensionality. When he appears it is to do something & we don't really know why he does what he does because we don't know who he is. You can't just have a metaphor popping into the story & then popping out agan - not if this changes the story in a major way. If the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan had popped up in the Gospels as an actual person we'd be totally confused as to to the point of the parables - suddenly they would become reportage & not stories with a moral truth behind them. If Ainulindale is a parable/myth how 'true' is it? Is the 'mythic' Eru the same as the Eru who appears to trahs Numenor, or is he different? We need to know more about Eru if he is to become a physical fact within the world. If we'd never encountered him outside the Music, no problem. The point at which he enters in he becomes a problem, because he becomes a fact which changes the world of which he is a part.

[drigel]

Ive been enjoying this thread. I think this story is about all of the afore mentioned reasons - Atlantis, the Old Testament, etc. It is not complete in it's message, as I believe that JRRT wasn't writing for theological reasons as the primary motivation. But it is there - and for a reason. Whether or not he wanted, or was able to completely flesh out his idea - is another question.

So why kill the innocents? The only way I can get my head around this, even within the context of the secondary world, is to assume that Eru allowed them to die too to underscore the tragedy which resulted from their fathers' wrongdoing. Which is poetic, but still a bit sick.

...could've thought on that they also might influence the life of those around themselves. I think we all agree on that parents take responsibility for their children as long as they are not grown up enough to take care of themselves, right?

As the parents are to the children, so are the shepherds are to the flock. And upwards... but that question is applicable today - why do bad things happen to good people? Or, in other words, what was the bigger atrocity - the sinking of Numenor, or the cruel fate of the rest of the mortals that were doomed to live out their wretched lives back on the squalor of what was left of the broken ME? Surely there were innocents caught up in that as well. Many more, plus all their cursed decendants as well. Generation after generation. Sickness, darkness, forsaken. Thousands of years.

Within the context of the story, mind you...., to call 'sick' Eru's retribution against the disobedience and evil to which the Numenoreans had fallen, is to take the side of the disobedient and evil Numenoreans.

No man knoweth the plan. Accordingly, no Vala or Elf knoweth the role of men in the music.

It always strikes me as interesting how those who have contact with Elves come out of it with one of two views: they either accept their fate and their 'special' role in Middle-earth or they do all they can to get what the Elves have.

Thats why Numenor, as well as the Sauron (and the lesser Maia) issue, to me, represented a huge mistake, or imperfection in the Vala's governing of order.

No, I don't agree--I don't think the Valar were "racist": they are the Guardians of Men as well as Elves and they loved them.

They loved mankind, but completely misunderstood them. Their role both in this world and in the next is a complete unknown to them.

This is why I say one cannot rationalise the behaviour of Eru & make it good - though one can attribute all kinds of things to him, in order to make him 'good', but if one takes what Tolkien actually gives us, we have almost nothing to build on.......What he does display is pride, lack of compassion & brute force.

To me your describing exactly what life was about on ME at that time for mortals (and to an extent our descendant as well - pre bronze age). Cruel, merciless, the brute force of life was not good at all. Yet there was hope. Which leads me to -
What the purpose of (IMHO) the Eru figure is.

Yet Tolkien insists on bringing him into the story as an active participant at certain points, & this causes a problem due the fact of his one dimensionality. When he appears it is to do something & we don't really know why he does what he does because we don't know who he is.

The way for salvation of pre-prophet man. There was a plan for him there, in that sub-creation. It was a bleak existance, dire circumstances, but grace could still be obtained. Not complete in it's explanation, I agree. Not satisfying in any way. But the motivation was to create a story of mankind's mortality, which to me explains the plot of Numenor. The changes in revisions show the difficulty in dealing with the issue - mainly, in driving the story away from it. But it's there, and that means something to me. I think it meant a lot to the Catholic JRRT as well.

[davem]

Found an old post of mine on the 'Is Eru God?' thread, which is a quote from an essay by Verly Flieger: here. The most interesting point she makes is the following:

The supreme godhead, Eru/Iluvatar, who both proposes the theme and conducts the Music, is neither the Judaic God of Hosts who alternately punishes and rewards his people, nor the traditional Christian God of love and forgiveness. Rather, he is a curiously remote and for the most part inactive figure, uninvolved, with the exception of one cataclysmic moment, in the world he has conceived.

Inactive & uninvolved about sums him up. Of course, my earlier point about his existing in order to stop the Legendarium being dualistic must be qualified. There are, of course, two kinds of dualism. Middle-eastern dualism posits a conflict between equal forces of good & evil - ie it is 'moral' dualism. North Western cultures produced a dualism which was about the conflict of order & chaos (whether Odin against Loki or Apollo against Dionysus). Tolkien seems to have used Norse myth as a basis & set up an Odin/Loki conflict, but set it out in a 'Zoroastrian' form. Yet Eru himself remains aloof from the conflict. Its as though he creates the world (monotheism) but then steps back & plays no part in events, so that effectively the tale plays out along dualistic lines. Hence, in effect it is a dualistic mythology. What is needed to prevent it being that is for Eru to play a much greater part, be an involved presence, but this is something Tolkien never does.

EDIT I think the one statement in the work that confirms this 'dualism' is Galadriel's claim that she & Celeborn have spent three ages 'Fighting the Long Defeat'. Existence is an eternal battle between good & evil.

[Elmo]

Can I just point that if Eru himself is a moral character or not characters in Middle Earth believed he was a moral guide. Consider Tar-Meneldur when he receives the letter from Gil-Galad. He doesn't know what to do because whatever he does - to help Gil or not will result in death and he doesn't know how he will explain what he does to Eru.

[davem]

Originally Posted by hewhoarisesinmight

Can I just point that if Eru himself is a moral character or not characters in Middle Earth believed he was a moral guide. Consider Tar-Meneldur when he receives the letter from Gil-Galad. He doesn't know what to do because whatever he does - to help Gil or not will result in death and he doesn't know how he will explain what he does to Eru.

Which is just what causes the problem from an aesthetic perspective. Eru doesn't live up to the hype.

[Elmo]

I'd like to comment on that from an aetheist's perspective but this is a Middle Earth Forum...

[The 1,000 Reader]

I didn't read the thread through, but I noticed Numenor being spoken about, so I'll share my opinion on the subject.

Did anyone else think that Numenor was already on the road to doom before Sauron came there? Ar-Pharazon was ruler, the people were growing hostile to the concept of the elves being the only creatures with immortality, and Sauron was just the final piece of the puzzle that might not have even been truly required.

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

I didn't read the thread through, but I noticed Numenor being spoken about, so I'll share my opinion on the subject.

Did anyone else think that Numenor was already on the road to doom before Sauron came there? Ar-Pharazon was ruler, the people were growing hostile to the concept of the elves being the only creatures with immortality, and Sauron was just the final piece of the puzzle that might not have even been truly required.

Yes, this is a very common reading. The people and King had to have a certain degree of folly and pride before they would bring Sauron to their land, after all. However, to some degree this way of thinking gets close to the infamous "fate vs. free will in Arda" topic...

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

Yes, this is a very common reading. The people and King had to have a certain degree of folly and pride before they would bring Sauron to their land, after all. However, to some degree this way of thinking gets close to the infamous "fate vs. free will in Arda" topic...

It was their free will that made them arrogant and ignorant and thus sealed their fate?

