The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Elmo]

What evil deeds? Tolkien when he talks about her character says she was one of the faithful. Does being forced into marrying a psychopath count as a sin, I suppose it would be if being a child of one was...

(by the way I was answering your question about evidence that some of the faithful had died)

[Raynor]

Tolkien when he talks about her character says she was one of the faithful.

Where?

[Elmo]

Maybe he doesn't in so many words, I thought he did but... but I thought it would be obvious to people, The Encyclopedia of Arda says that if she had become Queen she probably would have lifted the Numenoreans from their darkness and I can't imagine Tolkien intended Miriel to be an evil character

The reason I'd always assumed that she went too late to the top of the holy mountain is that she was seeing the entire kingdom drowing in front of her eyes and that might of distracted her from her own personal safety.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

That is to ignore all the previous actions of the numenoreans; they already resorted to oppressing, they stopped following the old ways, respecting the valar and their status, or the offerings to Eru. Three great numenorean lords became ringwraiths. They punished those who welcomed the elven ships. All these happened before Sauron came to Numenor.

I know - you were the one who put all the blame on Sauron by saying:

he used his demonic power to corrupt the very beings.

Either Sauron corrupted them - as you stated there, or they were already 'corrupted' & that is why they succumbed to him. You seem to be seeking to win the argument by adopting both positions.

There can't be a middle way for a moral person. Numenoreans weren't victims, they were accessories, if not perpetrators of Sauron's corruption in Numenor. One cannot expect salvation from God if one welcomes (while one still can welcome) evil.

This has always been the problem with human beings - they will be human beings (often intentionally, & with malice aforethought). They will be complex, confused, frightened for themselves & those they love, do what they think is right & get it wrong. Sometimes they will even be nasty, unpleasant & cruel. Thank goodness in Arda there was a God who was prepared to slay them all (even those vicious little children, who were probably the worst of the lot. Pretending to be Orcs - they should have been skinned alive & fed to the wargs in order to save their immortal fea).

BTW, I wonder, en passant, if anyone agrees with you that its acceptable for Eru to slaughter 'wicked' children.

His _stated_ point for the story was Man's satiety with good - hence his propensity towards evil. May I ask if you read it?

I have, actually. TBH it came across to me like the rantings of an old codger about 'the youth of today..' & I'm glad he thought better of continuing with it.

That's a cryptic statement to me, as a non native English speaker, and I suppose it was meant to be sarcastic. Perhaps you could be kind enough to state your argument in more detail.

It was a bit sarcastic. But then you were being a bit pedantic. I think we should both forgive each other & move on.

This would ignore one of his main concerns: writting about fundamental subjects in essence, not in form - his struggle with allegory.

Whatever. He wrote a story. I read it as a story. I don't remember him anywhere stating he was trying to reveal the truth about God.

Sauron was a problem that Men had to deal with;

Why 'had to'?

Metaphysical as in what? Non-material, "spiritual"?

Yes - that's what 'metaphysical' means, & that's why I used it in that way.

We also have the second world, of the spirits, in which wraiths and apparently elves access. I am sure Sauron too has power there too, as elves have too. It is said in the Silmarillion that Sauron was threatened by Luthien by something that can only be described as a non-material hell ("'There everlastingly thy naked self shall endure the torment of his scorn, pierced by his eyes, unless thou yield to me the mastery of thy tower"). Anyway, I am looking forward to your clarification.

EDIT - I was rushing ahead (& seriously distracted by a headcold, so I misunderstood Raynor's point. Re-reading it I see I got the wrong end of the stick.

I'll attempt another answer.

This is clearly a reference to what will happen if Sauron's fea (his 'naked self') escapes & returns to Morgoth. It doesn't posit the existence of a metaphysical realm/state of eternal damnation.

On to the Miriel issue. Certainly Foster in his Complete Guide to Middle-earth (praised for its accuracy by no less an authority than Christopher Tolkien himself) states that Tar-Miriel was one of the faithful.

[Raynor]

Neither am I aware of her been mentioned as part of the faithfuls. That she might have brought the numenoreans out of darkness if she was queen would have been queen is a possiblity we cannot discard out of hand. However, no single mention on remorse or despair on her side is mentioned, about how things turned in Numenor. None. She did no action, that I am aware of, to show her good intentions, openly or not. She knew what Sauron was. She must have comprehended what means accepting him and his teachings. Her faith might have save her, her sanity, her morality. It doesn't look like she had it. She was most likely aware of the numenorean age old faith. Even if she was lukewarm at some point, or worse, she had the chance to turn, when she saw the magnitude the corruption was taking. She didn't. As far as we are aware, she did nothing to save herself (fear at the last moment isn't necessary a sign of repentance either) or her people.

[drigel]

The Valar had overstepped the mark by giving Men this island which was so temptingly close to the Undying Lands, by idolising Men too much.

Well put. And IMO Sauron simply hastened the inevitable. Such is the lot for mortals.

Rather than punishing the people left on Numenor, he is in fact punishing the Valar who were foolish/proud enough to set up Numenor in the first place.

I submit that the creation of Numenor was far more damaging to many more people than it's destruction.

Howeve, can the sins of the inhabitants of those cities ever compare to what the numenoreans did to others (torture, slavery, sacrifice to Melkor) and to themselves (slaying each other in madness), while disregarding each and every sign to repent?

I am curious, what more evil deeds did all of these do that "far exceeded" the numenorean actions?

Not to nitpick, but anything JRRT could conceive of, pales in comparison to the reality of S&G, or really any typical city of that era. Those kind of real atrocities were carried out 2500 years later in the capital of the greatest empire that man ever built. As for orcs - as with elves hobbits and dwarves, etc, arent they personifications of everything man has to offer? That's the way I see it. I think JRRT saw buroughcrats shuffling papers in cubicles offering a far more insidious evils than any orc or bad Numeronian.

That puts the reader in a strange position. He can accept that ambiguity or insert some other image of "god" or "ungod" into the story to try and achieve greater clarity.

But there is a chasm of not knowing that Tolkien purposely placed at the heart of his story, and there is a certain point we can't go beyond. Tolkien almost seems to delight in doing this to the reader.

Child's great post really sums up the debate. It poses a strange position to the reader, only if the reader can only accept one mode of thought on this. Id say that the reader is presesnted with choices because this is not a completed piece of work, in many ways - structure, theme, philosophy - both physical and meta, etc.

If such a major flaw exists at the heart of Middle-earth, what does it do to the Legendarium overall?

It's viewed as a major flaw because it was never finished. This reminds me of the canon thread. As an artist, the strict view would be that the only TH and LOTR, were available to the public, as completed by the artist. How long would it take the author to complete the rest of the legendarium? Much longer than the published works, I would guess. If were possible to complete it all, would the story that you are debating change? I would guess it would be dramatically different than what we have today, because of the observed flaws.

To put it bluntly, did Tolkien blow it by giving us tiny glimpses of deity or reflected deity in one part of the narrative and pulling back in others so that we are ultimately left with unaswered questions. If the author truly wanted to keep "religion" out of his created world, as he certainly stated at one point, then why start the whole thing off with Eru? Or did his Catholic beliefs compel him to do this and, yet at the same time, require him to make Eru no more than a "minor, irritable" character, because of the difficulties of writing in a pre-revelation world?

BINGO. I dont think he blew it, but he confronted the difficulties in developing an arc between his religion and pre-revelation western European man. A way has to have been made. The concept of personal salvation was beautifully developed thru the LOTR story. Individual, personal choices, thoughts and actions. No rewards for doing "A" instead of "B", but "A" was the right choice, wasnt it? The problem he had was taking that to the next (or higher) level. I see the Eru character, from what we have of the unfinished material, as the rough pencil sketch to a blueprint concept the author had in his head, but was never able to finish. The question to me would be was it simply did he run out of time? Or was it possible at all?

[Raynor]

anything JRRT could conceive of, pales in comparison to the reality of S&G,

What exactly about Sodom and Gomora makes the horrible deeds of the numenoreans pale in comparison?

I think JRRT saw buroughcrats shuffling papers in cubicles offering a far more insidious evils than any orc or bad Numeronian.

That's a strong statement about people shuffling paper. Can you back it?

[Elmo]

That's a strong statement about people shuffling paper. Can you back it?

I've tried to get a passport

[The Saucepan Man]

*SpM guiltily eyes the papers on his desk, due a spot of shuffling, and with a sigh and no little reluctance, enters the debate.*

Originally Posted by davem

Either Sauron corrupted them - as you stated there, or they were already 'corrupted' & that is why they succumbed to him. You seem to be seeking to win the argument by adopting both positions.

To be fair, both positions are tenable. The Numenoreans were already, to a degree, corrupted prior to Sauron’s influence. That existing corruption was magnified and nurtured by Sauron following his arrival in Numenor. That the latter was the result of Sauron’s influence does not absolve those Numenoreans who succumbed to it from responsibility, for they had free will whether to accept or reject it.

However, my main purpose in posting was to offer the view that, whether one accepts the drowning of Numenor, and its attendant devastation, as an atrocity or not surely comes down to whether one accepts the “real life” (in terms of belief, at least) deity from which Tolkien’s characterisation (such as it is) of his fictional character, Eru, is drawn. In other words, if one can accept a God who perpetrated incidents such as Sodom and Gomorrah and the Noachian Flood as the act of a God worth believing in, then one can surely accept Eru’s active participation in the drowning of Numenor in similar vein. If one cannot, then the devastation wrought by Eru will indeed seem like the unjust and unforgiveable “hissy fit” which davem characterises it as.

As it happens, I rather agree with davem. But then, I have never really approved of the some of the actions of the God of the Old Testament.

