The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[davem]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

What you're doing, davem, is promoting through your analysis of Tolkien and his Legendarium an atheist worldview.

The fact remains that there is one thing missing: you do not know J.R.R. Tolkien. You know his words through whatever media you've read them or had them repeated to you, the words of others about him, and you know yourself. Your reasons for posting this analysis are basely illogical and a disservice to a deceased man.

I was attempting an analysis of the Character of Eru - I don't see where any 'athiest worldview' (actually I'm not an athiest but an agnostic with Pagan leanings) comes into what I posted. I was trying to explore the nature of the character Eru, the role he plays in the narrative & the reason for his existence. I find the character superfluous in the main, serving little purpose.

I don't see what is gained by challenging my knowledge of Tolkien. I have studied & loved the works of Tolkien for 30 odd years. I cited a letter from Tolkien's own hand to his son in which he clearly stated that for the whole of the 1920's he neglected his faith, & pointed out that this is exactly the period when the Legendarium undergoes a major transformation towards the form in which we know it. I further pointed out that during the whole of the development of the Legendarium, from its early fairystory form in BoLT, through Tolkien's 'faithless' period of the 20's, & on through the period of development in the 30's when his faith returned, the role of Eru is very much that of a secondary character.

In short, my analysis was logical, backed up with source evidence, & an attempt to make sense of the role & purpose of the character Eru. I can't see a single shred of evidence for your assertion that anything I said constituted the promotion of an athiestic worldview (something which is entirely legal anyway). I avoided any comment on religion at all, merely noting that Tolkien's own faith (or lack of same) seemed to play no part in the depiction of of the character of Eru.

In short, I'm confused by what you say, but have a slight forboding of where this all may end......

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by davem

Eru, it seems, is only 'necessary' to the story as an explanation of how things originated (as far as BoLT is concerned) & in practical terms the Secondary world is not monotheistic, but polytheistic.

If you take it like this, then I'd say the secondary world is no-theistic (I don't want to say "atheistic", because this is not the right term nor it is true), because the Valar hardly intervene even during the First Age, much less after the departure of Noldor (not including the War of Wrath), and after the Fall, they lay down the rulership over Arda and then they just send the Istari (quoting Tolkien: "and perhaps with calling Eru for advice?").
But it is also about what you call "polytheistic": there are fourteen different powers, but they all stand together. Like the colors which make a rainbow, if I am to use a metaphore.

Originally Posted by davem

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

As a character in a story, well, why, he might be, for someone. But since we spent this whole thread speaking mostly about him, I wouldn't consider him as boring and gap filling as you say. And as Lal said, "he is". I don't suppose a Creator would fill his time in running around Beleriand and make Legolas-movie-like stunt moves.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

And just one more thing. Eru does trick Aule. He makes him think that he has smote down his Dwarves even before they have been given the Flame, but he hasn't:

Well, "trick" is such an awful word. But I know, I know. However this might be "trick", in the end Aulë has more joy than he'd possibly have if everything went fine and Eru agreed rightaway. I always considered this part to be a very beautiful part, since I first read it (and I was about... eh... 10 years old?), I always almost feel the joy of Aulë when his creation was not only allowed, but blessed.
I think also this "trick" has a good reason for it to be done:
Aulë is driven to make a choice, like Melkor did: Melkor wanted to have things of his own, but he did not come before Eru with them. I mean: when it was realized that he has his secret plans, he kept them to himself and "so what, I'm gonna sit on them like a hen on its eggs". Aulë chooses to admit he did something against Eru (please note now that I am now leaving out all the points about that Eru of course had this in plan, because it comes from him etc., but we are talking about Aulë as independant being - HE does not know, it seems). This is, I think, really about the learning which has been very nicely pointed out by some people here. Aulë is left to discover himself that Eru knows even about his secrets (for those who were interested in it, possibly proof that Eru is omnipotent!), and more important, he has to discover that Eru wants Aulë to surrender his works to him. Meaning: when Aulë surrenders the Dwarves to Eru, like "I will even destroy them if you wish", Eru tells okay, you gave them to me, you didn't want to make them just for yourself and hide them from me (which, if you admitted it to yourself, is impossible: "That you all know that I am Eru... no one can play any theme against me"). So you see, had Melkor asked Eru "could I tear down this mountain", "could I destroy these Lamps", Eru might even told him "yes, you can" (but more likely "no, you cannot", but then, when Melkor asked, he'd accept it and instead go and for example help Manwë with the winds, or sit and do nothing, or think of another thing to do).
Okay pals, now when I stop at what I just wrote, I think that I accidentally resolved the debate about what is or what is not "allowed" in M-E. I think this is pretty clear now. The dischord could have been OK, had Melkor not tooth and nail held it to himself. This is the slight difference, and it is really a slight difference, but I think it is important and I hope I hit the nail here: the definition of what is "good" and what is "bad" is defined by Eru; since he is All, he defines it. And I daresay he defines it on the basis of many factors, and the main is if the one goes with his plan = not that Eru had any plan like "Manwë goes there and Ulmo comes to him at 3 AM" but "can I go to Manwë at 7 PM? I want to make one more river here". In certain points, Eru might say "no" (for example, I think, to a question "Can I kill Manwë?" According to what I am able to guess from Tolkien's works, the latest possible answer would be "Ask him first", unless, of course, there was any reason why Manwë would have to be killed). As I said, I quite stand with the opinion that it is about learning. The reason why Eru has let the dischord and the evil to take place is, that he gives everyone (no "evil ones" or "good ones" distinction here during the process) a chance to learn. And on this basis the "good" and "evil" are defined. So Eru says: If you know what you are doing, I will bless it. (I know this sentence is quite simple and can be interpretated in many ways, but applying this Secondary World thesis on us here, who wants to learn, will find the right meaning in it. Who wants not, might argue until the end of this thread )

One last example for illustration: the all-known Gollum case. He had the possibility to learn, seemingly he did not take it. By the way, from this it also seems that learning has its time (in the mortal world).

[Lalwendë]

Do I get you correct SoN in that you mean we cannot 'know' Tolkien as we are not Tolkien? Yes I can see that of course (I often say it myself), but to counter it, biographical detail is one of the few things we do have to go on for a solid grounding in understanding, which is why it remains so popular today in literary analysis, like it or not.

Couple of relevant quotes from anarticle in today's Guardian about an art show by the Chapman brothers:

I have to admit to a thought crime. I found my own response to the work - moved, shocked, impressed by its craft - far more appropriate. I'm aware that this is not the right attitude. Artists have more or less given up thinking about what response a work might get. We live in more democratic times, in which the artist just makes the work, and the public make whatever they want of it.

So I should learn to relax. When the Chapman brothers' work comes to London, I plan to see it again, and this time I'll try to follow the dictums of postmodern art appreciation. Art is what you make it. I shall have my response to the work. And other people - even little people aged about seven - will have their response. All of our responses will be equally valid. I just hope I don't get that nagging feeling that, when it comes to works of art, some responses are more equally valid than others.

Gets you thinking this. Is there really a democracy inherent in Reader Response or is it a fraud? Does it actually have any qualitative purpose? Or is it just hot air leading to the need to democratise and intellectualise the opinions of seven year olds? Will it lead ultimately to utterly meaningless and trivial Art? We've already seen that happen in television, will literature go that way?