[Raynor]

It is worth noting that part of the blame rests with the valar for giving the numenoreans such great gifts - all the more reason for their vanity

Originally Posted by Letter #131

The Downfall is partly the result of an inner weakness in Men – consequent, if you will, upon the first Fall (unrecorded in these tales), repented but not finally healed. Reward on earth is more dangerous for men than punishment! The Fall is achieved by the cunning of Sauron in exploiting this weakness. Its central theme is (inevitably, I think, in a story of Men) a Ban, or Prohibition.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

It is worth noting that part of the blame rests with the valar for giving the numenoreans such great gifts - all the more reason for their vanity

I read that into it too. The Valar had been given the power to order things within Ea as they wished (even to the extent that it was they who dealt with Melkor, not Eru) and their wish was to 'reward' this small group of Men with Numenor and other gifts such as long life. There's a thought in my mind that they had to appeal to Eru to 'deal' with the problem as they were dealing with people not of their nature - mortals, created by Eru and 'known' to him alone, as opposed to Elves who shared something of the timeless, earth-bound nature of the Valar.

[The 1,000 Reader]

The Valar did mess up, yes, but it seemed like by the time of Ar-Pharazon Numenor was already corrupt. I can't shake the feeling that Sauron just got himself involved in a place he didn't need to.

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

It was their free will that made them arrogant and ignorant and thus sealed their fate?

I was talking about the extent to which they were fated to become corrupt was probably at least somewhat determined by the gifts of the very Valar they rebelled against, as Lalwendë pointed out. In fact, Tolkien mentions as much in the letter prefaced the Second Edition of The Silmarillion: "Their long life aids their achievements in art and wisdom, but breeds a possessive attitude to these things, and desire awakens for more time for their enjoyment." The implication of this statement is that if the Númenóreans had not been given that increase in life span, they would not have pined (so much) for yet more life.

Aside from that, the Valar did a very poor job in dealing with the Númenóreans anyway, probably because they did indeed have more difficulty understanding Men than Elves. In Númenor's last years, they sent all sorts of frightening (and lethal) storms and other signs of their displeasure, which understandably scared the Númenóreans. The Númenóreans' reactions were motivated by this fear and the aggression they perceived in the acts of the Valar; their (hardly unreasonable) understanding was that the Valar must really be the cruel enemies Sauron said they were.

Not to mention the continuing coldness of the Valar toward Númenor after Tar-Palantir's repentance; this was an inexcusable act on their part. So what if most of the people did not follow in Tar-Palantir's footsteps? A sign of blessing from the Valar upon their King might have induced some of them to change their thinking. But instead they did nothing at this very crucial time in Númenor's history, whereas they had no qualms in pelting the Númenóreans with curses afterwards! Too much negative reinforcement, and no positive reinforcement whatsoever. Men react violently against that which they fear, against that which they see as a terrible obstacle that has never done them any good. It's elementary for us to understand, but for some reason the Valar never got it. And in the end, they might have fully realized their mistake, hence their appeal to Eru for help in dealing with the Númenóreans who had finally come to their shores to confront them once and for all.

[The 1,000 Reader]

I understand that, but I still feel a sense of corruption on Numenor's part. Also, if they screwed up and turned to Eru, why did Eru screw them over more than the Valar had ever done? He sank their island and killed the majority of the people. Unless Eru's messed up, Numenor surely wasn't an innocent player.

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

I understand that, but I still feel a sense of corruption on Numenor's part.

You're entirely supposed to; I never contradicted this. The entire Akallabêth stresses that the turning away of the Númenóreans from the Valar was one of the prime causes of their fate.

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

Also, if they screwed up and turned to Eru, why did Eru screw them over more than the Valar had ever done? He sank their island and killed the majority of the people. Unless Eru's messed up, Numenor surely wasn't an innocent player.

My opinions on this were stated earlier in this thread.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lal

Firstly, you have to consider what Melkor does. Is it evil?

It depends on whether Eru is.

Originally Posted by Lal

Melkor has all the powers of all his kindred, but instead of joining with them he seeks to follow his own path.

This is the epitome of evil, for his own path is against the will of Eru.

Originally Posted by Lal

There is nothing to say that Eru did not decide that 'evil' things like cold or despair or sadness were to be part of the theme; look at the words when he creates the vision of the Children:

Precisely the point. Eru planned ice and snow, and Melkor could have achieved them within the will of Eru; but he achieved them according to his own will instead, which achievement can nevertheless be used as a tool in Eru's hands to become what Eru intended in the first place.

Originally Posted by Lal

It seems that Eru knew there needed to be Darkness in order for the Light to be all that more wonderful.

Well, try to imagine Light without its opposite. Everything good thing automatically has its opposite, both in the Legendarium, and in real life. It's just the nature of reality. The good is made, and its opposite is as a rule always possible. There is no other way. It is not a necessary corollary that Eru must be the opposite as well as the original of what he has created; rather, he has created the good, and its opposite is necessarily possible for those who choose other than Eru's will. And Eru uses that opposite to achieve his will anyway.

Originally Posted by Lal

As to the why, I think it is Melkor's independence that rankles Eru.

Tolkien's word for it is 'rebellion'.

Originally Posted by Lal

his ongoing 'sin' then is to forget this lesson

Or perhaps it is to perversely continue in what cannot be forgotten because to repent is an unacceptable alternative.

Eru's compassion may be called a trick if you like, but it seems rather that Aulë is blinded by his remorse and determination to obey, and therefore does not see or recognize what Eru has already done, which reads more like an amazing grace than a trickster's prank. And here's as good an example as can be found of Eru revealed by Tolkien as good and not evil.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

Well, try to imagine Light without its opposite. Everything good thing automatically has its opposite, both in the Legendarium, and in real life. It's just the nature of reality. The good is made, and its opposite is as a rule always possible. There is no other way. It is not a necessary corollary that Eru must be the opposite as well as the original of what he has created; rather, he has created the good, and its opposite is necessarily possible for those who choose other than Eru's will. And Eru uses that opposite to achieve his will anyway.

Of course there is the 'opposite', that's the way Eru makes it as it's part of his own all-encompassing, omnipotent nature. Eru is the All Father. Who makes the opposite to Light if Eru does not create it? Even if it is an absence of Light then Eru also causes the rules which allow voids and absences.

Originally Posted by lmp

Eru planned ice and snow, and Melkor could have achieved them within the will of Eru; but he achieved them according to his own will instead, which achievement can nevertheless be used as a tool in Eru's hands to become what Eru intended in the first place.

Melkor could not have achieved them within the will of Eru unless of course his path towards Darkness was all part of Eru's will. As it was Melkor's darkness and Evil which resulted in the formation of such terrible beauties as snow and frost, mist and clouds. This of course depends upon whether you can accept that part of Eru's creation and intention was Darkness. If you cannot accept that Eru intended there to be Darkness, that Melkor stemmed from Eru himself, then there would never have been any way possible for Melkor to make these things within a 'wholly perfect' version of Eru's will. Of course, Melkor could have made them independently of Eru, but then we come back to who made Melkor again...