But isn’t that beside the point? A debate between those who believe in the God from whom the inspiration for Eru was drawn and those who do not (or who do not accept that, if he exists, he would have perpetrated such deeds) as to whether Eru’s actions were just, or believable, or acceptable, can surely never be resolved. One’s perspective is firmly grounded in one’s personal beliefs.

I rather think that the debate might proceed more constructively by taking up the gauntlet thrown down by Child. How can those of us who cannot accept this intervention by Eru as just, or who find it difficult to perceive him as a credibly drawn fictional character, reconcile this with our love of Tolkien’s works and how does it impact upon our understanding of them?

Oh, and …

Originally Posted by davem

And even if he was the reader is not required to accept, let alone agree with, what the author says.

Originally Posted by davem

I don't remember him anywhere stating he was trying to reveal the truth about God.

I think of the endless debates that we had on the canonicity thread, and my flabber is well and truly ghasted.

[drigel]

What exactly about Sodom and Gomora makes the horrible deeds of the numenoreans pale in comparison?

Raynor, thanks for the inquiry, and sorry this isnt complete. I have to work instead of slack.

This was a generality I threw out, based on my studies. I will give more specifics when I can. A quick and lazy way to answer would be to google "atrocities of the ancient world". Curiously enough, the first link that comes up is a list that someone compiled that lists and ranks the known atrocities. Of the ancient world, the Old Testament Isrealites seem to appear a lot (no city left behind..., ....not even the women and children, etc). This is all based on what surviving documentation we have of course. I would say that the average life of ancient man was much harsher and more gruesome than the 20th century author JRRT. The atrocities commited were as well. What is made very clear that atrocities - and by definition loosing one's life is the ulimate atrocity - clearly modern man is the most efficient and prolific. Which leads me to:

That's a strong statement about people shuffling paper. Can you back it?

I dont have the Letters handy, so I cant directly quote JRRT on his opinion of buearocracies. Sorry. But IMO the point (which I agree) that I got from his letters is that the buearocrat who is shuffling the papers that enable the commiter of the atrocity is commiting the higher evil. Atrocity without responcibility. Sin without ownership. Completely anti-Heroic in it's purest sense.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I rather think that the debate might proceed more constructively by taking up the gauntlet thrown down by Child. How can those of us who cannot accept this intervention by Eru as just, or who find it difficult to perceive him as a credibly drawn fictional character, reconcile this with our love of Tolkien’s works and how does it impact upon our understanding of them?

Hiroshima.

Or reality intrudes. Sodom & Gommorrah is not the example we're looking for. The problem modern readers have is that we've seen destruction & devastation on a truly horrifying scale. The destruction of a whole society of 'bad' people is no longer part of the mythic world of Dragons, Balrogs & Elves.

Or, lets look at 9/11 & the shockwave that has produced. And that 'shockwave' is the real issue. I'm not comparing the Twin Towers to Numenor, or those killed to the 'evil' Numenoreans, btw, but considering the effect on the reader of an event like the destruction of Numenor.

Think about it. We cannot be 'casual' about such an act, or about someone (God or otherwise) who commits it. We can't shrug our shoulders & say 'its just fantasy', or God is said to have done something similar in the Bible. We exist in a post Hiroshima, post 9/11 world & the sudden death of thousands of human beings will elicit a response from us about anyone who does something like that.

We will require a proper justification, not clever arguments. We can't accept the 'Angry God' justification. Numenor shocks us (or should) because we've seen the effect (if not the cause) played out in in our lifetimes. 'Well, they were all bad people.' doesn't work.

Eru's act does not 'fit' in a world like M-e where mercy & compassion is played up to such an extent. I think what most of us do is simply not confront it. We basically ignore the fact that Tolkien has his God slaughter tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of human beings - men, women & children.

But this is probably the single most significant event in Middle-earth history, & (after the Creation) the single most significant thing Eru does. What does this tell us about the God of Arda?

My frustration all along has been with the argument 'Well, the Numenoreans were bad & deserved it.' (which is less of an argument & more of a refusal to think through the implications). Rotting human corpses would have been floating on the ocean. Pieces of bodies. Pieces of babies. Rotting animals. This is a 'fact' of M-e history. The fall of Numenor would have been quite possibly the single most horrible event in the History of Arda.

What we have is, admittedly, yet another scene of horror in a catalogue of such horrors - but this one is caused by Eru, & is thus unique.

Its as though the Fall of Numenor confronts us with a very difficult answer to the old question which is always asked when humanity is confronted by scenes of devastation: Where was God? - in this case the answer is 'Right here'.......

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by hewhoarisesinmight

I've tried to get a passport

Something more like an argument maybe? Related to Tolkien's opinion preferrably?

Drigel, I would be more than happy to continue our discussion if you could provide something more specific about both my particular questions. And as to ancient history being more violent, the very first result which appeared on my query on google on the topic you mentioned lists the 20th century with the highest rate of casualties. For the worst of it, I don't think it lacked anything of the past centuries' wars; but it sure repeated them on an unimaginable scale, with more "refined" and "efficient" means of destruction. But this is off topic.

[Raynor]

But this is probably the single most significant event in Middle-earth history, & (after the Creation) the single most significant thing Eru does.

Again, ignoring the continuous appearance of Men, which goes on until the end of Creation. Also, you seem to discard, again, Gandalf reimbodied, or the destruction of the One Ring - without these, none may have seen the end of Sauron's tyranny. You also ignore all the other arguments I have presented on his continuous intervention, without providing a single time a counter-argument or proof. I have already given a refference where the attitude of denying the goodness of Eru is, in this work, the source of evil. You just keep repeating this one statement, oblivious to what I say. It is proving tiresome. May I kindly ask you to review your approach?

My frustration all along has been with the argument 'Well, the Numenoreans were bad & deserved it.' (which is less of an argument & more of a refusal to think through the implications). Rotting human corpses would have been floating on the ocean. Pieces of bodies. Pieces of babies. Rotting animals.

First of all, considering the magnitude of forces, and that Sauron himself was caught by surprise and that he rose out of the sea depths after he was killed, I would say that no trace of the event, as you describe, would have remained surfaced.

So, we should think about implications? How about the implications of the actions of the numenoreans. You seem intent on vivid description. How would you describe to yourself "spilling of blood and torment and great wickedness, men made sacrifice to Melkor"? Can you depict how a normal Numenorean party of hunting people in M-E would generally go about? How about a casual day in the life of a taken slave? What would be, in your own imaginations, the stages of cruelly slaying people? May I also kindly request that you keep these images to you?

So, I am curious davem, how would you have gone about ending this tragedy? Remember, you have already used anything in your arsenal already. You have used lightnings, even to strike people, even to set the temple on fire. But to no avail. You have sent clouds in the forms of eagles (perhaps eagles themselves in the last day). Nothing. Warnings don't work. The tragedies continue. The power of Sauron increases daily. They set out to attack and possibly destroy the most sacred land, the land of the governors of creation, home to some of your other Children. What do you do davem? And, also, keep in mind that you have given your Children a gift, which you should not take back. You have given them free will. How do you go about? Can they really be saved in any manner while embodied? I truly doubt that; Sauron didn't waste his power for nothing, they were his both mentally and phisically. So? Let's recap: mounting tragedies, attack on Valinor, (most likely) impossibility of saving corrupted Men while still embodied, who, most importantly, wouldn't want to be saved... how do you cut this knot? I am looking forward to your creative opinion.

The fall of Numenor would have been quite possibly the single most horrible event in the History of Arda.

An ongoing tragedy ends, both in Numenor - and for many people in Middle Earth - why don't we "ask" these what they thought? M-E sees the dawn of a new day, and era, Sauron is diminnished in power, and the numenoreans go "home". What do you think about these implications? How would you solve this with less costs?

[Lalwendë]

Firstly, to answer SpM, I too don't like what Eru did. But I can reconcile this as the action of Eru, who is a very odd kind of god. He's not the kindly sort of God that modern worshippers know, but more the Old Testament type of God who would happily smite you down just for fun, for a bit of a cosmic joke. He's like the God of the Book of Job who toys with even his most faithful followers and is let's be frank, a wee bit cruel. But he can do this simply because he is omnipotent, and in fact its the kind of thing you'd expect of an omnipotent god - play around with even the most faithful, just to keep them 'in their place'.

That's just how Eru is - and it works if you consider the difficulties Tolkien himself had with reconciling his belief in God with the real horrors he saw on the Somme (such horrors as none of us has ever seen so we can't even get to the point he must have got to). I have to say, this Eru who Tolkien turned up isn't someone I particularly like, but he's interesting enough as a literary creation, and he certainly gives the writer incredible licence to do dodgy things to his characters as it can all be explained away as "Eru did it", and we all go "Ahhhhh, I see......"

The nature of omnipotent gods is that they can be as horrible as nasty as they like, but we can't question their motives because they are beyond our own concept of morality.

Now, getting on to those evil little kiddies who drowned. I seriously doubt that Tolkien really believed that children playing at being Orcs meant said kids were by nature 'evil' - you only have to read biographical works on Tolkien to see just how much of a family man and devoted father he was. Such a man simply would not kill off children and want us to believe this was 'justified' - has anyone ever thought that he put this there so that we would question Eru's actions? We are allowed to, you know! Remember there is no final word to say that this here literary creation, Eru is God, and nobody/no deity is going to smite anyone who questions this Eru's actions against mere children!

The other character who concerns me is indeed Miriel. Tolkien does NOT set her up as evil! Where does she condone the actions of Sauron? She is simply trapped in a marriage she does not want. The reason she did not speak out is laid out in the story - she simply could not. Putting a modern analogy to this - there were many ordinary Germans during WWII who did not speak out against Hitler - but this does NOT mean they condoned his actions or were 'evil'! I believe there is a letter mentioning Tolkien's own belief that ordinary Germans should in no way be held 'to blame'. They were simply trapped in a situation where they were inable to speak out for fear of their own lives. Tolkien is not in the habit of creating figures who are martyrs - and he does not make one out of Miriel. Rather he invites us to view the very human tragedy of Miriel (and many others too) caught up in events outside their control, and invites us to ask questions, not to draw lines and prepare nooses.