Anyway....

Onwards and upwards...

An atheist reading of Lord of the Rings would not only be permissible but it also works and the text supports that view too. Without any forcing. I'll do something on it one day. I've been tempted to do a Marxist reading. I know someone who has and it also works.

Of course now I'm going to say that this is all grist to the mill that Tolkien's work is in fact Universal, but that is not a popular opinion with everyone. Whereas Universal is correct to me - even under SoN's triple analysis theory, including the effect that the text has on many and diverse peoples. Universal also supports both Reader Response and paying close attention to text only (now before someone jumps in, I'm talking Lord of the Rings here). Universal stops fights, stops claimings and also has everyone skipping about merrily and holding hands. What could be better?

[davem]

Of course, Eru is at first the dominant figure in the story. He is 'replaced' by the Valar, who themselves subsequently fade in to the background. In the end the gods follow their father & are left behind. That is both tragedy & liberation for the peoples of Middle-earth.

Eru is 'necessary', in that things must have a source, but he is a pretty boring source & not much to write home about. Hence one can project all kinds of things onto him in terms of values & motives which are not present in the text.

The Valar are a much more interesting bunch altogether, their motives (& flaws) make them more real, (& more importantly more necessary from a literary pov). 'Perfect' is not interesting. In fact it seems from a reading of this thread that the only way Eru becomes interesting is when people start attributing things to him which call his perfection into question. Come to that Melkor is by far the most interesting of the Ainur because of his flaws. I suspect that this is another reason Eru is left in the background until something spectacular is needed (bit like Superman is only interesting when the Kryptonite is brought out - when he's at full strength he can do anything & there's no drama).

So, very boring character, & the reason I think he's best left out. The Valar are interesting because they're flawed, make mistakes & produce drama. Yet they themselves are too powerful when the story turns to focus on individual people in Middle-earth & have to be removed to the background.

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

Man facing the Dragon is moving & speaks to a deep part of our souls. Man trying to tiptoe around an angry Eru & avoid being smited is ultimately pathetic. So, for me the character of Eru doesn't work, & is the classic example of a deus ex machina which shatters the drama & undermines the tragedy.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

By a few logical conceits I could say that you are accusing me of being Evil, of being the Serpent. Or am I just playing that role right now, on the Barrow-downs, vis-a-vis a Faerie tale?

Are you quite sure that the one is very much different from the other?

As I recall, the rites of most, if not all religions of the ancient world would revolve around, or at least include ceremonies where the priest was understood to assume the role of the god, often by assuming elements of his appearance (i.e. the Anubis mask in the ceremonies to prepare the dead of Egypt for the afterlife), hence to "play the role" of a god is, at a fundamental level, intrisically related to the worship of that god...

...But I kid, of course.

Originally Posted by davem

The reason the Akallabeth seems like an 'attrocity' is that what happens is essentially unfair because Eru is too powerful & its not a fair fight. He shouldn't have done what he did.

No, the Numenoreans should not have done what they did.

Originally Posted by davem

The Numenoreans basically didn't want to die (who does?) & that's what drove them.

Rejecting the Gift of Men (as always ) and turning away from God. The Tragedy of the Akallabeth.

Originally Posted by davem

If the Fall of Numenor had been a natural disaster it would have been awe-inspiring & humbling - man brought down by impersonal nature.

If that had been the case, it would merely have been dull.

Originally Posted by davem

One cannot rationalise the behaviour of Eru & make it equal 'good'.

I would have to disagree.

Originally Posted by davem

Man trying to tiptoe around an angry Eru & avoid being smited is ultimately pathetic.

That, I think, is essentially the point. Man, whatever the extent of his works, ultimately IS pathetic next to the glory of God.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Neurion

If that had been the case, it would merely have been dull.

I have to disagree with this. There are many natural disasters in the world today and we could describe none of them as 'dull'. Of course some people ascribe them to God but I do not (the only tragedies I ascribe to 'God' are wars and acts of terror and hatred driven by religious fervour - and even these are driven by people in extreme mental states rather than any 'God' I know). The Boxing Day Tsunami for example was no less tragic than 9/11 or 7/7 - the former caused by the plates of the Earth moving, the latter by an over-abundance of duty to God.

Interestingly the impetus behind the Killer Wave came from Tolkien's dreams of an all-engulfing wave, something which seems to loom large in the collective conscience of a lot of people today. Is this due to the rising sea levels that are threatening our very existence? To the horrors felt by seeing well-known tragedies such as the Boxing Day Tsuanmi and the New Orleans flood? Or do we share collective memories of older floods? There is a long tradition in Britain of flood myths, and archaeologists think these may have stemmed from real floods, from the cutting off of Britain after the Ice Age, from our genuine drowned lands, from the temporal merelands that once ran along our coasts... I'm sure this also true of other cultures, I know it is in Japan, France, Ireland etc.

So if Tolkien had merely written of a Killer Flood and not explicitly said Eru was behind it then it would have been just as effective, just as tragic. It would have given scope for people to wonder if Eru really was behind it (and some people ascribe seemingly every decision made in LotR to Eru) anyway.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

...in short words, "Now it is a strange thing, but things that are good to have and days that are good to spend are soon told about, and not much to listen to; while things that are incomfortable, palpitating, and even gruesome, may make a good tale, and take a deal of telling anyway." (The Hobbit)

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Neurion

No, the Numenoreans should not have done what they did.

Originally Posted by Neurion

I would have to disagree.

These where both replies to Davem's post and I would like to ask the simple question: Why?

[davem]

The problem of Eru.

And it is. Is M-e monotheistic or polytheistic? It can't be both. the simple answer is that it is monotheistic - except Eru doesn't do very much after Ainulindule, & the world is effectively ruled by the Valar. So for 99% of the Sil we have a polytheistic world. In fact, in the early versions the Valar are called Gods, marry & have children. Until the invention of the Second Age & Eru's intervention in the destruction of Numenor Eru plays no part in the tale. And the point is he might as well not have existed. Even in the destruction of Numenor he is not necessary - the Valar could have destroyed the Numenorean fleet. The intervention is equivalent to Tom coming to the Barrow & instead of dealing with the Wight himself shouting for his dad to come & sort it out. Dad appears, a larger & more powerful version of Tom himself, capering & spouting poetry, & totals the Wight (along with half the Old Forest & most of Bree).

In short, we don't need Eru as part of the story. If Ainulindale had begun 'There were the Singers, & they sang The Great Song which brought the worlds into being...' the effect on the story would have been negligible.

Eru is a character who Tolkien attempts to make use of, & he is never more than a plot device. He can't be used without devastating effect, so he is hardly used at all & when he is used he replaces the Valar.

This is why attempts to analyse Eru's motives & character always fail. He propounds the themes or the Music, gives life to the Dwarves & the Children, destroys Numenor & that's basically it. We are not told anything about his personality because he doesn't actually have one & could, as I said, have been entirely replaced by the Valar without any loss to the Secondary World.