How Melkor makes the snow and ice and so on. This passage is where Eru shows to the Valar before creation what Ea will be like:

And Iluvatar spoke to Ulmo, and said: 'Seest thou not how here in this little realm in the Deeps of Time Melkor hath made war upon thy province? He hath bethought him of bitter cold immoderate, and yet hath not destroyed the beauty of thy fountains, nor of thy clear pools. Behold the snow, and the cunning work of frost! Melkor hath devised heats and fire without restraint, and hath not dried up thy desire nor utterly quelled the music of the sea. Behold rather the height and glory of the clouds, and the ever- changing mists; and listen to the fall of rain upon the Earth! And in these clouds thou art drawn nearer to Manwe, thy friend, whom thou lovest.'

So, from this, did Melkor merely do that which was set out for him anyway?

Following on from that in the Sil is the following interesting passage:

But even as Ulmo spoke, and while the Ainur were yet gazing upon this vision, it was taken away and hidden from their sight; and it seemed to them that in that moment they perceived a new thing, Darkness, which they had not known before except in thought. But they had become enamoured of the beauty of the vision and engrossed in the unfolding of the World which came there to being, and their minds were filled with it; for the history was incomplete and the circles of time not full-wrought when the vision was taken away. And some have said that the vision ceased ere the fulfilment of the Dominion of Men and the fading of the Firstborn; wherefore, though the Music is over all, the Valar have not seen as with sight the Later Ages or the ending of the World.

Note here how the Valar are shown Darkness. This is the first time they see it, though they have thought of it before now. If you like, this is when Eru shows them what Darkness will look like as a living thing, rather than as a concept. It has always existed, but here it is shown to them given life. Interesting that even though they see this, and they see a little (but not all) of the history of Arda into the Third Age, they do not stay Eru's hand. He doesn't give them much of a chance anyway (he's quick to get creating is ol' Eru ), and says "Well I'm going to make it anyway, Darkness or Not!"

Then there was unrest among the Ainur; but Iluvatar called to them, and said: 'I know the desire of your minds that what ye have seen should verily be, not only in your thought, but even as ye yourselves are, and yet other. Therefore I say: Ea! Let these things Be!

Hmmm, that also brings on another thought...there are many things within Arda that must have been created by unknown and unknowable members of the Ainur, as some stayed behind. What might these be?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Since I am sort of getting lost in all these arguments, I'll just post one thing which I realized in reading Valaquenta. I think (or: I SINCERELY HOPE) it will make an end to the disputation of whether Melkor's =>evil<= deeds were planned by Eru (for him) or not.

Originally Posted by Valaquenta

The mightiest of those Ainur who came into the World was in his beginning Melkor; but Manwë is dearest to Ilúvatar and understands most clearly his purposes.

Manwë understands most clearly Ilúvatar's purposes. So Ilúvatar has some purposes, and whatever they are, Manwë understands them (and acts according to them) and Melkor does not (mostly). Thus, if for example Ilúvatar's purposes with Melkor were to destroy the lamps and battle with Valar, then according to what we know, actually Melkor would NOT destroy the lamps and battle with Valar (what Ilúvatar wanted) but he'd do something different (like not destroy the lamps or even help building them). Thus, in the reality, it was not Ilúvatar's will that Melkor destroys the Lamps - although, as with the snow, he could alter his primary plan and "make even greater things of it" (possibly later).

And:

Originally Posted by Valaquenta

Both [Aulë and Melkor] also desired to make things of their own that should be new and unthought of by others, and delighted in the praise of their skill. But Aulë remained faithful to Eru and submitted all that he did to his will.

I posted some post involving the part of creation of the Dwarves here some time ago, and as I can see, I could've saved me time by posting just this. Clear as day, in my opinion. But Aulë remained faithful to Eru and submitted all that he did to his will. Melkor did not remain faithful to Eru: not that he did remain faithful to some codex of morality or whatever, but did not remain faithful to his purpose given to him by Eru. Cf. above the example with lamps. So, even if Eru would've had evil in plan in the creation of the world, he didn't want Melkor to perform them. Which means, he possibly didn't have the evil in plan at all. When the evil came, yes, he dealt with it, after all, he was the omni-creator; and sometimes he made "even greater things" from evil that came. But he did not intend it in the first place.

Huh. And one last, general thought for this topic. I think it is important, when speaking about someone like Eru, to consider that he was "far above" and, even though just a book character, above our, human thoughts. I think I could use a parallel with the real-world theology: we also are not able to reach God in any way (if you think he is), just look around, you don't know even from what atoms your table is made from and he'd create all of this. So the only way you can reach him is not by your reasoning (humanly limited), but only if he himself wanted to present to you. Thus, we are restricted to what he could possibly have let us know from his own intent (hence the term "revelation"). Why I am telling that is, that I want to show on this that we cannot polemise what and how Eru is in "real" (whatever it might be), since you can 99% bet this does not show the truth at all. We can only rely on that how he's revealed to us: and this means, here, via Ainulindalë, Valaquenta, Silmarillion, Akallabëth etc.

Just to make some things in this topic clear.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Once the story begins Eru plays no part.

This is debatable. There are numerous references in LotR to things that are "meant" to be; by whom? It is never stated baldly that it is Eru, for to do so would do violence to the story the way Tolkien intends to tell it, but the reference is there nonetheless; regardless of whether one agrees that this is Eru, the burden of proof is on those who would argue that it is not Eru.

Originally Posted by davem

The one time he intervenes he is a weapon of mass destruction.

To suggest that Eru is a weapon of mass destruction wielded by the Valar doesn't work, for then one is saying that the Valar control Eru, which cannot be. Thus the analogy breaks apart. Eru is more than a mere weapon. Point of fact, this is a derogatory statement that is rather offensive to the theists amongst us.

Originally Posted by davem

Eru is only 'necessary' to the story as an explanation of how things originated.

Only if one fails to accept that Eru can be perceived behind the scenes all over the legendarium.

Originally Posted by davem

In fact, [Eru] is not necessary to the story at all, & a polytheistic M-e would work just as well.

If this is the case, why does Tolkien insist on keeping Eru in the story? Why does Tolkien redact theism back into the story that has achieved a 'much higher, more mythic' atmosphere? Why is he not satisfied with that which he produced in the 1920's? If one were to posit that anything Tolkien wrote after the 1920's, is unnecessary, what does that remove? Are we sure we would want to live with such a reduction? It is a very dangerous game to play (and rather foolish, frankly), picking a particular period of an author's writing (especially an early period!), and saying, this is the real thing.

Originally Posted by davem

Eru is a cypher, playing the part assigned to him & then disappearing till he is needed to drive the plot forward again (though it would not take very much rewriting to get rid of him altogether)

One is left wondering if this is the desire of certain readers.

Originally Posted by davem

Eru is the most two dimensional character Tolkien created & the least necessary from a literary perspective.

Highly debatable again. It depends on what a reader is willing to acknowledge is Eru in action, and what is not.

Originally Posted by davem

Gets my vote for the most boring & gap filling character Tolkien created.

Some posters sometimes reveal more about themselves than they do about their subject. All in all, this particular post is loaded with unsubstantiated opinion that is debatable at best, uses dangerous and unwise choices in literary analysis, and lacks basis in evidence.

[Raynor]

I find myself in agreement with lmp's post.

Originally Posted by davem

Once the story begins Eru plays no part.

I disagree:

Originally Posted by Ainulindale, Silmarillion

Yet some things there are that they cannot see, neither alone nor taking counsel together; for to none but himself has Iluvatar revealed all that he has in store, and in every age there come forth things that are new and have no foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past.

