[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

I think that Morgoth purposed through Glaurung to bring to naught the children of Húrin - but that was not his only intent - remember: through the workings of Húrin and his children and wife - he brought the destruction of Doriath, Nargothrond, Brethil and Gondolin - indirectly.

But here's the thing: he couldn't have counted on it. The only way he would be sure that Hin Hurin would seriously undermine any of his important enemies would be if he felt confident that his curse was in effect (and a tiny note here - he didn't feel confident at that, at least not all the time; there were times when he thought Turin would overpower him and his fate).

So either that could not have been Morgoth's intent but rather an added bonus, or then you might have to revise your stance on Morgoth's involvement with the fate of Hin Hurin. Otherwise there is a contradiction in your logic. If you meant something different, please elaborate on it as I am interested to hear the theory (even if I might respectfully disagree).

But speaking of the fall of all these kingdoms, I remember this point cropping up in a previous Turin discussion. If these kingdoms did not fall, Earendil would not have sailed West with a guiding Silmaril. Every time I think about it, I can't help but think of this beautiful passage:

'So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been.'

But Mandos said: 'And yet remain evil

I think this sums up Turin's life moderately well, actually.

Originally Posted by Arvegil

And I still stand firm to my point - ONLY Ilúvatar can "curse" or change the course of the destiny of a certain individual - remember that the Eruhíni were conceived by Eru ALONE - therefore, anyone, even Morgoth, could curse someone, but it would be in vain (at least in my opinion).

Well, we don't have to agree on this point (and we probably won't, which - hey! - is part of the point of this forum), but I just see a few problems with this standpoint. First of all, you assume that people have a pre-designated destiny which, nonetheless, can be altered by someone (ie Eru). I might be a bit overly Spinozean, but this doesn't seem like a legitimate functional model. If your destiny is overwritten by Eru and your fate therefore changes, isn't it then just your true destiny that your supposed destiny was changed? If that was confusing, let me give an example. One of my teachers was very fond of a legend about Rabbi Akiva's daughter. The stars foretold that she would die her wedding night, but during the celebration she gave a platter of food to a beggar whom no one else noticed. Before going to bed she pinned her hair pin into the wall, and in the morning she discovered that with that pin she killed a snake that would have otherwise killed her during the night. The moral of the story was that destiny isn't fixed; humans can change their own fate, like the girl lived through the night because of her kindness the day before. But my argument to the story is that if their really is destiny, then it is what happens. The girl's destiny was never to die that night, but to give food to the poor man and accidentally kill the snake. She was never "supposed" to die that night in the first place, and the astronomers were just wrong on this one - which was part of her destiny and their destiny too. It just doesn't seem right to me that destiny, especially specific destiny, can be decided on by an entity, even a Godly entity. I prefer the perspective that destiny is, well, predestined and you can't change it (because attempts to change it are still part of your fate). I can accept the perspective that there is no destiny and humans write their own fates. I can also accept the view that humans can alter each other's fates. But I just don't understand the point of view where a God-like figure gets to handpick people's fates. If him, why not others? If not others, then why him? Why at all? And he is an entity too - don't you think he has his own destiny? Like the destiny to create puny little Eruhini? (I realize I'm getting into theology and philosophy more than Tolkien, and it's my desire to argue with everything showing through, but I think it would help if you explained why you think this way. Sometimes you think a certain way just because it feels right to you, and I can relate to that - that's how I feel about curses. But I think these are all points worth discussing).

The other major problem (and probably the bigger of the two) I see with this line of reasoning is that we see curses come to fulfillment on several occasions. Curses, blessings, legit prophecies and prophetic lines all exist and all have power throughout the legendarium. So if you dismiss curses as empty words, you have to address those cases as well.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

I know that - and that is precisely why I am of opinion that Morgoth had no inherent power to alter the will of Ilúvatar - Morgoth, of course, could, and did, make the lives of Elves and Men miserable - but the fact is: Morgoth could NOT affect the free will of neither Elves nor Men (or at least their fëar) - he could only achieve his "curse" by indirect means - through Túrin's and Morwen's pride - and through Glaurung.

Ah, but free will and destiny are not necessarily contradictory. At the point of making a choice, a person has no idea what he will choose. But based on factors of his past and present (personality, mood, inclinations, current and previous influences, etc) he is predestined to choose a certain way. He's predestined to, say, choose vanilla over chocolate flavour in the ice cream booth because of events already in the past (which were shaped by yet older events in turn), but he doesn't know that until he actually orders the ice cream. So he does shape his future in the present, but, from the perspective of the future, he couldn't have done anything else.

However, philosophy aside, I think that in the world of Middle-Earth people can affect each others futures with words, and the more innately powerful the speaker, the more powerful the words. This does not affect the free choice at any point, just the final outcome. Like Mim's curse on Androg - free will is just marginally involved if you pedantically insist on every instance Androg could have left Turin's gang and avoided the battle - just the outcome is influenced. And what makes this curse more believable is that Androg was mortally wounded twice by an arrow, since with Beleg's help the first time did not come to fruition. Where Turin is concerned, He chose to act as he did, but his choices are not evil or bad - in fact they are remarkably good. It's the outcomes that are disappointing. Raise an army to fight Morgoth? Great! Destruction of Nargothrond? Well crap. Is it Turin's fault? In part, maybe, but certainly not in its entirely. You know what I mean?