This is why I say one cannot rationalise the behaviour of Eru & make it good - though one can attribute all kinds of things to him, in order to make him 'good', but if one takes what Tolkien actually gives us, we have almost nothing to build on. It may be true that

Man, whatever the extent of his works, ultimately IS pathetic next to the glory of God.

But we are not talking (at least I'm not) about God, but about the character Eru. I can't think of any point at which Eru displays compassion, mercy, tolerance. He rarely displays wisdom ('Of course you can enter into Arda, Melkor!')

What he does display is pride, lack of compassion & brute force. In the end, as I say, he is no more than a plot device, & an unnecessary one at that.

The Numenor story as 'allegorical'? Interesting. 'Elendil' contains the Elvish word for Star, 'Anarion' Sun & 'Isildur' Moon, so it containing all the elements of an allegory, a creation myth. Star, Sun & Moon gods come to the Earth form a place 'outside', bringing civilisation & the Arts. etc, etc - which was how I first read it.

[Son of Númenor]

In short, we don't need Eru as part of the story. If Ainulindale had begun 'There were the Singers, & they sang The Great Song which brought the worlds into being...' the effect on the story would have been negligible.

How could the story exist without input?

The creation of the Valar is the input needed for Smeagol to exert energy towards re-claiming the Ring on Mt. Doom.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I think that its a dangerous business to try and pin down theological theories on Eru, the Valar and anything the legendarium, really. People tend to forget that Tolkien was not a Bible scholar* and so it would be unfair to try and fit a lot of theological ideas into his legends.

Tolkien's Illuvatar may well have his roots in many legends as well as the Biblical accounts, as davem has pointed out he had a similar name to Odin from Norse. Tolkien's expertise were in language and legends and we can't expect him to have all the answers to all the most difficult questions of life the universe and everything. The fall of Numenor, then, may be derived from the Atlantis legend which does include an arrogant people plotting war against the gods and so some harsh punishment had to be dealt out.

To say that Tolkien's Eru is some how a picture of his beliefs of God is a dangerous thing to do because here we have Eru placed in a legend that had nothing to do with the Jewish God and so to pin ideas of 'God is a meanie' or 'The Numenorians had every right to do such and such' is not a good road. If we want to find out the motives behind Eru or the Numenorians it might be better to look into the Atlantis legend and see what it says about it. I don't think that Tolkien's personal beliefs came into it and I think he just wanted to tell a story here. It would be like looking at the killing of Balder by the trickery of Loki and then asking a Jew or Christian, "Why would your God allow that?"

At least, that's what I thought anyway...

*Okay, neither was C.S. Lewis who seemed to get his head around complex theologies, but that's not my point... so... ignore that fact.

[Lalwendë]

Exactly!

There is the distinct danger too that if one person strongly associates Eru with God (their God) then when someone comes along and criticises or puts an alternate view it is sometimes seen as Blasphemy! (the ! is important) and they will be Offended. But people have every right to question a character in a book, no matter what anyone else associates with it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

How could the story exist without input?

The creation of the Valar is the input needed for Smeagol to exert energy towards re-claiming the Ring on Mt. Doom.

But why is it necessary for the Valar to have been 'created' - they could just as easily have been the creators themselves. If Eru can exist without any origin so could the Valar. What i don't see is the necessity of Eru to the story. He doesn't seem to serve any purpose that couldn't be supplied by the very slightest alteration to the nature of the Valar themselves & given the tiny part he plays I don't see that he is actually necessary.

One can only speculate that Tolkien, as a monotheist, felt the need to have a single supreme deity, even when the plot did not require it - maybe he just felt it should be that way. However, given the dominant role of the 'gods' in the Legendarium the place left for Eru was tiny, & when he did appear he tended to devastate whatever he came into contact with. Its easy to read an inner conflict in Tolkien in this 'twin powers' scenario. The Pagan legends he loved had Gods, the Religion he followed had a single God. In the Legendarium the two powers sit uncomfortably - for Eru to intervene in Numenor the Valar have to be (voluntarily) sidelined, when the Valar return, Eru is sidelined. Of course, bringing in Eru merely to devastate the planet doesn't serve to improve his reputation - they might as well have nuked the place.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by davem

But why is it necessary for the Valar to have been 'created' - they could just as easily have been the creators themselves. If Eru can exist without any origin so could the Valar.

That's a good point. In many of the traditional mythologies the setting of the first actions are there already: a host of deities just are (being) and then they will perform a thing or two, resulting in the creation of a middle-earth on the way.

In the beginning of the Ainulindalë Tolkien writes that the Ainur were the offspring of his thought (God, I still hate that masculine form here, more than earlier indeed). I think it's not too far-fetched to see the influence of the "second creation" myth in the Bible in this (in the beginning of John) and the overall monotheistic view overshadowing the early mythologies the prof wished to renew in a way.

If Eru can exist without any origin, so could the Valar

In the early mythologies, yes, but within thinking that is twisted with monotheism, not. I think here the prof took sides. It was not probably very common of him to do that but one can guess that at the roots of one's most fundamental metaphysical beliefs it's hard to stay calm and not bring one's own beliefs into the play?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

The Pagan legends he loved had Gods, the Religion he followed had a single God. In the Legendarium the two powers sit uncomfortably -

Perhaps...

Tolkien stated in the forward to the Lord of the Rings that he wrote it mostly for his own enjoyment. To me, this suggests that he would probably have wanted to get all (or as many as he could) of the things he loved about mythology and the Bible and mix them into one big bucket of fun!
I myself have experienced the process of taking different aspects of different things to build a pseudo mythology. Take all the bits you like and not the bits you hate and you have something that you yourself will enjoy, and if others like it then that is an added bonus.
I think the fall of Numenor is a perfect example of this; the mixture of a famous myth and the concepts of Judaic derived beliefs. I think there are many other examples of Tolkien wanting to get both and finding a way.

Certain stories from myth and from The Bible are present side by side. An interesting side note to make is that in one of (I think it was) Paul's letters he quotes a Cretan Prophet who said that 'Cretans are all liars and drunkards' or something and then he affirms that what he said was true. Perhaps Tolkien's intention was to sort of explore the ways in which something doesn't have to have the label 'God' or 'Christian' or anything in order for it to be good or true.
An american writer called Rob Bell once said,

"Is the greatest truth about the Adam and Eve story the fact that it happened or that it happens? The story resonates with us because we've all been there, we've all taken the 'fruit' we've all lost our way. Or the story of the Exodus; a lot of us have been in some kind of slavery or trouble and we've been brought out. It happened then... it happens now."

I think the same concept can be seen in Tolkine's work. Some stories can connect with people and some concepts can move us. Just look at the Barrow Downs alone. In the end, Tolkien's Legendarium is a fantastically enjoyable tale that seems to affect and keep affecting people, weather your just reading The Hobbit or are on your tenth History of Middle Earth.

After that random tangent...

But it all comes down to the fact that the Akallabêth was a story. Like the story of Atlantis. Its a story about some people who get greedy and want more. Again, if Akallabêth is framed after Atlantis we can't just copy and paste the God of The Bible and expect him to fit perfectly.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

In the early mythologies, yes, but within thinking that is twisted with monotheism, not. I think here the prof took sides. It was not probably very common of him to do that but one can guess that at the roots of one's most fundamental metaphysical beliefs it's hard to stay calm and not bring one's own beliefs into the play?

