Quote:
Originally Posted by Formendacil
As I come up with this, it is occurring to me that perhaps this is why CoH needs to have these two versions: one set contextually in the broader tale, and one set alone. The tale set alone shows the full consequences of the Fall, both Elven and Mannish, and just how doomed we are alone. In a sense, I think, it is an atheist's tale, whereas the Silmarillion is the tale of a Believer, and in Túrin's part of the broader tale, you can see how the convincing despair of "there is no hope, no God" might fit into the grander scheme of hope in eucatastrophe....
|
I think CoH is what one gets when writing about a certain subject for one's entire adult life -- in this case 40 some years. The literary style changes as the author's opinions and tastes change, and we are left with a piecemeal history with various points of view, as if different hands added to the chronicles. Actually, I think this variegation adds to the appeal of Middle-earth, giving it that 'authenticity' that sets the story, or series of stories, apart from more mundane fantasies.
CoH may appear unrelentingly cruel and without hope, but this mirrors the principal influences Tolkien was under at the time he formulated the story. What we have is integral aspects of the Finnish
Kalevala told as a Greek tragedy. CoH fits in quite well with any number of Greek classics: with
Oedipus, Agamemnon, Prometheus Bound, and even elements of
The Iliad and
The Odyssey, particularly with a vengeful deity following the ill-fated heroes and the very idea of 'doom' or 'fate' itself. Faithfully following the classic Greek form, Tolkien must end CoH on a despairing note. It is the difference between pagan pessimism and Christian hope, where even in death a martyr triumphs.