Finally, back to Atlantis. I am afraid that one letter in which Elendil is called 'Noachian' does not turn Tolkien's story into a Noachian story, no matter how much we want it to be one. The overwhelming evidence is that this is simply has little if anything to do with the Biblical flood, it is to do with Tolkien's Atlantis complex. That one Noachian figure proceeds from the story certainly does not mean that the story itself is Noachian - that I am afraid is simply speculation as Tolkien tells us the story is not Noachian, it is Atlantean.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Again, ignoring the continuous appearance of Men, which goes on until the end of Creation. Also, you seem to discard, again, Gandalf reimbodied, or the destruction of the One Ring - without these, none may have seen the end of Sauron's tyranny.

Unless, of course, Eru had removed him as had been done with Morgoth...

You also ignore all the other arguments I have presented on his continuous intervention, without providing a single time a counter-argument or proof. I have already given a refference where the attitude of denying the goodness of Eru is, in this work, the source of evil. You just keep repeating this one statement, oblivious to what I say. It is proving tiresome. May I kindly ask you to review your approach?

But its not convincing anybody. Eru may have shown such 'concern' as you state, but he also slaughtered many thousands of his children, innocent as well as guilty & allowed many evil Numenoreans to survive in mainland colonies.

First of all, considering the magnitude of forces, and that Sauron himself was caught by surprise and that he rose out of the sea depths after he was killed, I would say that no trace of the event, as you describe, would have remained surfaced.

So the possibility that the bodies may not have been seen makes the killing more acceptable?

So, we should think about implications? How about the implications of the actions of the numenoreans. You seem intent on vivid description. How would you describe to yourself "spilling of blood and torment and great wickedness, men made sacrifice to Melkor"? Can you depict how a normal Numenorean party of hunting people in M-E would generally go about? How about a casual day in the life of a taken slave? What would be, in your own imaginations, the stages of cruelly slaying people? May I also kindly request that you keep these images to you?

And thus Eru is justified because two wrongs make a right?

So, I am curious davem, how would you have gone about ending this tragedy? Remember, you have already used anything in your arsenal already. You have used lightnings, even to strike people, even to set the temple on fire. But to no avail. You have sent clouds in the forms of eagles (perhaps eagles themselves in the last day). Nothing. Warnings don't work. The tragedies continue. The power of Sauron increases daily. They set out to attack and possibly destroy the most sacred land, the land of the governors of creation, home to some of your other Children. What do you do davem?

Oh, some 'God thing' - which doesn't involve mass murder. I'm sure, for instance, that destruction of the Fleet alone would have had the desired effect, without killing the civilians. And your position requires us to accept that every single one of the Numenoreans willingly went along with the attrocities, which must at least be open to doubt. I do not accept that any children on the Island can be held to have been guilty enough to justify their deaths while Nuemnoreans who actually did go along with the attrocities were spared by virtue of their being on the mainland.

And, also, keep in mind that you have given your Children a gift, which you should not take back. You have given them free will.

Have to say that the most effective way of taking away someone's free will is to drown them.

How do you go about? Can they really be saved in any manner while embodied?

Isn't that how they justified burning heretics & witches?

I truly doubt that; Sauron didn't waste his power for nothing, they were his both mentally and phisically. So? Let's recap: mounting tragedies, attack on Valinor, (most likely) impossibility of saving corrupted Men while still embodied, who, most importantly, wouldn't want to be saved... how do you cut this knot? I am looking forward to your creative opinion.

Destroy the fleet, spare the civilians.

An ongoing tragedy ends, both in Numenor - and for many people in Middle Earth - why don't we "ask" these what they thought? M-E sees the dawn of a new day, and era, Sauron is diminished in power, and the numenoreans go "home". What do you think about these implications? How would you solve this with less costs?

You miss the point. Eru intervened & killed people. Innocent & guilty. The buck stops with him. You're making him out almost to be the helpless victim of circumstances beyond his control. He is responsible - a fact you seem to keep ignoring. We have to deal with the fact that Eru is a God who will do something like that.

[Raynor]

but more the Old Testament type of God who would happily smite you down just for fun

I see. And one instance where Eru does this for fun would be...?

I seriously doubt that Tolkien really believed that children playing at being Orcs meant said kids were by nature 'evil'

They are evil by choice. May I ask if you read it? Or letter #256?

Such a man simply would not kill off children and want us to believe this was 'justified'

One would have to balance the justice of this killing against growing up in a ever increasingly corrupted world, where they would be zombies doing Sauron's work, oppressing others in ways unimaginable, losing every bit of humanity, falling ever lower on the chasm of madness. I wonder if a mother would suffer her children to go about that way.

there were many ordinary Germans during WWII who did not speak out against Hitler - but this does NOT mean they condoned his actions or were 'evil'

No tyrant survives without the consent of his people - I truly believe in this.

Where does she condone the actions of Sauron?

If condone means to disregard without protest or censure, then she did all that. There isn't a single card of dissent, inward or outward, that we know she played. All we know is that in that period the luxury was ever increasing, more so at the top, presumably; there is no mention that she was an exception. There were clear signs that all riches came off at the expense of slavery and oppression - esspecially so concerning the king's house and his riches. All we know is that she enjoyed all that and did nothing about it. Nothing. Meanwhile, the faithfuls remained true to their beliefs, even when they were most often the victims of cruelty. No moral person can live in such times, enjoy the greatest luxury, with no sign of remorse, and still reject the label of evil.

I believe there is a letter mentioning Tolkien's own belief that ordinary Germans should in no way be held 'to blame'.

If you find it, perhaps we can discuss it.

The overwhelming evidence is that this is simply has little if anything to do with the Biblical flood, it is to do with Tolkien's Atlantis complex. That one Noachian figure proceeds from the story certainly does not mean that the story itself is Noachian - that I am afraid is simply speculation as Tolkien tells us the story is not Noachian, it is Atlantean.

Again, I see this as the logical fallacy of the false dillemma. The story can be both, I see no reason why not. I find your argument esspecially questionable, given that you were the first to quote Tolkien as calling this a noachian situation.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

They are evil by choice. May I ask if you read it? Or letter #256?

Children 'evil' by choice....and does Tolkien state how old these children were? 2? 5? 12?

One would have to balance the justice of this killing against growing up in a ever increasingly corrupted world, where they would be zombies doing Sauron's work, oppressing others in ways unimaginable, losing every bit of humanity, falling ever lower on the chasm of madness. I wonder if a mother would suffer her children to go about that way.

What mother wouldn't happily see her children killed for playing at being Orcs? You've sure convinced me...

No tyrant survives without the consent of his people - I truly believe in this.
If condone means to disregard without protest or censure, then she did all that. There isn't a single card of dissent, inward or outward, that we know she played. All we know is that in that period the luxury was ever increasing, more so at the top, presumably; there is no mention that she was an exception. There were clear signs that all riches came off at the expense of slavery and oppression - esspecially so concerning the king's house and his riches. All we know is that she enjoyed all that and did nothing about it. Nothing. Meanwhile, the faithfuls remained true to their beliefs, even when they were most often the victims of cruelty. No moral person can live in such times, enjoy the greatest luxury, with no sign of remorse, and still reject the label of evil.

As I stated earlier, in Robert Foster's Complete Guide to Middle-earth Miriel is stated to have been one of the faithful, & Christopher Tolkien himself praises that book for its accuracy.

If you find it, perhaps we can discuss it.

Its Letter 81.

There was a solemn article in the local paper seriously advocating systematic exterminating of the entire German nation as the only proper course after military victory: because, if you pleasse, they are rattlesnakes & don't know the difference between good & evil! (What of the writer?) The Germans have just as much right to declare the Poles & Jews exterminable vermin, subhuman, as we have to select the Germans: in other words no right, whatever they have done.

So, in Tolkien's opinion the 'extermination' of the German people could not be justified - whatever they had done - even 'consenting to a Dictator'.

[Raynor]

Unless, of course, Eru had removed him as had been done with Morgoth.

Which disregards that:
- all the ainur are supposed to stay within Ea until the end
- Eru must respect the free will of his created beings
- Melkor is the foremost candidate for an exception; the effects of him staying in Ea and regaining power are incomparable to Sauron doing so

But its not convincing anybody.

So far, I believe you are the only one who remains unconvinced of their veracity. If don't have an actual counter-proof, your argument is fallacious.

Eru may have shown such 'concern' as you state, but he also slaughtered many thousands of his children, innocent as well as guilty

I have presented my case concerning the marring of all the un-faithfuls in Numenor. I am looking forward to rebutals.

allowed many evil Numenoreans to survive in mainland colonies.

In a situation of power which is incomparable to what has been before.

So the possibility that the bodies may not have been seen makes the killing more acceptable?

That was not my point. I have simply pointed out the unlikelyness of your theory.

I'm sure, for instance, that destruction of the Fleet alone would have had the desired effect, without killing the civilians.

You disregard the fact that killing people _in_land_ by lightning strikes had no effect either; or that Sauron was still in Numenor, more of a ruler than before, above a people he tainted with his power. That situation would simply have removed all obstacles in Sauron's path, as he was already musing how to go about his business, now that the Edain were out of his way. Destroying only the fleet would have actually helped Sauron. He was glad about it.

I do not accept that any children on the Island can be held to have been guilty enough to justify their deaths while Nuemnoreans who actually did go along with the attrocities were spared by virtue of their being on the mainland.

Those on the mainland, unlike those on the island, weren't under Sauron's continuous, ever increasing, corruption.