Originally Posted by Of Aule and Yavanna

Thy offer I accepted even as it was made. Dost thou not see that these things have now a life of their own, and speak with their own voices? Else they would not have flinched from thy blow, nor from any command of thy will

Originally Posted by Of Aule and Yavanna

Then Manwe sat silent, and the thought of Yavanna that she had put into his heart grew and unfolded; and it was beheld by Iluvatar. Then it seemed to Manwe that the Song rose once more about him, and he heeded now many things therein that though he had heard them he had not heeded before. And at last the Vision was renewed, but it was not now remote, for he was himself within it, and yet he saw that all was upheld by the hand of Iluvatar; and the hand entered in, and from it came forth many wonders that had until then been hidden from him in the hearts of the Ainur.

Originally Posted by Atrabeth Finrod ah Andreth

He must as Author always remain 'outside' the Drama, even though that Drama depends on His design and His will for its beginning and continuance, in every detail and moment.

Originally Posted by Letter #156

[Gandalf] was sent by a mere prudent plan of the angelic Valar or governors; but Authority had taken up this plan and enlarged it, at the moment of its failure. 'Naked I was sent back – for a brief time, until my task is done'. Sent back by whom, and whence? Not by the 'gods' whose business is only with this embodied world and its time; for he passed 'out of thought and time'.

Originally Posted by Letter #192

Few others, possibly no others of [Frodo's] time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named' (as one critic has said).

As lmp has mentioned, there are various refferences by the characters in the story to things that were meant to be, or inspirations (Gildor, Frodo, Gandalf, Elrond, etc).

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

This is debatable. There are numerous references in LotR to things that are "meant" to be; by whom? It is never stated baldly that it is Eru, for to do so would do violence to the story the way Tolkien intends to tell it, but the reference is there nonetheless; regardless of whether one agrees that this is Eru, the burden of proof is on those who would argue that it is not Eru.

Have to admit that those statements struck me as referring to something along the lines of 'wyrd' when I first read LotR, & that is how I tend to read them now.

To suggest that Eru is a weapon of mass destruction wielded by the Valar doesn't work, for then one is saying that the Valar control Eru, which cannot be. Thus the analogy breaks apart. Eru is more than a mere weapon. Point of fact, this is a derogatory statement that is rather offensive to the theists amongst us.

I was talking about the way his intervention comes across to the reader. As for it being 'rather offensive to theists' I would hope everyone here can distinguish between criticism of an invented character in a work of literary fiction & the Creator of the Universe - 'cos I'd be seriously worried about anyone who couldn't. Eru is a character invented by Tolkien, just like Frodo, Gollum, Wormtongue & the fox in the Shire. I will not treat him with any more 'awe' & reverence than I would treat any other character, or place him above criticism. Eru is a poorly drawn & undeveloped character who plays a minor part in the story.

Only if one fails to accept that Eru can be perceived behind the scenes all over the legendarium.

Or chooses not to

If this is the case, why does Tolkien insist on keeping Eru in the story? Why does Tolkien redact theism back into the story that has achieved a 'much higher, more mythic' atmosphere? Why is he not satisfied with that which he produced in the 1920's? If one were to posit that anything Tolkien wrote after the 1920's, is unnecessary, what does that remove? Are we sure we would want to live with such a reduction? It is a very dangerous game to play (and rather foolish, frankly), picking a particular period of an author's writing (especially an early period!), and saying, this is the real thing.

I don't think I did that at all - though I note in passing that the later works like the Athrabeth with its 'supposed' closeness to Christianity in the passing reference to Eru's incarnation is often dragged up to support the theory that the Legendarium is an 'essentially' Christian work (even though Tolkien expressed his discomfort with it as being too close to a parody of Christianity). I've stated the reason why I think Eru was kept in the story - to keep it monotheistic. It is a monotheistic universe - my gripe is that the 'God' Tolkien presents us with is a shallow, undeveloped & not very interesting character.

One is left wondering if this is the desire of certain readers.

Well? Some may do - I don't see it as any more of a problem than wishing any character in any literary work had been written out.

Highly debatable again. It depends on what a reader is willing to acknowledge is Eru in action, and what is not.

Some posters sometimes reveal more about themselves than they do about their subject. All in all, this particular post is loaded with unsubstantiated opinion that is debatable at best, uses dangerous and unwise choices in literary analysis, and lacks basis in evidence.

Well, I thought we were here to debate. I also thought it was pretty clear that I was expressing my opinion. How 'choices in literary analysis' can be ''dangerous' though, is beyond me. Its characters in a book we're discussing here.

[Lalwendë]

Whoa! Just put the baggage down on the floor and walk away from the vehicle!

Originally Posted by lmp

This is debatable. There are numerous references in LotR to things that are "meant" to be; by whom? It is never stated baldly that it is Eru, for to do so would do violence to the story the way Tolkien intends to tell it, but the reference is there nonetheless; regardless of whether one agrees that this is Eru, the burden of proof is on those who would argue that it is not Eru.

These 'fate' references could be to just about anything because Tolkien 'never stated baldly' what was turning the wheels of his created world. If we then say "oh well it must be this" we are the ones 'doing violence' to the story as it unravels the whole complexity of reference and meta-reference and reduces the leaf mould of the mind to sterile mushroom compost. Tolkien, well versed in Literature and myth of all kinds weaves in things which could come from the Eddas, from Beowulf, from Celtic myth, from his won belief, from other fantasy....he does not wish to pin the text down to meaning one thing or have events pinned down to originating from one source. In this way he builds mystery (and a work of such complex genius none of us could ever repeat it). And to say that if we don't accept that Eru pushed Gollum into the cracks of Doom or Eru made Bilbo go off on his adventures (etc.) that we are wrong is to reduce the starnge and wonderful events of the text to having One Meaning Only and makes it just a dull old text book, one in which we have no capacity to stand back when a Hobbit falls into the cracks of Doom in awe and go ".....wow...."

Originally Posted by lmp

To suggest that Eru is a weapon of mass destruction wielded by the Valar doesn't work, for then one is saying that the Valar control Eru, which cannot be. Thus the analogy breaks apart. Eru is more than a mere weapon. Point of fact, this is a derogatory statement that is rather offensive to the theists amongst us.

Why? Has it come to pass now that Eru=God? Where did that happen? I thought we were discussing a work of literature not a holy scripture?

Sorry I do not like the way that this is headed. If other people dissecting a literary creation causes offence it's maybe time to accept that people read books in many different ways? Point of fact for me. Eru is an oddball. He creates a world where there is evil, he creates a world knowing that its not perfect and never can be. He creates evil beings like Melkor. That's not how I see my own world (but can perfectly accept it in a literary creation). Maybe its not how Tolkien saw his own world, but nevertheless that's what's in the text. And on top of all of this, Eru stands right back and does not get involved until the Valar muck around with things that they ought not to done and Dad has to come in and sort out the kids' mess - he does it by grabbing everything and hurling into a big cosmic bin bag and then goes back to his study to resume smoking his pipe in peace.

I can't say I like Eru at all. There are some kind of rules it seems but he never tells anyone what they are. Cheers. You can fear Eru but there's nothing to love in him. The people may love Varda or Manwe or Melkor but nobody particularly loves Eru. And you've got to wonder why. Thank goodness I don't live in that world - I can do without some omnipotent creator who can squish me at any time for no discernible reason and doesn't even give me the respect due of providing me with some 'rules'.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

But it is also about what you call "polytheistic": there are fourteen different powers, but they all stand together. Like the colors which make a rainbow, if I am to use a metaphor.