The interesting thing to me is the use Tolkien makes of Eru - very little in fact. He seems to be there because Tolkien felt he ought to be. Yet his major appearances are, first, the propounding of the Themes & the Destruction of Numenor. But as 'creator' he seems more of an artist - his great concern seems not to be that what is produced be good in any moral sense, but rather that it be 'beautiful'. To the extent that morality comes into it at all it seems to be Eru's annoyance with Morgoth's attempted spoiling of his 'opera'. Eru doesn't seem at all concerned with the suffering that will result on the human/Elven level from allowing Morgoth's dissonances into the creation, only with making sure its impressive, & redounds to his glory. It must be impressive, however much blood is shed. When he pops into Arda to sort out the Numenoreans its the same thing - do something impressive. Yet, the character is not necessary to the plot. So why leave it in? Yes the presence of Eru serves to make the world monotheistic (of you look hard enough) but it reduces him to an obessessed artist prone to hissy fits -when he can be bothered to intervene at all.

One begins to suspect that the real reason for the tradition introduced in the Athrabeth that one day Eru would enter into Arda personally has less to do with the desire to make the Legendarium conform to Christian belief (he stated the idea was too close to a parody of Christianity) & more to do with the idea of giving the character more depth & a real purpose within the Legendarium. Only if Eru plays such a significant role in the story does he have a real reason for keeping him around. Eru may work in the simpler world of the Lost Tales, but as far as the more mature developed legendarium is concerned he sticks out like a sore thumb, like some petulant Thunder God cowing the neanderthals...

EDIT

Its interesting that Eru is one of the few characters from BoLT who survives virtually unchanged throughout the Legendarium. All the others have time spent on them, they evolve, deepen & become more integrated into the Legendarium as it matures. Eru remains, until the Athrabeth, this simple (not to say simplistic) figure - as if Sauron had remained Tevildo, Prince of Cats. This seems to lend more weight to his being very much a secondary character, not worth developing, & used only when the plot required some spectacular event like the destruction of Numenor. Yet this very appearance reinforces his primitive nature. He is increasingly out of place in the Legendarium & Tolkien seems finally to acknowledge this & attempts to make something of the character. Yet the best he can do is produce a 'parody' of the Christian story. I wonder how long the character would have survived. He has to change if he is to remain in the story, yet changing him makes him into a parody of something Tolkien would have been very uncomfortable parodying. Perhaps Eru's fate would ultimately be to have gone the way of Tevildo, & be cahnged into something entirely, or to have gone the way of the three odd figures in BoLT, who were personifications of Days, Hours & Minutes & be lost altogether ...

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by me

The Greek word kalos / kalon meant something like the "true-beautiful-good", all in one. It's the thing fex. Plato discusses and the one only the scholastics (in 13-14th century) opened conceptually by saying that in ratione (intellectually, or conceptually) one might divide these three into parts but in re (in truth-beaty-goodness, in fact) they are the one and the same.

Sorry. I forgot the most important thing - even though it might be obvious to some of you. This kalos, the noblest or highest of the ideas by Plato was converged through the earlier neo-platonic St. Augustine to mark God and by his word was canonised as being the One of the Christians. So the train of thought is pretty understandable here?

EDIT: Oh, stupid me! I managed to "edit" my last post and this it what became of it... Darn imbecile I am! Most of my post lost...

But what I tried to say in my earlier post was that Tolkien probably knew the tradition of kalos and used it to his purposes. And most unfortunately we can see this triad again in Nazism where truth was good and beautiful too... I do not say we couldn't construct the trio with some "nicer" ends in mind, but the history of that looks pretty dark indeed...

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by davem

But as 'creator' he seems more of an artist - his great concern seems not to be that what is produced be good in any moral sense, but rather that it be 'beautiful'. To the extent that morality comes into it at all it seems to be Eru's annoyance with Morgoth's attempted spoiling of his 'opera'. Eru doesn't seem at all concerned with the suffering that will result on the human/Elven level from allowing Morgoth's dissonances into the creation, only with making sure its impressive, & redounds to his glory. It must be impressive, however much blood is shed. When he pops into Arda to sort out the Numenoreans its the same thing - do something impressive.

I often view Eru this way as well. I find him a rather disturbing character; not like "God" at all (though he is a lot more honest than God in that he doesn't claim to be all-loving and yet still allows suffering of the innocent). I completely fail how anyone (including Tolkien) can make such a comparison between Eru and God even though Eru gives out the Gift of Men and does not throw Melkor out of the Timeless Halls for attempting to defy him. Giving Death as punishment and throwing Satan out of Heaven are two of the acts that define our understanding of the Christian God, after all. So I don't see the similarity between them. Eru may be Almighty, but he is not omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent, and neither gives out a moral system for his creatures to follow nor follows one himself.

But even though he plays such a small part in the events (I tend to think it's so that he won't be anthropomorphized by his creatures who see him act), I still find Eru to be a very compelling character just for his inexorability, which is one of the few things he does promise. You can't attempt to rebel against his Will forever; you'll find your place in the end. (This idea also goes directly against the Christian God's statements about eternal damnation and whatnot.) I can definitely see your viewpoint that Eru is hardly necessary to the story and the it's the Valar who "really" run things, de facto. But I would be disappointed in the story if the Valar were the highest powers; they're even more foolish and negligent than Eru seems (or pretends) to be. I have little liking for them. Plus, "Melkor vs. the Valar" is annoyingly dualistic to me. Having Eru, the One, in the picture allows the story to be viewed more monistically.

I also agree with you in that Tolkien felt a conflict between his beliefs and the story he wanted to write. But I don't see why this is a bad thing. To me, Nordic values and Christian vision (Eru is not like the Christian God, but his "feel" is Abrahamic, I will definitely admit that) put together make for a stronger metaphysical background than either would alone. However, that's simply the way I see things.

And I still don't think that the Downfall of Númenor was a direct punishment. It actually got Men away from the arbitrary rule of the Valar.

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by davem

Is M-e monotheistic or polytheistic? It can't be both.

It is neither. Middle-earth is monolatristic.

To continue some of the things I was talking about above: the uncertainty his creatures have of Eru's plans with Arda, and their uncertainty of his "goodness", is what allows estel to exist. And estel does seem to be a concept that Eru's devotees take seriously (apparently because they feel he himself does so). It is only because they know so little of Eru that the request to trust him is so hard to fulfill. Estel is like "a fool's hope"; unlike the Christian, the Elf or Man has no assurance that their faith will be acknowledged and their desires for eternity fulfilled. It is taking the ultimate "leap of faith" because it is so utterly blind (in fact, this concept of estel really makes me wonder whether Tolkien ever read Kierkegaard; estel seems to be right in the vein of that philosopher's ideas of absurdity and trusting in God). So yes, I think there is a "theological" reason for Eru's aloofness. Otherwise, trusting him would just be too easy and make too much sense. If Eru is nearly as much of an "artist" as he seems to be, of course he wouldn't want to fit into that mold

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by davem

But why is it necessary for the Valar to have been 'created' - they could just as easily have been the creators themselves. If Eru can exist without any origin so could the Valar. What i don't see is the necessity of Eru to the story. He doesn't seem to serve any purpose that couldn't be supplied by the very slightest alteration to the nature of the Valar themselves & given the tiny part he plays I don't see that he is actually necessary.