Have to say that the most effective way of taking away someone's free will is to drown them.

I have asked you what would you have done better, if someone continues to kill and oppress, and will do so as long as he/she lives. So far, you have only nitpick at my presentation of the situation, without pointing out to any other better solution. The One's responsibility is not only to save the aggressors (the best way he can), but the victims too.

Isn't that how they justified burning heretics & witches?

False analogy; in the situation of heretics and witches, the blame rested on their accusers. There was no real reason, religious or otherwise, to do so. The burden of proof has not been observed in fact. With the numenoreans, the evidence were in the day light, while there still was light. So, what is the answer to my initial question?

Destroy the fleet, spare the civilians.

In addition to what I have answered before to this theory, I would also note that the center of world-wide oppression would still be left - Numenor.

Eru intervened & killed people. Innocent & guilty.

I am aware that the younger those people, the lesser their fault (although their marring might be just as strong). For this, I propose we consider: the "mother" situation I presented to Lal; beyond all, the fact that Eru can turn any divine punishment into a divine gift.

You're making him out almost to be the helpless victim of circumstances beyond his control.

These circumstances are beyond his control, if he is to guarantee free will.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Again, I see this as the logical fallacy of the false dillemma. The story can be both, I see no reason why not. I find your argument esspecially questionable, given that you were the first to quote Tolkien as calling this a noachian situation.

You are assuming Tolkien said that the downfall of Numenor was a Noachian situation. He did not. He said the escape of Elendil was a Noachian situation, which it was to a small extent (in that Noah is said to have led the only human survivors of a cataclysm whereas Elendil leads the survivors of one cataclysm and other humans continue regardless of it). But one chapter of a novel does not define the whole. Especially when we are told what it is meant to represent. There simply is no argument.

Originally Posted by Raynor

One would have to balance the justice of this killing against growing up in a ever increasingly corrupted world, where they would be zombies doing Sauron's work, oppressing others in ways unimaginable, losing every bit of humanity, falling ever lower on the chasm of madness. I wonder if a mother would suffer her children to go about that way.

There is no need to 'balance' anything morally.

And you underestimate mothers' love which transcends anything that mere morality can impose upon it.

Now if the children really were zombies, wouldn't their mothers also be 'zombies'? So the argument doesn't hold up. And that's putting aside that Tolkien, a family man, would not have been able to contemplate the idea that children could be 'evil'. I don't know how much you know about children, but ever since humans walked upright children have played all kinds of games and being an Orc does not mean a child is evil. How many children play at being pirates these days? Or indeed, Orcs?! My friends' nephews play at being Orcs - should they be put to death or maybe exorcised? They are anything but evil, they are just kids, play acting at thrilling, slightly scary things!

Even if we look at the downfall from a purely textual viewpoint then Eru was not punishing the people of Numenor for consorting with Sauron, he was taking Numenor from the face of the world because the Valar had told the Numenoreans that if they broke the Ban then they would never see Numenor again - a certain way of achieving this is to wipe it from the face of the world. If Eru was in the business of punishing anyone for consorting with Sauron then what did he do about those Men on Sauron's side who lived in huge numbers in Middle-earth? Nothing. Eru wiped out Numenor because the Valar begged him to, because they could not enact the Ban; Sauron was merely supplementary to what the Numenoreans did, exacerbating, aiding and abetting behaviour which was already in the minds of some of these people.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Which disregards that:
- all the ainur are supposed to stay within Ea until the end
- Eru must respect the free will of his created beings
- Melkor is the foremost candidate for an exception; the effects of him staying in Ea and regaining power are incomparable to Sauron doing so

So exceptions are possible?

In a situation of power which is incomparable to what has been before.

As would Numenor without its Fleet.

Those on the mainland, unlike those on the island, weren't under Sauron's continuous, ever increasing, corruption.

So the Children of Numenor were more 'evil' than fully grown Numenoreans on the Mainland?

I have asked you what would you have done better, if someone continues to kill and oppress, and will do so as long as he/she lives. So far, you have only nitpick at my presentation of the situation, without pointing out to any other better solution. The One's responsibility is not only to save the aggressors (the best way he can), but the victims too.

If that was the 'best' he could do, I'm not impressed.

False analogy; in the situation of heretics and witches, the blame rested on their accusers. There was no real reason, religious or otherwise, to do so. The burden of proof has not been observed in fact. With the numenoreans, the evidence were in the day light, while there still was light.

So burning them alive would have been ok if there had been proof? Its not that burning someone alive is wrong in & of itself, only if you have no evidence?

I am aware that the younger those people, the lesser their fault (although their marring might be just as strong). For this, I propose we consider: the "mother" situation I presented to Lal; beyond all, the fact that Eru can turn any divine punishment into a divine gift.

And you're still saying its ok to kill 'evil' children.

These circumstances are beyond his control, if he is to guarantee free will.

Killing someone does not guarantee their free will.

[Raynor]

and does Tolkien state how old these children were?

I am not aware that he does.

What mother wouldn't happily see her children killed for playing at being Orcs?

You are mixing the situations in an uncalled for manner. I have never argued such a thing. You can see that from the quote above this.

As I stated earlier, in Robert Foster's Complete Guide to Middle-earth Miriel is stated to have been one of the faithful, & Christopher Tolkien himself praises that book for its accuracy.

May I see a direct refference from Tolkien anyway?

So, in Tolkien's opinion the 'extermination' of the German people could not be justified - whatever they had done - even 'consenting to a Dictator'.

Nothing in that quote exonerates the germans on behalf of fear. That was the initial statement made by Lal, which is unsuporter by this particular letter. Furthermore, we would need to establish where the analogy with the germans should stop - ideology and manipulation doesn't match Sauron's marring, and anything that the nazis did doesn't amount to an actual attack on Valinor.

You are assuming Tolkien said that the downfall of Numenor was a Noachian situation. He did not. He said the escape of Elendil was a Noachian situation, which it was to a small extent (in that Noah is said to have led the only human survivors of a cataclysm whereas Elendil leads the survivors of one cataclysm and other humans continue regardless of it). But one chapter of a novel does not define the whole. Especially when we are told what it is meant to represent.

Nothing warrants restricting the religious comparison only to Elendil; that qualifier isn't found. One similarity doesn't exclude the others. This still is a false dillemma.

There simply is no argument.

So exceptions are possible?

Yes.

As would Numenor without its Fleet.

Numenor still intact would have Sauron and most likely other servants at his will. The system would continue.

So the Children of Numenor were more 'evil' than fully grown Numenoreans on the Mainland?

If not by choice, then by Sauron's marrring.

If that was the 'best' he could do, I'm not impressed.

Well, if you could give a better solution...

So burning them alive would have been ok if there had been proof? Its not that burning someone alive is wrong in & of itself, only if you have no evidence?

The point was that there was nothing to justify taking their life. And I believe no one should be burned. I also don't believe in the capital punishment that still is practiced today in certain countries - it does little after the fact. I am interested to explore if there were better approaches than Eru's to Numenor.

And you're still saying its ok to kill 'evil' children.

Ok, let me ask you too: do you think a parent would rather have his children grow up to be instruments of the most horrible evil that can be conceived than not live at all? I agree, again, that this is the most crucial part of the debate.

Killing someone does not guarantee their free will.

Free will doesn't come with a white check to do unrestrained evil, against one's self or others. If violence can be avoided, free will respected and life preserved, I agree it is the best way out.

[Raynor]

Some points of Lal which I overlook:

Now if the children really were zombies, wouldn't their mothers also be 'zombies'?

I haven't made my question clear: it is a general one, where the mother - the judge - maintains independent judgement and her morality. The consequences of letting the children live are those that I mentioned. What is your answer?

My friends' nephews play at being Orcs

I actually like the orcs of the Warcraft world. Not all orcs in all fantasies are the same. Some of them are examples of courage and nobility. The point in question was that those children were doing evil acts, which later would lead to a satanic cult at least for some of them.

the Valar had told the Numenoreans that if they broke the Ban then they would never see Numenor again

Hm, where is that stated?

If Eru was in the business of punishing anyone for consorting with Sauron then what did he do about those Men on Sauron's side who lived in huge numbers in Middle-earth?

Same problem I raised to davem: Numenor made a very powerful impact on the balance of power in M-E. Without it, the other black numenoreans were far less advantaged and in a lesser position to pursue the same evil goals - their problem was more than half-solved. Plus, those of M-E did not suffer Sauron's marring, at least not continuously/increasingly.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, if you could give a better solution...

Being omnipotent, nothing was beyond him, so he could presumably have surgically removed the corrupt (and the corruptor) and left the Faithful. The wholescale destruction of an island and all its inhabitants does seem rather a blunt weapon, although suitable perhaps for the fleet. Then again, it probaly wouldn't have made for such a compelling tale ...

Which leads me back to the point that I am more interested in. The destruction of Numenor provides a stirring image within the fantasy world which Tolkien created. But, for those of us who have a problem with the justice of it (and I, like davem, reserve the right, as a reader, to judge the actions of a fictional character in a novel, deity or no deity), this does surely have an impact on our understanding of that world.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

But I can reconcile this as the action of Eru, who is a very odd kind of god. He's not the kindly sort of God that modern worshippers know, but more the Old Testament type of God who would happily smite you down just for fun, for a bit of a cosmic joke.

I can readily accept the analogy between Eru and the God of the Old Testament. But I disagree that this resolves the problem, since I have no inclination to accept as credible that work, nor indeed to reconcile the portrayal of the God it presents with real life experience. But Tolkien is asking me, if I am to find his fantasy word credible, to accept as the source of all goodness within it the fictional God that he presents. Fine. But I find that credibility stretched to be told on the one hand that Eru is the embodiment and source of good within that world and that anything contrary to his will is evil, but be presented on the other hand with a deed perpetrated by him which I find hard to characterise as "good".