I think this is a valuable point. Tolkien has created a polytheocracy (pardon my word construction) in which all of the major deities but one remain 'holy', or good, while just one rebels. This is in marked contrast to the many and varied polytheisms of our world's history in which there is constant jockeying for power, and frequent changes of alliance. The very stability of "sides" in Aman is notable. Where does such stability issue from? Well, it seems rather obvious from the narrative itself: Eru.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I think this is a valuable point. Tolkien has created a polytheocracy (pardon my word construction) in which all of the major deities but one remain 'holy', or good, while just one rebels. This is in marked contrast to the many and varied polytheisms of our world's history in which there is constant jockeying for power, and frequent changes of alliance. The very stability of "sides" in Aman is notable. Where does such stability issue from? Well, it seems rather obvious from the narrative itself: Eru.

Melkor is conflicted, the others are not. Melkor is like Feanor on the Divine level, & its no coincidence that they become foes - they are virtually mirror images of each other, & lets face it, they are the great tragic heroes of the Sil. The fate of both is self-wrought & heart-breaking. Without the two of them the story would have been boring - by which I mean if the Music had been sung according to the desire of Eru it would have been the equivalent of 'middle of the road 'pap & bored everyone to tears. Its the 'jockeying for power' that makes the myths interesting & its the rebellions of Melkor & Feanor that introduces conflict, struggle & the possibility of self sacrificing love.

How interesting do we think the story would have been if Melkor had sung what he was told? It would have produced the equivalent of 10,000 years of The Waltons....

[Raynor]

How interesting do we think the story would have been if Melkor had sung what he was told? It would have produced the equivalent of 10,000 years of The Waltons...

I disagree. Firstly, the music Eru gave to the Ainur was itself "a mighty theme, unfolding to them things greater and more wonderful than he had yet revealed; and the glory of its beginning and the splendour of its end amazed the Ainur, so that they bowed before Iluvatar and were silent". Of the music the Ainur themselves made from this theme, it is said "never since have the Ainur made any music like to this music". Is this a trifle, a small thing, something to be disconsidered?

The Ainur are the greatest beings, in majesty and status, created by Eru. Howevr, when they beheld the Eruhini and their habitation world, "then many of the most mighty among them bent all their thought and their desire towards that place". Were the Ainur just stupid in not seeing how prosaic all this world is? And the greatest of them even? I also doubt that any of the ainur who decided to go forth had in their minds thoughts like "man, am I goona kick some behind there or what?",

Aman it is said to be as Arda Unmarred would have been. There, arts of all sorts were created freely, marvelous things. There, art would have been Art, a way for even the lesser creatures to rise above their condition and catch in their work a splinter of the wonder of creation. For don't the easterners say that creativity in humans is their divine aspect?

Is figthing the corruption of creation the only worthy challenge? How about exceeding your own limitations, with using your aptitudes and skills to their best? Doesn't human kind even nowadays prides itself with great technological, scientifical and cultural achievements? We see a perennial archetype which continues to inspire: the theme of Eru, the music of the Ainur, the Art of the elves, the art of the humans. Perhaps each and everyone thus achieved their greatest potential; perhaps some exceeded their initial condition.

There are challenges in coming and working together while still respecting and celebrating our uniquenness. To argue that the lack of corruption makes the world uninteresting is first of all a logical fallacy: we only know a corrupted world (here or in the books); to say how would a fundamentally different world would be to us is, imo, presumptuous. You can’t start with a hypothesis that is not true and then draw any supportable conclusions from it. I for one don't cherrish the dimming of one's faculty because of his/her inner corruption, or the world's. Violence is defined by Gandhi as the difference between one's actual status and one's potential. Corruption in the world increases that difference; in and of itself, it is not laudable. Countless of Einstein's, Francis's d'Assisi, Plato's and Mozart's have died horribly worthlessly due to the corruption of the world, without coming ever close to their calling and potential. Even if corruption presents a nice challenge, who is willing to celebrate their deaths and lost works? No one, I hope.

[davem]

Maybe, & I'm sure that that's what happened with the Vanyar. However, the fate of the Noldor is more interesting, admirable, poignant & fulfilling as Art. The light grows, flourishes & dims. We are born, grow, & die. That is our tragedy, but from it comes our potential for glory as a race & more importantly as individuals.

Would Mozart's music have contained the beauty it did if it had not come out of his experience as a Man (a mortal who will die), & would it speak to us as it does if we did not share his mortality? Living forever in a nice peaceful world is a nice fantasy, but a boring reality, which would not produce 'Art' but blandness, because nothing would actually matter - in fact it probably wouldn't produce anything much, because we could do it tomorrow or the day after or the day after that. 'Corruption', death, breaking down, is another word for liberation, because it frees us from the past & liberates us to do something new. The fact that other potential Mozarts, Platos, Einsteins, have been lost inspires us to do what they might have done if they'd had the chance.

"I think," Tehanu said in her soft, strange voice, "that when I die, I can breathe back the breath that made me live. I can give back to the world all that I didn't do. All that I might have been & couldn't be. All the choices I didn't make. All the things I lost & spent & wasted. I can give them back to the world. To the lives that haven't been lived yet. That will be my gift back to the world that gave me the life I did live, the love I loved, the breath I breathed."

The Other Wind....Ursula Le Guin

[Lalwendë]

Eru himself states that Melkor and his rebellion are necessary. What he does is 'tributary' to the glory of Eru, i.e. it not only ultimately serves to pay yet more tribute to that grandeur and omnipotence but it also feeds in to that glory. It is necessary as it serves to create the circumstances under which all the created beings of Arda can work for and serve Eru, can discover and enact pity and redemption and peace and all those good things that just wouldn't happen if there was no Darkness. And it's after Melkor's rebellion that Eru creates Men - creates them with mortality, sadness and profundity inbuilt.

If the world was 'perfect' then there would be no need for inspirational figures such as Gandhi or the Dalai Lama. There would be no need for scientific endeavour or even education and we could all lie around on our chaise longues eating chocolate tangents for eternity. There would be no need for Art as the world would be so perfect why would we need to express any joy or sadness in it. And there would be NO Tolkien!

Darkness is essential to the creation of satisfying Art, without it there is no plot, we merely have a succession of thoroughly nice chaps and ladies being thoroughly nice to one another. A bit like one of those manufactured Disney stories about pretty princesses endlessly marrying handsome princes - the only way to increase the excitement is to increase the bling. Or those awful platitudes expressed on 'inspirational' posters that you used to get in the workplace. Poetry would all be like greetings cards and music would all be bland manufactured non-threatening pre-teen boyband pap. If you look at all the great pop and rock music it is there purely because of suffering and struggle - The Beatles wanted to break free of the limited expectations set on them and did it by becoming musicians. Art is the same - there would be no Pre-Raphaelites had they not been struggling against the establishment, and remember there would be no work by Tolkien to even discuss had he not suffered in his youth - he'd probably simply followed his father into banking.