Music is not input - it is the synthesis of learning and action.

Tolkien understood that the only way to begin a proper allegory is for a whole to be divided.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

To me, Nordic values and Christian vision (Eru is not like the Christian God, but his "feel" is Abrahamic, I will definitely admit that) put together make for a stronger metaphysical background than either would alone. However, that's simply the way I see things.

Of course. The problem I have with the character is its 'primitiveness' & 'simplicity' (in a bad sense). The character lacks the necessary depth & complexity to sit well in the developed Legendarium. I still feel this is Tolkien's motivation in the Athrabeth - not to bring the Legendarium into line with Christianity, but to try & salvage the character. To go back to the edit in my last post - if Tevildo had not evolved into Sauron he would either have had to be removed from the Legendarium altogether, or take on a role like Shelob.

Tolkien puts no real effort into developing the character because he doesn't need to - Eru's role is so minor that he might as well not exist other than as something that prevents things sliding into dualism. As long as there's something there which stops that happening (even though most readers will not care one way or the other, being caught up in the story) it doesn't really matter what that thing is - call if Eru & forget it. Yet it still becomes a problem as the Legendarium outgrows such simplistic figures & so Eru has either to be forgotten altogether, replaced, or changed into something else. The Athrabeth seems Tolkien's attempt to do just that.

Tolkien understood that the only way to begin a proper allegory is for a whole to be divided.

But its not an allegory. Its Art, & Art either works or it doesn't. And Eru isn't 'divided', he continues to exist, seperate from what he creates. Yet even conceding your point it still leaves Eru as a plot device rather than a fully developed character. He serves the purpose he is designed for & can then be safely forgotten. Say the Singers stepped forth from the Void, or sang themselves out of the Void & you have the same effect.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

Music is not input - it is the synthesis of learning and action.

Tolkien understood that the only way to begin a proper allegory is for a whole to be divided.

Music is more than learning and action... It is the truth of the universe as such as the mathematical ratios in music are the very same the universe is built upon. The pythaghoreans already thought that way and later even Boethius (on fourth century if I'm not remembering this wrongly) whom all the monks during the middle-ages were drawing their information from.
EDIT: Sorry again. That is one view from our shared past, not mine... I forgot to mention it...

The concept of dividing is also age-old. How many myths handle the primordial chaos or disarray being "ordered" by the gods / creative gods as their first act? One of our traditions says that this "ordering" is not random, but is based on music - and thence on mathematics. Tolkien surely knew that tradition as it's not an uninfluential one.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by davem

But its not an allegory. Its Art, & Art either works or it doesn't.

Would you care to elaborate this? Ars is tekhne, something that the humans can do, like know-how (to use an antique based but outdated term), things that can be taught and learned: skills, disciplines, technical stuff... If you're using the term 'art' in it's romantic version / meaning as something that is the contrary of the initial meaning - as something mystical, creative, personal, whatever - it's a different thing. But also an illusion, I'm afraid.

So who / what is an art? How it works or does not? (Sorry, it might be my broken English, but I really didn't catch your meaning here - I see what you're driving at, the arbitrariness - or whatever it is with proper English - of Eru in the whole, but how this discussion of art and it working or not is related to it?)

[Child of the 7th Age]

And it is. Is M-e monotheistic or polytheistic? It can't be both. the simple answer is that it is monotheistic - except Eru doesn't do very much after Ainulindule, & the world is effectively ruled by the Valar. So for 99% of the Sil we have a polytheistic world.

Basically what we have is a monotheistic world that has been "deserted" by its Creator. I believe Tolkien says as much somewhere in the Letters. Whoever or whatever god is in the Legendarium, he is normally very distant. There are so few times when Eru puts his finger in the pot.

I guess I really have two issues that haven't been addressed on this very long thread..... Here goes.

The situation in Numenor was really a mess. The description of blood offerings and the enslavement of many in Middle-earth in the Silm was pretty disgusting. Frankly, if I had been living in Middle-earth at that time and had seen what was happening, I would have begged and pleaded for anyone to make the situation go away, even if that meant the death of a lot of people (though drowning the island would never have entered my mind). We don't have numbers for what is happening here, but it sounds as if a large number of people were affected by the atrocities (and they were atrocities).

So assuming that there really was a need for all this to stop, what would the alternatives have been short of drowning the island? Swallowing up the ships would not have done the job in my opinion, since there was still Sauron sitting with the Ring on top of his little hill. Taking out Sauron somehow? That would be a possibility, but could Sauron be gotten rid of so easily since he had the Ring? (Would it have been possible for the Valar to destroy the Ring while leaving everything outside the Temple boundaries nice and tidy?) And even if you took out Sauron and the fleet, the whole infrastructure of the Temple system would exist. The people of Numenor had the knowledge and resources to remake the ships. I doubt their behavior would change. Could anything effective be done short of what was actually done? What I am asking us to do is to look beyond the question of who does the punishment and ask if there were alternatives as to what was done.

**********

Now regarding the whole issue of a natural disaster versus a punishment….. Yes a tsunami would flatten the isle, and Eru could keep his hands clean. But isn't there a wider question? Tolkien is raising a moral issue concerning the behavior of the men of Numenor. To me that judgment is central to the story, whether the judgment is made by Eru or by the author himself. Indeed, I would say that moral element is central to all Tolkien's stories on some level. If that is the case, wouldn't a punishment be necessary, whether you agree with the form that the punishment took or not? A freak weather event just doesn't cut it for me in the context of the Legendarium.

This is myth, and much of myth involves questions of “why” and judgments concerning behavior (gods may get some leeway re behavior, but not men). Ancient cultures from around the globe have stories about massive flooding; such stories almost always involve a judgment made by the unseen powers that rule the world. Such stories says as much about the insecurity of man, the fact that everything we have can be swept away in the blink of an eye (and I’m not just talking physical possessions here), as they do about the nature of the ruling gods. Almost always, the ancient floods are explained in terms of a punishment given out for immoral behavior. That is certainly true of Atlantis, which is the closest analogy to Numenor. The most prevalent reason cited for the destruction of Atlantis and the Atlantean culture were the misuse of power and the moral decay of the Atlanteans themselves. Secondary emphasis is placed on the wrath of the gods.

In this sense Tolkien is following in the steps of myth with his tale of Numenor. When we raise questions about a god committing an atrocity by unleashing the flood, we are reacting like men and women of the twenty-first century rather than adjusting our brain to the mythic paradigms that Tolkien proposes. Myth rarely judges the power of the gods. It merely describes what is a real fact: the gods have amazing power and can pull the rug out from beneath your feet whenever they choose to do so.