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

That's just how Eru is - and it works if you consider the difficulties Tolkien himself had with reconciling his belief in God with the real horrors he saw on the Somme ...

That doesn't help me either. I don't share Tolkien's beliefs, and so I have a different perspective from him on the horrors of the Somme (and other attrocities perpetrated by man against man). And we are not talking here about attrocities committed by the Men of Tolkien's world (who are subject to corruption), or by those committed by the proponents of evil and their minions. We are talking about an attrocity (as some, myself included, see it), perpetrated by one who, by his very nature, is presented as being free from all corruption and the highest ideal for all those characters within Middle-earth that we are supposed to (and, by their actions do) admire.

In other words, while I can admire the deeds of the likes of Elrond, Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo and Sam I cannot admire this one deed of the character whom they are presented as serving and to whom they aspire (whether they know it or not).

To my mind, it presents a logical flaw in the world which Tolkien portrays.

[The 1,000 Reader]

To break up your life-wasting arguements for a moment, I'm sharing my two cents.

Numenor was already far gone before Sauron got there. In my opinion, Sauron's actions at that time did no more than set him up as a scapegoat for the remaining Numenorians to assault.

Eru destroyed Numenor because it was far, far too corrupt and because even the youths were corrupted horribly. All of the faithful (Elendil and co.) survived, and I also think that Tar-Mirel being late was a spiritual failure, not one of leaving too late.

In short, Numenor screwed itself over long before any Dark Lords.

[Raynor]

Being omnipotent, nothing was beyond him, so he could presumably have surgically removed the corrupt (and the corruptor) and left the Faithful. The wholescale destruction of an island and all its inhabitants does seem rather a blunt weapon, although suitable perhaps for the fleet.

Then again, that would have left the island intact, as both the center of the empire, and, most likely, a place of corruption itself, given all the attrocities that were commited there and all the power Sauron spent in corrupting. Those on Middle Earth oppressing people in the name of Numenor would have had little if any motive to stop continuing to do so, esspecially if the main core of the faithfuls remains on the island. They would have interpreted this act as a larger scale set of ligthnings. They have been impervious to that sort of warnings. Look! Numenor still stands! Nothing can stop us! Let's get it on!!

I believe a better solution is in order.

Edit:
I take it from your statement "he could presumably have surgically removed the corrupt (and the corruptor) and left the Faithful" that in your variant there would be the same amount of victims as in the tale. Am I correct?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I am not aware that he does.
You are mixing the situations in an uncalled for manner. I have never argued such a thing. You can see that from the quote above this.

I'll be honest. I'm not sure exactly what you are arguing as far as 'evil' children are concerned.

Nothing in that quote exonerates the germans on behalf of fear. That was the initial statement made by Lal, which is unsuporter by this particular letter. Furthermore, we would need to establish where the analogy with the germans should stop - ideology and manipulation doesn't match Sauron's marring, and anything that the nazis did doesn't amount to an actual attack on Valinor.

You see, I'm stepping back from that one, 'cos that last point is just too wierd.

Ok, let me ask you too: do you think a parent would rather have his children grow up to be instruments of the most horrible evil that can be conceived than not live at all? I agree, again, that this is the most crucial part of the debate.

I don't think you understand how parents think about their children. No parent would wish their child to grow up to do evil, but no parent would wish to see their child killed.

Free will doesn't come with a white check to do unrestrained evil, against one's self or others. If violence can be avoided, free will respected and life preserved, I agree it is the best way out.

Eru took away the Numenoreans' free will when he killed them, because in assaulting Valinor they were exercising said free will.

However, this is going round in circles. And I noticed something interesting.

The Akalabeth states that Eru was responsible for the Fall of Numenor, & that is the accepted version of the story. However, in the Letter to Milton Waldman of Collins Tolkien gives an alternative:

The Valar lay down their delegated power & appeal to God, & receive the power & permission to deal with the situation: the old world is broken & changed. A chasm is opened in the sea & Tar-Calion (sic) & his armada is engulfed. Numenor itself on the edge of the rift topples & vanishes for ever with all its glory in the abyss.

Now, there are a couple of interesting things here. First, this is a very different situation, in that Eru does not destroy Numenor, the Valar do - Eru simply gives them the power & authority to do so. In this scenario he is not personally responsible. And neither are the Valar.

Think about it - the Valar are described as acting effectively in self-defence - they don't trash Numenor on purpose - their intention is merely to remove Valinor out of harm's way, it just so happens that the Island is on the edge of the rift & falls in. One can almost hear Manwe's tortured cri de cour echoing from the heights of Taniquetil: 'Doh!'

Point being: the Valar in this version did not destroy Numenor with malice aforethought, & therefore could not be held morally accountable - & those of us who have a problem with the 'official' version would not (i suspect) have such a problem with this one.

So the other interesting thing to speculate on is why Tolkien chose the version where Eru is directly responsible for the destruction of Numenor over the one where the Valar are indirectly responsible. The 'Valar are responsible but its not really their fault' ( or TVARBINRTF) version is certainly easier to stomach than the 'Eru is responsible & it really is his fault' (or EIR&IRIHF) version, & no-one, really, comes off looking too bad in a moral sense.

Quite interesting, also, that the Second Edition of The Sil has the Letter as a Foreword, so the reader first of all reads TVARBINRTF before the EIR&IRIHF version.

Now, one recalls that Tolkien quoted Chesterton in OFS (on the subject of why children like the 'cruel' punishments meted out to villains in many traditional tales) along the lines of Children are innocent & prefer justice, while we (adults) are wicked & therefore prefer mercy. Does this apply here: 'Children' being 'innocent' prefer the EIR&IRIHF (conspiracy) version, because it clearly depicts Eru punishing the Numenoreans for their sins, while we 'grown-ups' would perhaps choose TVARBINRTF (Cock-up), where it was all an accident?

[Lalwendë]

We're still going on as though Numenor was destroyed because of many things that were not the cause of its destruction, e.g. following Sauron, being cruel to inhabitants of Middle-earth, not 'following' Eru etc. etc. Yet the 'reason' behind its destruction is given to us in the text! The motive is because the Numenoreans broke the Ban of the Valar. Note that the Numenoreans had not exactly been 'faithful' before Sauron's arrival - he was merely using their proclivities to his advantage in his mission to destroy them (and he did destroy them, with a little help from Eru ); he accelerated their end, they would probably have broken the Ban anyway.

The fact remains that it was Breaking the Ban that prompted the Valar to call upon Eru. Their worship of Sauron had nothing to do with Eru's 'punishment'. So trying to justify the deaths of innocents by saying "Oh, Eru was punishing them for being inherently evil for worshipping Sauron" doesn't wash. The punishment was for breaking the Ban - what, exactly, would a two year old tot have to do with that?

Originally Posted by SpM

I can readily accept the analogy between Eru and the God of the Old Testament. But I disagree that this resolves the problem, since I have no inclination to accept as credible that work, nor indeed to reconcile the portrayal of the God it presents with real life experience. But Tolkien is asking me, if I am to find his fantasy word credible, to accept as the source of all goodness within it the fictional God that he presents. Fine. But I find that credibility stretched to be told on the one hand that Eru is the embodiment and source of good within that world and that anything contrary to his will is evil, but be presented on the other hand with a deed perpetrated by him which I find hard to characterise as "good".

I think the crucial point is that we are not being told by Tolkien to accept the downfall of Numenor as 'good', or even as 'just'. Firstly, the story is couched in the language and imagery of tragedy, not of a lesson. This draws us back to our own myths about Atlantis/Lyonesse, lands where the people had become proud and eventually were lost to time - these stories are also told as tragedies, that humans can have the best lives, the best places to live, their own paradise, but their pride eventually leads to a downfall.

Then of course we must remember that this is a story, that Eru is a fictional character, Numenor is a fictional place, and it is entirely up to us to decide if this fictional god is 'just' or not. We are completely free to do that and Tolkien as not only a writer but a highly educated Oxford professor knew well that the reader, unless told in plain language how to read a text (which is why he tells us LotR is not an allegory, he knew that without telling us, readers may read all kinds of things into it and he did not want that to happen), will read it and judge the characters therein independently, using the text in front of them; if said text is ambiguous then the writer has done this on purpose and does not want us to reach a fixed conclusion. To think otherwise, to put assumptions onto the text, would be to denigrate Tolkien's own considerable intelligence and craft.

And then there is davem's point - is Eru actually a very well crafted god figure anyway?

Originally Posted by Raynor

I actually like the orcs of the Warcraft world. Not all orcs in all fantasies are the same. Some of them are examples of courage and nobility. The point in question was that those children were doing evil acts, which later would lead to a satanic cult at least for some of them.

Then I suppose you might think that we should also ban Hallowe'en, fancy dress parties and all games involving dress-up and make believe? Children playing at being Orcs are simply having fun, it certainly does not follow that this will result in being damaged or having a criminal frame of mind later in life! In fact, children forbidden from doing fun things such as exploring fantasy, scary stories and characters etc are probably more likely to grow up with hang ups and anxieties about such things, leading to very real psychological problems. Why, Tolkien even told his own children scary stories!

Originally Posted by Raynor

I haven't made my question clear: it is a general one, where the mother - the judge - maintains independent judgement and her morality. The consequences of letting the children live are those that I mentioned. What is your answer?

Any mother would let her child live and see what happened. That's what parents do. They do it because love is more powerful than 'morality'.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Then again, that would have left the island intact, as both the center of the empire, and, most likely, a place of corruption itself, given all the attrocities that were commited there and all the power Sauron spent in corrupting.