Why do we never read anything of what happens to the Vanyar in Valinor? If it was so beautiful and perfect why didn't Tolkien write about this? Because what was happening in Middle-earth was infinitely more interesting. It was in Middle-earth that we could see pity and glory and joy, and it was there that we could see Eru's intentions best of all. Valinor is boring. Had Tolkien just written about Valinor it would have been like the kind of tedious pap you can read in the platitude columns in Reader's Digest or the People's Friend. I don't want to read about some simpering Elf Princess and her beautiful hair and her embroidery, I want to read about Frodo and Gollum and Boromir and Saruman!

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

However, the fate of the Noldor is more interesting, admirable, poignant & fulfilling as Art.

I wouldn't say they were agents of Art. Of History, maybe - a tumultous one, one which shaped the ages to come. They produced Art directly while they were in Aman; and rarely after, mainly when they associated with Men, who "were raised to their fullest achievable stature".

Originally Posted by davem

Would Mozart's music have contained the beauty it did if it had not come out of his experience as a Man (a mortal who will die), & would it speak to us as it does if we did not share his mortality?

I wasn't arguing that the general fate and status of Men or Elves be different. If Men are immortal, there is little to differentiate them from Elves, apart from creative powers. "Elves and Men are just different aspects of the Humane, and represent the problem of Death as seen by a finite but willing and self-conscious person". A Man Mozart in Arda Unmarred would still have the experience of mortality.

Originally Posted by davem

Living forever in a nice peaceful world is a nice fantasy, but a boring reality, which would not produce 'Art' but blandness, because nothing would actually matter - in fact it probably wouldn't produce anything much, because we could do it tomorrow or the day after or the day after that. '

I respectfully disagree; by large, artists produce their work because they have an inner drive, passion, sensibility, and because they want to achieve self development. I would also say that artists can be traumatised by negative experience; given an enough negative experience, a human being, almost any human being, can become inert, dead inside, unable to produce and to be beneficial to society. Arts and culture generally advance in peaceful times; in warring times, more basic needs, survival, hunger, shelter, are what occuppies the minds of most.

Originally Posted by davem

'Corruption', death, breaking down, is another word for liberation, because it frees us from the past & liberates us to do something new.

Maybe if it wouldn happen to someone else. Corruption usually ties one in to something, not necessarily the past; death is not something peculiar to Arda Unmarred only; breaking down a liberation? Maybe; but I am not condemning a normal cycle of life, only the accelerated decay introduced by Melkor.

Originally Posted by davem

The fact that other potential Mozarts, Platos, Einsteins, have been lost inspires us to do what they might have done if they'd had the chance.

I'll be frank, role models who actually existed do inspire me ; they could inspire me to produce art or knowledge. For those who didn't leave a single mark, I could at most make an elegy.

Originally Posted by Lal

Eru himself states that Melkor and his rebellion are necessary.

Where exactly did he say his rebellion was necessary?

Originally Posted by Lal

It is necessary as it serves to create the circumstances under which all the created beings of Arda can work for and serve Eru, can discover and enact pity and redemption and peace and all those good things that just wouldn't happen if there was no Darkness.

I disagree; if corruption can make "individuals and groups to be, by us at any rate, unredeemable", how can they still serve Eru, consciously and willingly? Esspecially if Men have only one life at their disposal for this? How many humans do actually repent? Was it at least half the humankind that thought with the host of the valar at the war of wrath? What about the elves, who, if they are severely tainted, may spend all "eternity" in the halls of Mandos, wailing, ever filling Nienna's hands? I am also not convinced that Melkor's rebellion created darkness and morality - these must have existed before his rebellion, after all, he was created from Eru's mind; I don't think he created evil, only that he "discovered" it and became its most formidable agent.

Originally Posted by Lal

And it's after Melkor's rebellion that Eru creates Men - creates them with mortality, sadness and profundity inbuilt.

I wouldn't agree; the Children were made by Eru alone "and none of the Ainur had part in their making".

Originally Posted by Lal

If the world was 'perfect' then there would be no need for inspirational figures such as Gandhi or the Dalai Lama.

I disagree; there are many obstacles to be overcome, even in a life sheltered from evil. One's potentiality, for both morality or spirituality, or for anything actually, has to be developed through effort, and a master eases the path, in almost any set of circumstances.

Originally Posted by Lal

There would be no need for scientific endeavour or even education and we could all lie around on our chaise longues eating chocolate tangents for eternity.

Aman was thoroughly sheltered from evil, yet the amount of Art and knowledge produced there by the noldor exceeds anything they produced in Middle Earth. And to return to my argument about corruption and Art,

Originally Posted by Of the Sun and Moon and the Hiding of Valinor, Silmarillion

And [the Valar] mourned not more for the death of the Trees than for the marring of Feanor: of the works of Melkor one of the most evil. For Feanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind, in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and in subtlety alike, of all the Children of Iluvatar, and a bright flame was in him. The works of wonder for the glory of Arda that he might otherwise have wrought only Manwe might in some measure conceive.

It doesn't look like they expected Feanor to continue to make Art after he: was marred, blasphemed, killed fellow elves, and set out to war. But what they know, they are just Valar .

Originally Posted by Lal

And there would be NO Tolkien!

Not the same unique Tolkien. I would dare say this is the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance . Again, I am not arguing that Arda Unmarred doesn't have morality in it, only that evil isn't one of the strongest (the strongest?) moral and physical force in it.

Originally Posted by Lal

If you look at all the great pop and rock music it is there purely because of suffering and struggle

I have started reading an interesting book, The Social Movements Reader; on its first chapter, it makes a striking statement: it quotes researchers in the field of sociology stating that people rise to challenge their condition only when they perceive the difference between their status and their potential one. As long as such a difference is not perceived, many, most, of the afro-americans, women, homosexuals, workers, or other oppresed humans, just don't do anything about it. They endure through their oppression, they assimilate their understatus. And they do this for years, decades, or centuries. Once they know that they can be better, they can improve; otherwise, they merely stagnate in their condition. It is said that it is not worth making the world perfect if it takes the tears of a baby to do that; I certainly wouldn't equate the value of various works of art coming out of knowing the consequences of deep corruption with the suffering and death of others, esspecially if among them there were artists.

The Men stagnated for the most part untill they met the ones who had higher status. They received knowledge, wisdom, and they beheld role models, which emboldended them to advance. Humans would definitely have models to emulate, in a world where cultivation of one's ability would be in hand's reach, where knowledge of past peaks still endures, undimmed maybe, in form or memory.

Originally Posted by Lal

If it was so beautiful and perfect why didn't Tolkien write about this?

Because no Vanya made it back to Middle Earth; because what Men know about Aman is pretty much what they know from the numenoreans, who in their turn know from the exiled Noldor, who, of course, wouldn't know what happened during their exile even to their kin in Aman, let alone to the Vanyar.

[Lalwendë]

I disagree; there are many obstacles to be overcome, even in a life sheltered from evil. One's potentiality, for both morality or spirituality, or for anything actually, has to be developed through effort, and a master eases the path, in almost any set of circumstances.

What obstacles? If life was perfect there would be no obstacles.

Aman was thoroughly sheltered from evil, yet the amount of Art and knowledge produced there by the noldor exceeds anything they produced in Middle Earth.