The problem with focusing attention only on the question of whether or not Eru is just is that it pulls our personal beliefs from the twenty-first century into the equation. For those posters who’ve been here a while, I can pretty well predict what side of this question they are going to take. It depends how they feel about "religion" in real life. (And undoubtedly, you folk could predict my own answer as well). To keep the discussion from going in circles like a dog chasing his tale, aren’t we better off trying to look at this story not merely in terms of modern political/religious sensitivities, or the believer versus non-believer framework, and instead think in terms of myth itself?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Child

The problem with focusing attention only on the question of whether or not Eru is just is that it pulls our personal beliefs from the twenty-first century into the equation. For those posters who’ve been here a while, I can pretty well predict what side of this question they are going to take. It depends how they feel about "religion" in real life. (And undoubtedly, you folk could predict my own answer as well). To keep the discussion from going in circles like a dog chasing his tale, aren’t we better off trying to look at this story not merely in terms of modern political/religious sensitivities, or the believer versus non-believer framework, and instead think in terms of myth itself?

And in arguing with myself I can only say we are 20th century readers of a book written by a 20th century man. The fact is we can only stomach what we can stomach. And what Eru does is too much. Well, too much not to be subject to our moral judgement. For all your points are true, Eru is responsible for his actions. Our ancestors burned people alive & felt it to be just - & it was. Yet we at the same time judge them harshly & call their actions barbaric.

The point is that Tolkien's heroes do not behave like our ancestors - they conform to our modern concepts of what heroes are & behave likewise. Now, the heroes of BoLT do behave in a more 'heroic' manner, but over time they develop into more 'modern' figures who we can relate to & sympathise with. Eru doesn't. He remains a simplistic 'jealous' deity, & is thus increasingly isolated within the Legendarium. The destruction of Numenor stands out as wrong because we don't think in that way anymore. Aragorn did not lead his armies on a crusade into Harad & embark on genocide, & while our ancestors may have approved of him doing so, we wouldn't.

[Aiwendil]

I'm a little behind in reading this thread - this is chiefly a response to Davem's post 133.

Davem wrote:

Is M-e monotheistic or polytheistic? It can't be both.

Why must it be either? Why must we analyze Tolkien's mythos as belonging to one class or the other? In my opinion, forcing a label onto the mythology (or implicitly forcing a label via an excluded middle) is not productive. Tolkien's world is what it is. Sure, in some ways, it resembles a monotheistic world-view and in other ways a polytheistic one - but this does not mean that it must be (in some fundamental or mystical way) truly one or the other.

In short, we don't need Eru as part of the story. If Ainulindale had begun 'There were the Singers, & they sang The Great Song which brought the worlds into being...' the effect on the story would have been negligible.

I must disagree. Eru's existence and role as the Creator does more than a simple analysis of his actions might suggest. His existence does much the same thing that the God of the Abrahamic religions does for the Judeo-Christo-Islamic world view; it puts everything else in the universe into an overarching moral and teleological framework. Eru's existence defines the moral good (which is, incidentally, why it doesn't make sense to ask whether Eru's actions are "right"). The Valar are imperfect and flawed beings. Insofar as they do (or endeavour to do) good throughout the story, they are serving Eru. Now, if Eru did not exist, we would merely have a story about flawed 'gods' acting in whatever ways they wished; it would be, in that regard, like Norse or Greek mythology. Eru's existence adds an element to the mythology that is lacking in either of those counterparts. Now, I'm not saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing; that's a separate question (though personally I think it is good for the story) - but it is not nothing.

The idea of a God providing a moral framework may make some people uncomfortable. Indeed, I'm a non-theist, so the world-view presented in Tolkien's Legendarium is very different from that which I believe to be true. But when I think about the Legendarium, I must do so on its terms.

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by davem

But its not an allegory. Its Art, & Art either works or it doesn't. And Eru isn't 'divided', he continues to exist, seperate from what he creates. Yet even conceding your point it still leaves Eru as a plot device rather than a fully developed character. He serves the purpose he is designed for & can then be safely forgotten. Say the Singers stepped forth from the Void, or sang themselves out of the Void & you have the same effect.

But Art does not step out of the Void. In Tolkien's case it is a process of creation which involves input (the unfoldment of reality as Tolkien perceived it), synthesis of that perception of unfoldment into word-thoughts, and output (the act of writing). The words which Tolkien creates can thus be seen not as Creation per se but as Metaphor. When one realizes that any literary criticism of Tolkien is a process of Artistic Creation (viewing the unfoldment of reality in the Legendarium, forming word-concepts, and writing) one realizes that it cannot be analyzed deductively or inductively. It can only be analyzed through metaphor.

[davem]

Aiwendil But doesn't that require Eru to be 'moral'? In short he is not - not as he is described. He's just there, sparks things off, & disappears. The next thing we see of him is (unless this is merely a Dwarvish creation myth) is giving life to the Dwarves & then he pops up & trashes Numenor. In short, the character is not up to the role he is given in the Legendarium. He remains a plot device, he doesn't fulfil the role of providing a moral & ethical heart to the story, an ideal to be emulated, he is simply something which is intended to fill that gap - & as long as Tolkien can point to something within the story which does that he seems happy to forget all about it & get on with telling the story.

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

So assuming that there really was a need for all this to stop, what would the alternatives have been short of drowning the island? Swallowing up the ships would not have done the job in my opinion, since there was still Sauron sitting with the Ring on top of his little hill. Taking out Sauron somehow? That would be a possibility, but could Sauron be gotten rid of so easily since he had the Ring? (Would it have been possible for the Valar to destroy the Ring while leaving everything outside the Temple boundaries nice and tidy?) And even if you took out Sauron and the fleet, the whole infrastructure of the Temple system would exist. The people of Numenor had the knowledge and resources to remake the ships. I doubt their behavior would change. Could anything effective be done short of what was actually done? What I am asking us to do is to look beyond the question of who does the punishment and ask if there were alternatives as to what was done.

I did look at such alternatives earlier in this thread, and also failed to come up with any good ones; I too believe the story is about how a people painted themselves into a very bad corner, chiefly because they were proud and thoughtless and had no idea what they were getting themselves into by bringing Sauron to their island. If we want to read it in moral terms, we can almost view Eru's actions as merciful in that they fulfilled Amandil's wish for Men to be "delivered from Sauron the Deceiver". There was no easier way, and it's because the Númenóreans brought this upon themselves and their children. Foolishness kills. The only reason I don't hugely bother to see it this way is because I myself do not see Eru as a moral figure, and so don't bother to explain his actions in that light. But I did offer that sort of answer earlier for those who do see it that way.

Originally Posted by davem

Of course. The problem I have with the character is its 'primitiveness' & 'simplicity' (in a bad sense). The character lacks the necessary depth & complexity to sit well in the developed Legendarium. I still feel this is Tolkien's motivation in the Athrabeth - not to bring the Legendarium into line with Christianity, but to try & salvage the character. To go back to the edit in my last post - if Tevildo had not evolved into Sauron he would either have had to be removed from the Legendarium altogether, or take on a role like Shelob.

Tolkien puts no real effort into developing the character because he doesn't need to - Eru's role is so minor that he might as well not exist other than as something that prevents things sliding into dualism. As long as there's something there which stops that happening (even though most readers will not care one way or the other, being caught up in the story) it doesn't really matter what that thing is - call if Eru & forget it. Yet it still becomes a problem as the Legendarium outgrows such simplistic figures & so Eru has either to be forgotten altogether, replaced, or changed into something else. The Athrabeth seems Tolkien's attempt to do just that.