Well, if he was omnipotent, he could surely have removed the island as well, without killing any innocents. Although, with the corruption removed, I don’t see why the island should necessarily become a place of corruption again. Isn’t that rather like saying that the land comprising Germany should be removed from the face of the earth because it was once a place where terrible deeds were perpetrated? Of course, the fact that it was enticingly close to Valinor was a contributor to what happened, and we humans are not exactly known for learning the lessons of history. But isn’t that what free will is all about?

Originally Posted by Raynor

I take it from your statement "he could presumably have surgically removed the corrupt (and the corruptor) and left the Faithful" that in your variant there would be the same amount of victims as in the tale. Am I correct?

Not necessarily. I find it hard to believe that all those innocent of corruption escaped in the nine ships.

Originally Posted by davem

Point being: the Valar in this version did not destroy Numenor with malice aforethought, & therefore could not be held morally accountable - & those of us who have a problem with the 'official' version would not (i suspect) have such a problem with this one.

It would certainly be more consistent with the characterisation of Eru and the well-intentioned, but oft bumbling, Valar presented elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I think the crucial point is that we are not being told by Tolkien to accept the downfall of Numenor as 'good', or even as 'just' ...

Then of course we must remember that this is a story, that Eru is a fictional character, Numenor is a fictional place, and it is entirely up to us to decide if this fictional god is 'just' or not.

Quite so. Hence my freedom to view this deed as an unjust one. The problem that I have is not that I feel coerced into finding it a good or just deed. It is an issue of credibility and consistency. Eru’s act here is inconsistent with what I am being told elsewhere about him. So, in my desire for credibility and consistency within the works of a man I admire, I find myself being led to conclude either that Eru’s part in the downfall is misrepresented, or that he is not the paradigm of good that we are otherwise presented with and that the characters that believed him to be were mistaken.

[Raynor]

I'm not sure exactly what you are arguing as far as 'evil' children are concerned.

Even if you didn't understand my point, that doesn't justify that sort of distortion of my arguments.

I am asking if it is worth living as an instrument of evil.

You see, I'm stepping back from that one, 'cos that last point is just too wierd.

Whatever. You tried your best shot with a letter that didn't address the issue at cause. I guess we should move on.

No parent would wish their child to grow up to do evil, but no parent would wish to see their child killed.

So do you rennounce the choice? Do you expect Eru to rennounce the choice?

Eru took away the Numenoreans' free will when he killed them, because in assaulting Valinor they were exercising said free will.

I don't see why you feign to miss my point. Free will has consequences; if those consequences are dire enough, the person in question should be stopped from perpetrating evil anymore. Free will doesn't exclude morality , responsibility and authority. This is common sense.

on the subject of why children like the 'cruel' punishments meted out to villains in many traditional tales

I only saw they like justice. Where exactly is it said that children like "cruel" punishments?

The 'Valar are responsible but its not really their fault' ( or TVARBINRTF) version is certainly easier to stomach than the 'Eru is responsible & it really is his fault' (or EIR&IRIHF) version

I really don't see that much of a difference in both variants. In both cases, it was the power and designs of Eru at play. Neither situaion excludes the cooperation of Eru and the Valar, considering that at the heart of the world lies the imperishable flame and, on the other hand, "but this condition Iluvatar made, or it is the necessity of their love, that their power should thenceforward be contained and bounded in the World, to be within it for ever, until it is complete, so that they are its life and it is theirs". We don't know exactly how Eru operates, in general, or in this particular case.

we 'grown-ups' would perhaps choose TVARBINRTF (Cock-up), where it was all an accident?

How could it be an accident?? How can you sink an island by mistake? If they really wanted to protect the numenoreans, why did they save, by their grace, only the faithfuls? Where is there a sign of the plan of changing the world overstepping its initial objectives?

We're still going on as though Numenor was destroyed because of many things that were not the cause of its destruction, e.g. following Sauron, being cruel to inhabitants of Middle-earth, not 'following' Eru

That Eru was supplicated by the valar to intervene doesn't mean he is forbidden to consider the situation of the Numenoreans more generraly, considering what was at stake by not doing so.

I think the crucial point is that we are not being told by Tolkien to accept the downfall of Numenor as 'good', or even as 'just'.

Does any character in LotR or Silmarillion call this unjust? Obviously, other than the targeted numenoreans.

And then there is davem's point - is Eru actually a very well crafted god figure anyway?

So, what is the standard of a very well crafted god figure? If we are at it. I see the repeated dodging my question about what tools do we have for adequately describing a transcendent reality. Perhaps because doing so is, well, impossible. But don't hold your ideas .

Then I suppose you might think that we should also ban Hallowe'en, fancy dress parties and all games involving dress-up and make believe?

I am truly perplexed. How can you derive that from my statement?? I just said I like Warcraft orcs, if you read it again.

Any mother would let her child live and see what happened. That's what parents do. They do it because love is more powerful than 'morality'.

Ok, I am growing uncomfortable myself with this line of reasoning, so I will change it. The problem is the value of individual damned lives, and not only to themselves, but in the greater scheme of things, esspecially when weighed against other lives (the numenoreans slew each other in madness), and esspecially more innocent lives (those who were sacrificied, most of whom were faithfuls). All the more, love has an object, but can the initial object of love be recognised in a Ringwraith (three were numenoreans), a Mouth of Sauron, a Necromancer, Black Numenorean (all these were or may have been numenoreans), orc (a possibility under Sauron too)? If we are to judge Eru, we are to walk in his shoes and take this extremely delicate position.

[Raynor]

And after my last post, I saw SpM's...

Well, if he was omnipotent, he could surely have removed the island as well, without killing any innocents.

The question remains about those who were nonetheless tainted by Sauron's corruption, perhaps beyond redemption in the circles of the world. The Atrabeth hints that Eru can't, or won't, remove corruption in Arda unless he enters himself, at the end of time.

Not necessarily. I find it hard to believe that all those innocent of corruption escaped in the nine ships.

I don't think that there were any numenoreans who were free of corruption, yet not faithful. I don't think there was a middle ground, considering the powers at stake. And of the faithfuls, the text implies that all of them escaped. I know of no contrary proof.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

That Eru was supplicated by the valar to intervene doesn't mean he is forbidden to consider the situation of the Numenoreans more generraly, considering what was at stake by not doing so.

He is, actually. He sets that rule himself. He does not interfere with Arda, it is left to the management of the Valar. This is the one and only time he puts his nose in and he only does this because:

for that time the Valar laid down their government of Arda

If you look further, what he does is separate for ever the worlds of Men and Elves. In much the same way as Faerie is sundered from our own world except to those who know the path/Straight Road. It is not at all clear even if he intended to drown Numenor, he only intends to take Valinor away from the reach of mortals - but drown it he did, whether intentioned or not. Nothing is mentioned of it being to do with Sauron - in fact Sauron survives and goes on to greater things, having achieved his goal in having Numenor destroyed - if Eru was trying to deal with Sauron he would also have nixed all his future plans. If as you say, Eru can do what he likes (which he can't, due to a rule he imposes on himself), then we have to say "Hey! Eru! Why didn't you deal with that problem too? What do you think you're playing at?!"

Originally Posted by Raynor

Does any character in LotR or Silmarillion call this unjust? Obviously, other than the targeted numenoreans.

Note that nobody talks of Numenor anyway, so why would they talk of the more serious matter of its destruction and if that was just?

even the name of that land perished, and Men spoke thereafter not of Elenna, nor of Andor the Gift that was taken away, nor of Numen6re on the confines of the world; but the exiles on the shores of the sea, if they turned towards the West in the desire of their hearts, spoke of Mar-nu-Falmar that was whelmed in the waves, Akallabeth the Downfallen, Atalante in the Eldarin tongue.

Yes, it seems to me that Men still remained deeply hurt by the loss, and unable to talk of it. They even still desired Numenor and to go West; taking the physical reality of the place away could never remove that yearning. No, not even Eru could take that away. And with this memory still so sore in the minds of Men, this suggests that the loss of life, the human tragedy too was sore. This is clearly Tolkien asking us to think more deeply about the nature of tragedy and how it echoes down the ages.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Ok, I am growing uncomfortable myself with this line of reasoning, so I will change it. The problem is the value of individual damned lives, and not only to themselves, but in the greater scheme of things, esspecially when weighed against other lives (the numenoreans slew each other in madness), and esspecially more innocent lives (those who were sacrificied, most of whom were faithfuls). All the more, love has an object, but can the initial object of love be recognised in a Ringwraith (three were numenoreans), a Mouth of Sauron, a Necromancer, Black Numenorean (all these were or may have been numenoreans), orc (a possibility under Sauron too)? If we are to judge Eru, we are to walk in his shoes and take this extremely delicate position.

I'm not quite understanding you here. Are you equating a tiny child with a Mouth of Sauron? Are you also suggesting that a tiny child is somehow less innocent than one of the adult Faithful? Given that a two year old simply does not, cannot, understand right and wrong, how can the child make any kind of decision to be one of the 'Faithful' or not? I'd also argue that a child up to the age of about 10 (and maybe even beyond - plenty of adults cannot break free of family religious constraints) does not have the capacity to go against his or her parents' moral/religious wishes so he or she simply cannot be held to account for decisions taken for the child. Likewise, no child is born 'evil' - this is a dangerous way of thinking. All young children are absolute innocents ready and waiting for the experience of life itself to shape them - the baby of a drug dealer or terrorist or despot is still an innocent child nonetheless and all of them possess the potential to grow and to be different to their parents. How many of us have followed our parents blindly? Few of us. That personal experience alone should tell us just how innocent children really are!

[Raynor]

He is, actually. He sets that rule himself. He does not interfere with Arda, it is left to the management of the Valar.

Again, false dilemma. His interventions and the government of the valar are not mutually exclusive. I have gave plenty of arguments in that respect. Perhaps you could back your statement too?