And wasn't that Art produced via the pride of Feanor? I would also dispute that the Art made in Valinor exceeds that produced in Middle-earth. It just cannot be said to do so with any degree of certainty. Art does not bend to such rules. The only way that it could be quantitatively better would be by dint of its 'perfection' - a comparison between the Art of Tirion and the Art of Lothlorien may have us saying that in terms of perfection Tirion is superior as it is grander, more elegant etc. whereas the latter is lesser as it is not so grand, not so 'developed'. But then that is like comparing Canary Wharf with a medieval castle - the former is a pinnacle of perfection, the latter so much smaller, more insignificant, old, undeveloped, etc.

Because no Vanya made it back to Middle Earth; because what Men know about Aman is pretty much what they know from the numenoreans, who in their turn know from the exiled Noldor, who, of course, wouldn't know what happened during their exile even to their kin in Aman, let alone to the Vanyar.

I'm asking why Tolkien did not write about it, not why his characters did not. Why did Tolkien choose to write about wars, Death, torture, pain, destruction? Why didn't he simply write stories about the beauty and peace of Aman? I venture to say because there's nothing interesting in that, nothing moving. And that in itself is moving - that beauty only becomes important when reflected against the backdrop of ugliness, peace only important when contrasted with war, Life when contrasted with Death.

Rather than Men being the ones to benefit from contact with Elves, I think it is the other way around.

[davem]

If you have mortality you will have suffering, loss, pain, anger, frustration, confusion. Removing an abstract like 'evil' & retaining mortality will solve nothing, because all the results & consequences of evil will remain in the world as a result of mortality. The Numenoreans had such an 'evil-free' existence, but the fact of Death & the desire for more life produced evil. Hence in their case evil was a consequence of their mortality, not a cause of it.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

What obstacles? If life was perfect there would be no obstacles.

I don't think that Arda Unmarred is equated with perfection; perhaps the timeless halls of Eru - or maybe just Eru is perfect. If I understand correctly, Arda Unmarred is Arda without the strong element of melkorism: accelerated moral and physical decay. Water would still carve out stone, the general interaction of elements would be preserved and, as far as I see, we are in agreement that good and evil predate Melkor or his rebellion, at least as moral choices. There would still be evil choices, yet evil would not have such a compelling force, tainting the body, and therefore the mind. Indeed, there are no obstacles, if we don't see them: either because we don't consider them as such, when they objectively exist, because we accept them a priori; either because, when they objectively exist, we consider them a mere challenge. The main challenge "there", as well as "here", is achieving our potential; in both cases it requires effort. Esspecially for humans, time is limited, and doing the best with it is always a challenge.

Originally Posted by Lal

And wasn't that Art produced via the pride of Feanor?

I would call this a secondary, minor, motivation, if any at all. From what I gather in the Silmarillion, he and the noldor were working out of "delight"; of himself, it is stated that he "was driven by the fire of his own heart only, working ever swiftly and alone". I interpret this as saying that it was the unique creative fire which he had, which no elf ever after had, that was driving him forward. I would dare say that a similar fire drives an artist to create.

Originally Posted by Lal

I would also dispute that the Art made in Valinor exceeds that produced in Middle-earth.

In aesthetics terms, you are probably right. However, if Art is to represent a reflection of God's creation, the inhabitants of Middle Earth had nowhere near the opportunities of time, knowledge, inspiration and guidance as the elves had in Aman, where their works and knowledge are preserved and they live near great inspirational models, the Valar and the Maiar, who by mere presence inspire and help, if not directly and through their knowledge.

Is there anything in Middle-Earth to parallel the sources of inspiration that were in Aman? For where else is it the memory of Ainulindale? What of the Silmarils or the palantiri? What even of Miriel's broideries?

Originally Posted by Of the silmarils and the darkening of Valinor, Later Quenta Silmarillion, HoME X

By her was the craft of needles devised; and were but one fragment of the broideries of Miriel to be seen in Middle-Earth it would be held dearer than a king's realm, for the richness of her devices and the fire of their colours were as manifold and as bright as the glory of leaf and flower and wing in the fields of Yavanna. Therefore she was named Miriel Serende, the Broideress.

Originally Posted by Lal

And that in itself is moving - that beauty only becomes important when reflected against the backdrop of ugliness, peace only important when contrasted with war, Life when contrasted with Death.

While for human eyes the small light of a candle is more impressive when viewed in a darker environment, it is no reason reject a more powerful light, be it from the stars, the sun, the radiance of a vala, or of the imperishable flame, at the heart of the world. Tolkien's Art attempts to reflect, how imperfectly as it was, a splinter of a more powerful light; it is a drive towards it, not a rejection of it.

Originally Posted by Lal

Rather than Men being the ones to benefit from contact with Elves, I think it is the other way around.

Why? The elves have experienced death due to violent causes long before they met the Men; they have been enslaved, tortured and peverted by Melkor, their works and houses destroyed. They lived through fear and agony and suffering. Who's to say that Andreth's words are more sad than Finrod's? Or that Frodo's more so than Galadriel's? What about the reply of the messengers of Aman to the lament of the Numenoreans?

I need to correct myself . I have realised there was an error at the end of my last post. The Vanyar did return to Middle Earth, at the end of the First Age, in the War of Wrath (it was Ingwe who didn't return). It is possible however that their contact with Men there was limited at best; afterwards, it is also true that the Elves were "if not commanded, sternly counselled" to return to the west. The main repository of knowledge of Aman in Middle Earth resided with the last exiles, who were, I suppose, most at contact with the Numenoreans (at least after their return to the shores of M-E). I will also mention that Silmarillion notes that the Vanyar held in their lore the response of Feanor to The prophecy of the north, so there was at least one event concerning the Vanyar that later reached M-E, after the exile of the noldor (I know, this particular situation isn't a point for my position ).

Originally Posted by davem

Hence in their case evil was a consequence of their mortality, not a cause of it.

I disagree; Numenor was not free from corruption, in Arda only Aman was (at best). Numenoreans were still Men, although elevated. All Men had a corrupted idea of death - on behalf of Melkor. Cf. the words of Pengolod to AElfwine:

Originally Posted by Of the begining of days, Silmarillion

Death is their fate, the gift of Iluvatar, which as Time wears even the Powers shall envy. But Melkor has cast his shadow upon it, and confounded it with darkness, and brought forth evil out of good, and fear out of hope.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I disagree; Numenor was not free from corruption, in Arda only Aman was (at best). Numenoreans were still Men, although elevated. All Men had a corrupted idea of death - on behalf of Melkor. Cf. the words of Pengolod to AElfwine:

I can't see how Men could ever have had an 'uncorrupted' idea of death. Death would always have entailed loss, grief & pain. It would always have seemed terrible. What Melkor told them simply confirmed what they felt anyway. Unless, of course, we are to believe that Aragorn's death was the way all humans should have died.

The trouble with that is that to our experience it is unreal. We don't die like that - or its the exception that proves the rule. In the documentary Tolkien in Oxford, broadcast by the BBC in 1967 Tolkien is shown reading the following passage from Simone de Beauvoir:

There is no such thing as a natural death: nothing that happens to a man is ever natural, since his presence calls the world into question. All men must die: but for every man his death is an accident and, even if he knows it and consents to it, an unjustifiable violation.

& calling that 'the keyspring to LotR'. That sense that death is an 'unjustifiable violation' is the heart of LotR & the heart of our own feeling about death. We may speculate about living in a world where death is absent, or one in which death is accepted as a matter of fact, & hardly registers & we just happily 'move on' when our time comes , but it is not our experience, & if we lived in such a world we would not be who we are, & whatever we created (assuming we created anything) would be different - as alien to us as the idea that death is nothing special.