Odd. Because when I reread the earliest version of the Ainulindalë some time ago, my breath was taken away by how different Eru's character was. If anything, Ilúvatar was the character who changed the most over the varying traditions of that story. In the first version, he preached long messages about how Melkor's "ugliness" would bring forth "beauty" and that it would be the thing that made the Music most worthwhile. We are basically given a long sermon on theodicy in the first version. But as time goes on, Tolkien takes out huge sections of Eru's dialogue, making him a much more aloof figure whose motives are far more unclear. If Eru seems one-sided and overly mysterious, it's fairly obviously because Tolkien came to want him to be that way. He was actually more like the Christian God in the beginning than he afterwards became. Eru became more unique of a figure, not less of one.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Okay pals, now when I stop at what I just wrote, I think that I accidentally resolved the debate about what is or what is not "allowed" in M-E. I think this is pretty clear now. The dischord could have been OK, had Melkor not tooth and nail held it to himself. This is the slight difference, and it is really a slight difference, but I think it is important and I hope I hit the nail here: the definition of what is "good" and what is "bad" is defined by Eru; since he is All, he defines it. And I daresay he defines it on the basis of many factors, and the main is if the one goes with his plan = not that Eru had any plan like "Manwë goes there and Ulmo comes to him at 3 AM" but "can I go to Manwë at 7 PM? I want to make one more river here". In certain points, Eru might say "no" (for example, I think, to a question "Can I kill Manwë?" According to what I am able to guess from Tolkien's works, the latest possible answer would be "Ask him first", unless, of course, there was any reason why Manwë would have to be killed). As I said, I quite stand with the opinion that it is about learning. The reason why Eru has let the dischord and the evil to take place is, that he gives everyone (no "evil ones" or "good ones" distinction here during the process) a chance to learn. And on this basis the "good" and "evil" are defined. So Eru says: If you know what you are doing, I will bless it. (I know this sentence is quite simple and can be interpretated in many ways, but applying this Secondary World thesis on us here, who wants to learn, will find the right meaning in it. Who wants not, might argue until the end of this thread).

If I understand you correctly, I agree. And the reason it is good, bad, right, wrong, etc. in Eru's eyes seems to be whether it is possible according to his Will or not. Melkor and Aulë tried to pit themselves against the impossible, whether they knew it or not. If, like Aulë, Melkor had been willing to acknowledge the impossibility of his deeds, there would have been no problems for himself or anyone else, I think; or they would be quite lessened (there was, after all, still strife between the Dwarves and the Elves). But at least the Dwarves had been made into a coherent creation, and did not remain a vain imagining like Melkor's plans. If you go the route of vain imaginings, you will have to take a very long, hard road to get back into right thinking. This was the journey Melkor chose to take. Perhaps, in the long run, the fullness of his experience would give him more insight into the Will of Eru than he otherwise could have had, but it had to be bought with his own suffering and that of others.

Moderators: considering how off the main topic this thread has gone, it would probably be a good idea to split it now and name the new thread "Eru Ilúvatar" or something.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I have to disagree with this.

Feel free to.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

IThere are many natural disasters in the world today and we could describe none of them as 'dull'.

In a historical sense, such things are VERY dull. A brief interlude of blind nature interfering in the vastly more interesting sphere of human affairs. Not even worthy of notice, really.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

IOf course some people ascribe them to God but I do not (the only tragedies I ascribe to 'God' are wars and acts of terror and hatred driven by religious fervour - and even these are driven by people in extreme mental states rather than any 'God' I know).

Again, I would have to disagree, both with the assertion that such events are essentially tragic in nature and that "extreme mental states" are inevitably the cause.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

IThe Boxing Day Tsunami for example was no less tragic than 9/11 or 7/7 - the former caused by the plates of the Earth moving, the latter by an over-abundance of duty to God.

Not an especially good comparison, I must say. On the one hand, you have a random and pointless act of nature. On the other, the latest major salvo in a very old war.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

IInterestingly the impetus behind the Killer Wave came from Tolkien's dreams of an all-engulfing wave, something which seems to loom large in the collective conscience of a lot of people today. Is this due to the rising sea levels that are threatening our very existence?

Since such evidence seems yet to have surfaced, I'd have to assume that the answer is a fairly defintive no.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

ISo if Tolkien had merely written of a Killer Flood and not explicitly said Eru was behind it then it would have been just as effective, just as tragic.

Again, it would not have. Such as it is, the destruction of Numenor recalls the Biblical flood in its parallel tale of over-weening human pride and abandonment of God, and thus derives its power. As a "killer flood" it would merely have been just another freak act of nature such as tend to occur every now and then, devoid of any emotional power save in the glorification of victimhood as seems to be the fashion these days.

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

These where both replies to Davem's post and I would like to ask the simple question: Why?

Because they were wrong, simply enough. Because they violated the divinely-established conditions that had been set upon the men of Numenor.

Originally Posted by davem

But we are not talking (at least I'm not) about God, but about the character Eru. I can't think of any point at which Eru displays compassion, mercy, tolerance. He rarely displays wisdom ('Of course you can enter into Arda, Melkor!').

And how is it that you know beyond doubt that this was not wisdom?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

The problem I have with the character is its 'primitiveness' & 'simplicity' (in a bad sense). The character lacks the necessary depth & complexity to sit well in the developed Legendarium

I hear you.
Perhaps the reason for Tolkien's lack of development of Eru is due to a sort of fear of getting it wrong or causing too much controvacy. To go into the character too deeply might make him too obviously an allegory of the God of the Bible and may have alienated some readers who just wanted to get down to the excitement, adventure and really wild things.
Now, the writers of the Bible seemed less interested in proving weather or not this God exists and were more interested in telling us what this God was like and who he is. The Bible is a long book and there are many aspects to the, shall we say for arguments sake, character of God. As I said, Tolkien wasn't a scholar and for every characteristic he might try to highlight, there might be an odd learned man or two to tell him how wrong he was. Polytheism is much easier to get away with on this level because, certainly in Tolkien's day, it wasn't as widely studied as Biblical theology and so to take assumptions and liberties in the characters of the Valar was much easier and less liable to be open to criticism.

Just a thought.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Hookbill

I hear you.
Perhaps the reason for Tolkien's lack of development of Eru is due to a sort of fear of getting it wrong or causing too much controvacy. To go into the character too deeply might make him too obviously an allegory of the God of the Bible and may have alienated some readers who just wanted to get down to the excitement, adventure and really wild things.

I think it's that Eru simply had no place in The Hobbit or LotR. However he does have a place, putting aside all other arguments about if he was necessary, in The Silmarillion, as that book deals with cosmology and creation. Myths have Gods, so at the most simple level, Tolkien gives us some. But I do think he found the Valar inherently more interesting which is why he concentrated more on them; and even beyond this, he found the Children most interesting of all, because around 90% of his work must be devoted to them. Tolkien said Lord of the Rings is not a 'religious' work, which is why it didn't 'do' to make too much of Gods. They didn't fit his story nor did they fit what he was saying with this epic tale, which is essentially about the amazing, mind-blowing struggles of the Children.