If you look further, what he does is separate for ever the worlds of Men and Elves.

That's a questionable argument at best. Men were forbidden to access Valinor from the begining, which became after the war of wrath the de facto destination of all elves, as they have been "if not commanded, then sternly counselled" to go there.

It is not at all clear even if he intended to drown Numenor, he only intends to take Valinor away from the reach of mortals

I already asked what reasons are there that this was an accident, overstepping the initial objectives. Would you care to answer?

if Eru was trying to deal with Sauron he would also have nixed all his future plans.

Myths Transformed stated that Sauron was a problem Men had to deal with finnally.

Note that nobody talks of Numenor anyway, so why would they talk of the more serious matter of its destruction and if that was just?

Note that they still reffer to it, though by not its initial name, but by a name that, at least metaphorically, justifies its drowning: the downfallen. Note that Faramir reffers to it. It is also mentioned by those who composed the appendices.

They even still desired Numenor and to go West

As in breaking that ban again?? What do you mean?

Are you equating a tiny child with a Mouth of Sauron?

No. Since we are playing judging Eru, I am proposing to take his perspective. I believe that the extent of Sauron's corruption would have left, after a certain period of time, none of the Numenoreans (who weren't faithfuls) a choice to redeem themselves, not in the circles of the world, no matter what age they had. They were doomed to be in thraldom to evil, due to the amount of power Sauron spent to corrupt them.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Even if you didn't understand my point, that doesn't justify that sort of distortion of my arguments.

I am asking if it is worth living as an instrument of evil.

You see - this is the problem. You seem to be saying 'Its better for a child who has chosen evil to die rather than grow up to be a 'monster'', but when I ask you 'Are you saying its acceptable to kill a child who has 'chosen' to be 'evil'?' you accuse me of misrepresenting you, but then you come right back & ask 'Is it worth living as an instrument of evil? And wouldn't any parent rather their child died than grow up to serve evil?' I honestly don't get what your position is.

Whatever. You tried your best shot with a letter that didn't address the issue at cause.

No - the letter refuted every one of your points:

There was a solemn article in the local paper seriously advocating systematic exterminating of the entire German nation as the only proper course after military victory: because, if you pleasse, they are rattlesnakes & don't know the difference between good & evil! (What of the writer?) The Germans have just as much right to declare the Poles & Jews exterminable vermin, subhuman, as we have to select the Germans: in other words no right, whatever they have done.

"Systematic extermination of a whole people is morally unnaceptable - whatever they have done" And to take your earlier point seriously I'm sure that if the Nazis could have assaulted Valinor they would have. In fact, I don't think the fact that the story of Numenor was developed & introduced into the Legendarium in the 1940's is entirely coincidental.

I don't see why you feign to miss my point. Free will has consequences; if those consequences are dire enough, the person in question should be stopped from perpetrating evil anymore. Free will doesn't exclude morality , responsibility and authority. This is common sense.

I know what you're saying. Of course a person may put themselves in a position where it is necessary to kill them as a last resort. But to kill them is to take away their free will. You argued that Eru had to kill the Numenoreans because he couldn't take away their free will - which is not logical. He killed them, thereby removing their free will.

I only saw they like justice. Where exactly is it said that children like "cruel" punishments?

I think I see how this dispute has come about - you're approach is an absolutely literalist one. Tolkien may use 3 or 4 different words in the Intro to LotR which mean 'entertainment' but because he doesn't use the actual word 'entertainment' you argue his intention was not to 'entertain'. The punishment suffered by the Queen in Snow White is cruel (as I remember she is forced to wear red hot shoes & dance until she falls down dead) & Tolkien speaks of child readers liking this kind of 'justice'.

How could it be an accident?? How can you sink an island by mistake? If they really wanted to protect the numenoreans, why did they save, by their grace, only the faithfuls? Where is there a sign of the plan of changing the world overstepping its initial objectives?

Because it is stated that the Valars' purpose was to remove The Undying Lands from danger & that Numenor happened to be on the edge of the rift. Hence, it was equivalent to someone being killed by a ricocheting bullet, rather than by one that was deliberately aimed. The way I read it, you don't just want the Numenoreans dead, you want them executed.

So, what is the standard of a very well crafted god figure? If we are at it. I see the repeated dodging my question about what tools do we have for adequately describing a transcendent reality.

One that convinces, behaves consistently, one who, if he is declared to be loving, compassionate & wise (as well as all-powerful) doesn't execute children.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Raynor

No. Since we are playing judging Eru, I am proposing to take his perspective. I believe that the extent of Sauron's corruption would have left, after a certain period of time, none of the Numenoreans (who weren't faithfuls) a choice to redeem themselves, not in the circles of the world, no matter what age they had. They were doomed to be in thraldom to evil, due to the amount of power Sauron spent to corrupt them.

So you are saying that he pre-judged the strength of their will to resist corruption when removed from the source of corruption? Isn't that rather at odds with the gift of free will that he gave to them?

And, if he was so concerned to prevent those of his Children who became irrevocably tainted with corruption from having to endure such a life, why did he allow the continued propagation of Orcs?

[Raynor]

You seem to be saying 'Its better for a child who has chosen evil to die rather than grow up to be a 'monster''

When did I say any Numenorean child chose to be evil? What I argued, concerning the children, was that they were tainted. If you look back, you will see that I argued that chosing sides was possible at most at the beginning of Sauron's corruption. Please don't misrepresent my arguments.

"Systematic extermination of a whole people is morally unnaceptable - whatever they have done"

False analogy; the germans were not tainted by Sauron. And the judge is in one case Eru, in the other (this letter) humans. Of humans, Tolkien said they should judge others with utmost mercy, if they are to expect mercy. I believe this letter it is in the spirit of that idea.

In fact, I don't think the fact that the story of Numenor was developed & introduced into the Legendarium in the 1940's is entirely coincidental.

According to the Chronology volume of Hammond and Scull, Tolkien first wrote of Numenor in about 1936 or 1937.

Of course a person may put themselves in a position where it is necessary to kill them as a last resort. But to kill them is to take away their free will.

Which, in that situation, is of secondary importance.

Tolkien may use 3 or 4 different words in the Intro to LotR which mean 'entertainment' but because he doesn't use the actual word 'entertainment' you argue his intention was not to 'entertain'.

IIRC, I was only arguing that what he wrote in paragraph does not exclude religion - which was your point.

The punishment suffered by the Queen in Snow White is cruel (as I remember she is forced to wear red hot shoes & dance until she falls down dead) & Tolkien speaks of child readers liking this kind of 'justice'.

This kind of justice? Let me ask you again: where does Tolkien say that children like cruel justice?

Because it is stated that the Valars' purpose was to remove The Undying Lands from danger

Since I dont know if you mean this literary, that it was their intent to remove Aman from Arda, or metaphorically, that they wanted the danger on Aman removed, please provide the quote you are reffering to.

Numenor happened to be on the edge of the rift

To interpret the text "Numenor itself on the edge" as meaning that it was there by mistake contradicts the logic of the story. Such a tremendous mistake, esspecially considering the status of those made it (Eru or the Valar, whichever you will) is almost inconceivable, impossible. And there is no evidence of the existence of such an error, only an interpretation which takes the event out of context.

The way I read it, you don't just want the Numenoreans dead, you want them executed.

This is a learning process for me. I do admit I can be proven wrong in the end. Please make this the last assumtion you make on my part.

One that convinces, behaves consistently, one who, if he is declared to be loving, compassionate & wise (as well as all-powerful) doesn't execute children.

And I presume that you think that Eru didn't live up to this, at least in the case of Numenor. However, when I have asked if there was any other way to end this story in a better manner, no viable option was offered. Accusing him of doing worse than he could, although we don't know of doing that any better, is, well, wrong.

So you are saying that he pre-judged the strength of their will to resist corruption when removed from the source of corruption?

Yes. Tolkien speaks of encounters with evil that one cannot overcome. We also have the shadow cast on Maeglin by Melkor, or the allegiance of the ringwraiths to Sauron. Furthermore, when Sauron's power is objectified in an object, it can bend the will of those who it taints; I believe this was the case with Numenor too, that Numenor itself, by and large, became a medium of his corruption.

And, if he was so concerned to prevent those of his Children who became irrevocably tainted with corruption from having to endure such a life, why did he allow the continued propagation of Orcs?

That orcs have fea is a matter of debate, as far as I understand. I don't know if we can come with a relevant conclusion on this part.

[drigel]

So you are saying that he pre-judged the strength of their will to resist corruption when removed from the source of corruption? Isn't that rather at odds with the gift of free will that he gave to them?

Furthermore, when Sauron's power is objectified in an object, it can bend the will of those who it taints; I believe this was the case with Numenor too, that Numenor itself, by and large, became a medium of his corruption.

Great point.

"beyond redemption" is the problem. But, when they chose to have the devil reside amongst them, free will becomes hijacked, I suppose. Sauron's deific powers, and his desire to be the enabler of their undoing, poses threats that even the high Numenoreans had no armor to protect themselves against. Couched in what looks like free will they sailed west, they didnt have a gun to their head to set sail, not physically. But, spiritually they had lost a fight that they never had a chance to win, in the first place. Is this why there was no proselytizing by the faithful? No unselfish act of martyredom, because there was no hope?

The crux lies in the idea of a time when the holy (and unholy) bestrode Ea with its inhabitants (including hapless man), and the time of transition to what we would call today's reality. The seperation of the spiritual and the physical. Cant make the omelet without breaking some eggs eh?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

When did I say any Numenorean child chose to be evil? What I argued, concerning the children, was that they were tainted. If you look back, you will see that I argued that chosing sides was possible at most at the beginning of Sauron's corruption. Please don't misrepresent my arguments.