EDIT. The problem with the idea that what is wrong is not death per se but rather our attitude to it, is that it turns the tragedy of a death like Beren's or Boromir's, or Turin & Nienor's, into a misperception - if only those close to them & we the readers could see death for what 'it really is' we wouldn't feel any more grief over what happened to them than if they had avoided being killed & gone off on holiday, or moved to another country. Death is an unjustifiable violation, it is cruel & wrong - & not just because Melkor said so.

[Raynor]

Unless, of course, we are to believe that Aragorn's death was the way all humans should have died.

Indeed it was

Originally Posted by Akallabeth, Silmarillion

And the Doom of Men, that they should depart, was at first a gift of Iluvatar. It became a grief to them only because coming under the shadow of Morgoth it seemed to them that they were surrounded by a great darkness, of which they were afraid; and some grew wilful and proud and would not yield, until life was reft from them. We who bear the ever-mounting burden of the years do not clearly understand this; but if that grief has returned to trouble you, as you say, then we fear that the Shadow arises once more and grows again in your hearts.

Originally Posted by Of the coming of Men into the West, Silmarillion

But Beor at the last had relinquished his life willingly and passed in peace; and the Eldar wondered much at the strange fate of Men, for in all their lore there was no account of it, and its end was hidden from them.

Originally Posted by davem

We may speculate about living in a world where death is absent, or one in which death is accepted as a matter of fact, & hardly registers & we just happily 'move on' when our time comes , but it is not our experience, & if we lived in such a world we would not be who we are, & whatever we created (assuming we created anything) would be different - as alien to us as the idea that death is nothing special.

We need not speculate; there are (or at least have been) societies which accepted death as natural, as a stage of life; some even embraced it. Of my ancestors, the dacians, it is said that they welcomed death, so as they may meet Zamolxe, their god.

There are some strands of hinduism and Zen which preach that God may be met in the last moment of life - if God was the center of one's preocupation. There are monks who center their life's efforts on this ultimate trial; at least for them, death is not a punishment, but the culmination of their strivings.

Many martyrs, from almost every country, have taken actions which meant their certain death, yet they undertook them because they knew this could bring their cause closer to reality, and because of them people in many places enjoy more rights than otherwise (for the record, I don't agree with suicide bombings ). For themselves, death was an unique opportunity to make a difference; for those who benefited from it, it was a sacrifice revered.

Originally Posted by davem

The problem with the idea that what is wrong is not death per se but rather our attitude to it, is that it turns the tragedy of a death like Beren's or Boromir's, or Turin & Nienor's, into a misperception - if only those close to them & we the readers could see death for what 'it really is' we wouldn't feel any more grief over what happened to them than if they had avoided being killed & gone off on holiday, or moved to another country.

At least in Tolkien's world, death "as it should be seen" is not something banal; it doesn't change how it affects the person and one's world, but acknowledges that this end is also a begining, or a return of you will -a return which is a bounty that even the Powers and the Immortals envy. They envy it twice, because that fea leaves this world, and joins another one, most likely - Eru's.

The level of communion between a baby and his mother is probably unparalleled anywhere. Although birth itself brings physical pain to both of them, although at least the baby was immensely better off living in his mother womb, the potentialities awaiting after his birth are immense - and even more so in Arda Unmarred. I would argue that the same potentialiaties would await a Men after his second severance - this time not from the womb, but from the hroa.

Ultimate trust, faith, in Eru is required from his Children in both life and death. Trust that "of all His designs the issue must be for His Children's joy".

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

We need not speculate; there are (or at least have been) societies which accepted death as natural, as a stage of life; some even embraced it. Of my ancestors, the dacians, it is said that they welcomed death, so as they may meet Zamolxe, their god.

There are some strands of hinduism and Zen which preach that God may be met in the last moment of life - if God was the center of one's preocupation. There are monks who center their life's efforts on this ultimate trial; at least for them, death is not a punishment, but the culmination of their strivings.

Fine - but most of us are not in that position, & we are the very ones Tolkien's work speaks to. We are not monks or nuns, we are ordinary 'Hobbits' & death is not a 'culmination' of our strivings. Of course death is 'natural', but so are man eating sharks, MRSA, AIDS, hurricanes & a whole load of other nasties.

Many martyrs, from almost every country, have taken actions which meant their certain death, yet they undertook them because they knew this could bring their cause closer to reality, and because of them people in many places enjoy more rights than otherwise (for the record, I don't agree with suicide bombings ). For themselves, death was an unique opportunity to make a difference; for those who benefited from it, it was a sacrifice revered.

But this is effectively treating life, not death, with contempt - as a means to an end. That is not 'accepting death' at all, it is denying it its right & proper 'respect'.

At least in Tolkien's world, death "as it should be seen" is not something banal; it doesn't change how it affects the person and one's world, but acknowledges that this end is also a begining, or a return of you will -a return which is a bounty that even the Powers and the Immortals envy. They envy it twice, because that fea leaves this world, and joins another one, most likely - Eru's.

Then why are the deaths I mentioned seen (& more importantly felt) as tragedies? Tolkien never implies that those who felt grief at the passing of those individuals were delusional, or 'sinful' (which would be the case if they were merely believing Melkor's lies). Those deaths are presented & perceived as wrong - & more importantly so is Aragorn's by Arwen - & she knows the theory - 'Death is the Gift of Eru to Men' 'Its only a transition' etc, etc. Yet when it comes to it she also knows it is not 'good', pleasant or right - its the opposite in fact.

Ultimate trust, faith, in Eru is required from his Children in both life and death. Trust that "of all His designs the issue must be for His Children's joy".

And the evidence for that trust? Eru does not one single thing to justify it.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

The reason the Akallabeth seems like an 'attrocity' is that what happens is essentially unfair because Eru is too powerful & its not a fair fight. He shouldn't have done what he did. The Numenoreans basically didn't want to die (who does?) & that's what drove them. If the Fall of Numenor had been a natural disaster it would have been awe-inspiring & humbling - man brought down by impersonal nature. As it is an overwhelmingly powerful being obliterates them with malice aforethought & in the end it seems vindictive because for all their 'power' they are weak mortals with no chance. One cannot rationalise the behaviour of Eru & make it equal 'good'. Once more we come back to Eru as a two dimensional 'Old Nobodaddy'.

Derogations aside, the essential complaint here is that Eru should not have punished the Numenoreans for disobeying his viceroys because it wasn't a fair fight.

Clarity first: Tolkien is the one who describes Eru's action as punishment for disobedience, which is rebellion.

Second: to accuse Eru of 'not being fair' because he is too powerful is like saying that police are not being fair when they arrest someone who has committed a crime because they have guns and the criminal only has a knife.

Further, to assert that it would have been better if impersonal nature had taken out the Numenoreans instead of Eru, is like saying that it would be better if the knife wielding criminal would take a wrong turn in his escape such that he winds up in a prison cell, than that police should arrest him and bring him in.

The point: those in authority have the right to use power to enforce laws. This is true regardless of whether one is talking about local police, or about a transcendant deity.

The issue of Eru's so-called "boring" role in Tolkien's legendarium has already been addressed.