Originally Posted by Neurion

Feel free to.

In a historical sense, such things are VERY dull. A brief interlude of blind nature interfering in the vastly more interesting sphere of human affairs. Not even worthy of notice, really.

Again, I would have to disagree, both with the assertion that such events are essentially tragic in nature and that "extreme mental states" are inevitably the cause.

Not an especially good comparison, I must say. On the one hand, you have a random and pointless act of nature. On the other, the latest major salvo in a very old war.

Since such evidence seems yet to have surfaced, I'd have to assume that the answer is a fairly defintive no.

Again, it would not have. Such as it is, the destruction of Numenor recalls the Biblical flood in its parallel tale of over-weening human pride and abandonment of God, and thus derives its power. As a "killer flood" it would merely have been just another freak act of nature such as tend to occur every now and then, devoid of any emotional power save in the glorification of victimhood as seems to be the fashion these days.

Because they were wrong, simply enough. Because they violated the divinely-established conditions that had been set upon the men of Numenor.

And how is it that you know beyond doubt that this was not wisdom?

First off, aside from it being ever so slightly sick to suggest that natural disasters are not worthy of notice (get caught up in one and you might think differently when other people are ignoring your cries for help), it's not even true that they do not make history, as they do.

And the 'glorification of victimhood' is some thing often trawled out by the extremes of right and left wing media these days just as a way of sying "Oh look at us, we're so rational we fail entirely to be moved by the deaths of other humans". It's quite frankly sad. Feeling sympathy, pity etc for those caught up in natural disaster is what separates us from the Apes - our inherent abilty to emphaphise, which is why Tolkien makes so much of this in his books; in contrast the Orcs do not empathise, displaying distict sociopathic tendencies - as lack of empathy is a common sign of that mental illness. It's not even a modern phenomenon. On March 11th 1864 a dam burst in the hills above Sheffield and the flood killed hundreds of people - the newspapers were full of stories for months afterwards (of great benefit to those if us who are interested in this as we have lots of documentary evidence to look at).

Oh, and the conditions set upon the Men of Numenor were not set by Eru but by the Valar.

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by Neurion

In a historical sense, such things are VERY dull. A brief interlude of blind nature interfering in the vastly more interesting sphere of human affairs. Not even worthy of notice, really.

I kind of get your point, but you are not the arbiter of what is emotionally moving. For example, I think that Númenor's end was extremely tragic (more so than any other scene in the entire Silmarillion), but my opinions above outline my belief that it came about through (mostly) natural means. But if you want to believe otherwise, I won't stop you.

Originally Posted by Neurion

And how is it that you know beyond doubt that this was not wisdom?

No kidding. I oppose tacking "wisdom" or "foolishness" onto Eru for the same reason that I resist attempts to tack morality on him.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

Odd. Because when I reread the earliest version of the Ainulindalë some time ago, my breath was taken away by how different Eru's character was. If anything, Ilúvatar was the character who changed the most over the varying traditions of that story. In the first version, he preached long messages about how Melkor's "ugliness" would bring forth "beauty" and that it would be the thing that made the Music most worthwhile. We are basically given a long sermon on theodicy in the first version. But as time goes on, Tolkien takes out huge sections of Eru's dialogue, making him a much more aloof figure whose motives are far more unclear. If Eru seems one-sided and overly mysterious, it's fairly obviously because Tolkien came to want him to be that way. He was actually more like the Christian God in the beginning than he afterwards became. Eru became more unique of a figure, not less of one.

.

What it seems to do is make him more of a cypher than he originally was. If Tolkien is trying to distinguish Eru from God (& as I noted before these changes seem to correspond exactly to the period of the 20's when 'out of wickedness & sloth' he almost ceased to practice his religion) then we have him seeking to produce a non Christian deity who will keep the mythology 'monotheistic' & stop it being 'dualistic' while removing him to such a distance that he effectively becomes little more than a get out of jail free card.

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

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

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Neurion

In a historical sense, such things are VERY dull. A brief interlude of blind nature interfering in the vastly more interesting sphere of human affairs. Not even worthy of notice, really.

This will be a short comment, where I pour some water on Lal's mill.

I think that Pompeii shows that natural disasters is/can be very interesting. . .not only has there been made countless documetarys on this subject, but it is also one of Italys leading turist atractions.

And on a personal note, I think the story of Krakatoa is ever so facinating.

[davem]

It seems to me that natural disasters are more profoundly moving simply because they are both inevitable & unavoidable. Unlike acts of an angry God, who can be pacified by obeying his rules, a nature cannot. They bring home to us our essential transitoriness - whatever we do, however moral our behaviour. From that point of view they require courage of us, simply to live & look the 'Dragon' in the face. Avoiding the wrath of an angry deity merely requires us to do as we're told.

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

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by davem

It seems to me that natural disasters are more profoundly moving simply because they are both inevitable & unavoidable. Unlike acts of an angry God, who can be pacified by obeying his rules, a nature cannot. They bring home to us our essential transitoriness - whatever we do, however moral our behaviour. From that point of view they require courage of us, simply to live & look the 'Dragon' in the face. Avoiding the wrath of an angry deity merely requires us to do as we're told.

It seems to me that you are talking about your own interactions with the unfoldment of reality in the real world, not Tolkien's Legendarium.

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

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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

It seems to me that you are talking about your own interactions with the unfoldment of reality in the real world, not Tolkien's Legendarium.

I was - but that was what was being questioned.

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

The latter. There are different ways of approaching the text, without stepping outside it. One could read it, for instance, by missing out books 3 & 5, & just following Frodo's story, without the more 'action-packed' books. I'm sure that would produce a different effect on the reader. One can read it as a 'secular' work, assigning the references to the Valar as merely 'beliefs' held by various characters. My tendency is to read it fully accepting such things as 'facts' of that world, however, taking LotR as a stand alone work such a reading is entirely possible & we will get something entirely different from it.

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by davem

The latter. There are different ways of approaching the text, without stepping outside it. One could read it, for instance, by missing out books 3 & 5, & just following Frodo's story, without the more 'action-packed' books. I'm sure that would produce a different effect on the reader. One can read it as a 'secular' work, assigning the references to the Valar as merely 'beliefs' held by various characters. My tendency is to read it fully accepting such things as 'facts' of that world, however, taking LotR as a stand alone work such a reading is entirely possible & we will get something entirely different from it.

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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

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

I don't find that. Faith is moving in & of itself - whatever one places one's faith in it will inevitably be something bigger than oneself.* Frodo never expresses any belief in a deity. He simply does what he does for those he loves (someone has to give up the things they care about in order that others may keep them) That seems to be his only motivation. Hence, he is very much a hero for the secular 20th century. I relate to him much more strongly than I do to the believers who act out of their faith in 'Higher' things. Look the Dragon in the eye, & do what's right because its right, even if there's nothing beyond our 'bodily functions'.

*Remember Serenity: Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: "ah, h*ll shepherd, I ain't looking for help from on high..."
Shepherd Book: "Why when I talk about faith do you always assume I'm talking about god? "