And therefore they had no free will in any real sense for Eru to take away. Thus, any restrictions on his actions imposed by a desire not to remove their free will are obviated. He does not need to concern himself with their free will at all, because Sauron has already taken it away - which removes the justification you offer for his actions.

False analogy; the germans were not tainted by Sauron. And the judge is in one case Eru, in the other (this letter) humans. Of humans, Tolkien said they should judge others with utmost mercy, if they are to expect mercy. I believe this letter it is in the spirit of that idea.

Which means what, exactly? That an action which is 'morally wrong' for a human is morally right for God? Which means, what, that Divine morality & human morality may be totally opposed?

According to the Chronology volume of Hammond and Scull, Tolkien first wrote of Numenor in about 1936 or 1937. Which, in that situation, is of secondary importance.

And, being aware of that fact, I stated it was in the '40's that the account of Numenor was introduced & developed, not that it was in the 40's that Tolkien began writing about it. And besides, the point about possible influence of Nazism on Tolkien's thought is not contradicted by the 30's date, as the Nazi movement was on the rise in the 30's.

IIRC, I was only arguing that what he wrote in paragraph does not exclude religion - which was your point.

I thought we were to refrain from telling each other what our 'points' were.....

This kind of justice? Let me ask you again: where does Tolkien say that children like cruel justice?

Again, I think the problem is that are ignoring the spirit & implications of statements made. You refuse to accept that Miriel was one of the faithful because no-one has yet given you a quote in which Tolkien wrote 'Miriel was one of the faithful.' Does Tolkien anywhere say 'Frodo was a good person who sacrificed himself for others'? But does he need to? Is the reader not capable of picking up hints?

Since I dont know if you mean this literary, that it was their intent to remove Aman from Arda, or metaphorically, that they wanted the danger on Aman removed, please provide the quote you are reffering to.

The Valar lay down their delegated power & appeal to God, & receive the power & permission to deal with the situation: the old world is broken & changed. A chasm is opened in the sea & Tar-Calion (sic) & his armada is engulfed. Numenor itself on the edge of the rift topples & vanishes for ever with all its glory in the abyss.

Now, the 'situation' referred to is clearly not the general behaviour of the Numenoreans - which had been going on for a good while. The situation, clearly, is the attack of the fleet - this is clear because the result of the Valar's action is to open a chasm & engulf the fleet. The fact that the fate of Numenor is described in the passive (its on the edge of the rift & topples over) implies that it was a side effect, not a direct consequence.

And I presume that you think that Eru didn't live up to this, at least in the case of Numenor. However, when I have asked if there was any other way to end this story in a better manner, no viable option was offered. Accusing him of doing worse than he could, although we don't know of doing that any better, is, well, wrong.

If a new TV has a blurry, out of focus picture & distorted sound I can declare there is something wrong with it - even if I couldn't make a TV set myself, or even fix the faults on that one.

What you're missing is that many of us are uncomfortable with Eru's behaviour. Telling us 'Well, Tolkien said it was fine' is not to the point. If I said 'Celery makes me sick' that would be a fact. For you to respond 'Well, I've checked with a nutritionist & she says it can't make you sick, & there's nothing else to eat' is to completely misunderstand the situation & ignore the simple fact that celery makes me sick. Throw up all the quotes you want but it won't address the real issue of how many readers feel about what happened.

[Raynor]

Thus, any restrictions on his actions imposed by a desire not to remove their free will are obviated.

However, as I have pointed previously, it may be that Eru could not or would not remove corruption in creation until the end of time. This is something which is mentioned in the Atrabeth; Myths Transformed also notes that the eradication of Melkor (or, if I may note, of his corruption) is not possible without the destruction of Arda - which points again to the end of the world.

That an action which is 'morally wrong' for a human is morally right for God?

No, that is not how I understood Tolkien; God remains the ultimate source of good; however, we may not assume his omniscience, therefore not his judgement - and we also sin; to hope to have our sins forgiven, we must have mercy too. He was talking about being "extravagantly generous" in this aspect. In this, I believe he was also reffering to the Christian mercy, or to the love which forgives everything. In his comments to Frodo, he was indeed talking about two scales of morality which we must apply: absolute ideal for ourselves - and mercy for others.

And, being aware of that fact, I stated it was in the '40's that the account of Numenor was introduced & developed

He goes from a story to a full manuscript in that period, if I read Hammod correctly. However, I will pick no more on this and where you're heading with it. As far as I know, there is no evidence, so it's not worth my effort until it surfaces; debating almost alone with 3 other persons is challenging enough.

I thought we were to refrain from telling each other what our 'points' were.

Forgive me if I was unclear; I was reffering to presuming personals values. I certainly don't want anyone to be executed; in this debate, I am following a line of argument which, for the time being, I believe it is correct. However, debating should not resort to painting the other persons in bad colors. I appologise in if I have done so.

Again, I think the problem is that are ignoring the spirit & implications of statements made.

Ok, please present the context from which you derive that children like cruel justice.

You refuse to accept that Miriel was one of the faithful because no-one has yet given you a quote in which Tolkien wrote 'Miriel was one of the faithful.' Does Tolkien anywhere say 'Frodo was a good person who sacrificed himself for others'?

False analogy; there is massive evidence that Frodo was good and was sacrificing himself, direct and indirect, in the books and letters; zero on Miriel behalf being a faithful.

Now, the 'situation' referred to is clearly not the general behaviour of the Numenoreans - which had been going on for a good while. The situation, clearly, is the attack of the fleet - this is clear because the result of the Valar's action is to open a chasm & engulf the fleet. The fact that the fate of Numenor is described in the passive (its on the edge of the rift & topples over) implies that it was a side effect, not a direct consequence.

Since this provides a further deviance from the story, Tar Calion engulfed, before I answer I will go back to my HoME V to see what this could possibly mean.

Throw up all the quotes you want but it won't address the real issue of how many readers feel about what happened.

If this is your final position, then fine by me. If no mather the evidence, you persist in a certain personal interpretation, it is your own right and choice and I respect that. However, if you imply there is "objective" (if I may say so) fault, then there is ground for discussion.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

However, as I have pointed previously, it may be that Eru could not or would not remove corruption in creation until the end of time. This is something which is mentioned in the Atrabeth; Myths Transformed also notes that the eradication of Melkor (or, if I may note, of his corruption) is not possible without the destruction of Arda - which points again to the end of the world.

Well, it may be he could not or would not - but isn't he omnipotent? And the point is the reader's feelings about Eru's behaviour. The reader is in a difficult position if he or she finds the behaviour of Eru not fitting with his supposed character, or with the reader's own moral value system.

No, that is not how I understood Tolkien; God remains the ultimate source of good; however, we may not assume his omniscience, therefore not his judgement - and we also sin; to hope to have our sins forgiven, we must have mercy too. He was talking about being "extravagantly generous" in this aspect. In this, I believe he was also reffering to the Christian mercy, or to the love which forgives everything. In his comments to Frodo, he was indeed talking about two scales of morality which we must apply: absolute ideal for ourselves - and mercy for others.

Fine but this a) assumes Eru = the Christian God & b) leads us to ask exactly how destroying all the Numenoreans equates to 'forgiving everything'?

Ok, please present the context from which you derive that children like cruel justice.

Chesterton once remarked that the children in whose company he saw Maeterlinck's Blue Bird were dissatisfied “because it did not end with a Day of Judgement, and it was not revealed to the hero and the heroine that the Dog had been faithful and the Cat faithless.” “For children,” he says, “are innocent and love justice; while most of us are wicked and naturally prefer mercy.” Andrew Lang was confused on this point. He was at pains to defend the slaying of the Yellow Dwarf by Prince Ricardo in one of his own fairy-stories. ”I hate cruelty,” he said, ”. . . but that was in fair fight, sword in hand, and the dwarf, peace to his ashes! died in harness.”

Yet it is not clear that “fair fight” is less cruel than “fair judgement”; or that piercing a dwarf with a sword is more just than the execution of wicked kings and evil stepmothers—which Lang abjures: he sends the criminals (as he boasts) to retirement on ample pensions. That is mercy untempered by justice. It is true that this plea was not addressed to children but to parents and guardians, to whom Lang was recommending his own Prince Prigio and Prince Ricardo as suitable for their charges. It is parents and guardians who have classified fairystories as Juvenilia. And this is a small sample of the falsification of values that results. ....OFS

If this is your final position, then fine by me. If no mather the evidence, you persist in certain personal interpretation, it is your own right and choice and I respect that. However, if you imply there is "objective" (if I may say so) fault, then there is ground for discussion.

This is not a case where an 'objective' interpretation can ever over-ride a subjective response. As Child & SPM have stated, this act of Eru's causes a serious problem for some readers, as it does not sit with his stated attributes of mercy & compassion. It is an act which many readers find unpleasant, yet those same readers love the world Tolkien has created - its just they feel that Eru is the wrong God for that kind of world - as if the real God of Arda has been kidnapped & replaced by some vengeful psychopath.

And so, we return back to the beginning - if Eru didn't exist, & the world was basically a polytheistic one ruled over by the generally decent & well-meaning Valar who get things right most of the time but occasionally cock things up big time (like trying to destroy the invading Numenorean fleet & going a bit too far & accidentally drowning the Island) it would be fine - but bring in an 'all wise, all powerful, benevolent & loving' God who also wreaks havoc & mass slaughter & the problems start...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

This is not a case where an 'objective' interpretation can ever over-ride a subjective response.

Precisely. Which is why I feel that the current debate is never going to result in anything approaching agreement. You are both coming at it from entirely different perspectives, in which personal beliefs play a major part. Resolution is very unlikely in such circumstances.

As I have said before, the issue that I see as far more interesting is whether, and if so how, those of us who feel uncomfortable with Eru's actions here can reconcile that with our appreciation of the overall work.