[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Not appropo of the discussion here, but this makes me wonder about the "allegory" or symbolism in Smith of Wootton Major. Shippey says Smith is Tolkien and I seem to recall most of the discussions on the Downs assume that as well. But perhaps that is an autobiographical fallacy once again?

If Smith = Tolkien, can we say Tolkien = Smith?

or, if Eru = God, can we say God = Eru ?

I don't know if its relevant that Tolkien chose the name Smith for the central character in his final original story - he didn't use Gilson or Wiseman for other characters. Certainly GB Smith's death lead him to state that 'something has gone crack', & he was deeply affected by his fellow TCBS-ite's death. IT confirmed that 'the Immortal Four' were anything but.

I suspect that Tolkien found himself in a very difficult position as regards his own faith. Certainly a 'Gentle Jesus, meek & mild' type of God was out of the question after the Somme, so Tolkien would have been in the position of either rejecting God altogether, or coming up with a version of God that he could accept/believe in who was both a loving, compassionate Creator but who, at the same time, could allow (& bring good out of) suffering & horror.

Why doesn't Eru intervene to prevent the suffering of His children in Middle-earth? That's as difficult a question to answer as 'Why didn't God intervene to prevent the suffering of Tolkien's generation in WW1?' Why did Eru choose Frodo to undertake an imossible task that would break him & end his life? Why would God stand back & allow the deaths of two out of Tolkien's three closest friends - friends who, like himself, were serving that same God, attempting to do His work by bringing the English people back to Him?

Tolkien believed God is a loving creator, with the best interests of his Creation at heart & with a deep love of His children, yet He stands back & allows them to suffer - why? Tolkien, it seems, never could answer that one - though he spent 60 years of his life attempting to do so through the means of his legendarium. In the end, while he couldn't provide an answer, what he did was to restate the question, lay it bare, confront us all with the mystery. The 'answer' he does offer: 'Its about Death, the inevitability of Death', Death is the 'Gift' of Eru to Men, & while we may not appreciate that 'Gift' now, in the end we will, & even the immortals will envy us for it' is not convincing, & its not what we get from reading LotR. What we get from LotR is not the 'satisfaction' that comes from recieving a pat answer to the mystery of existence, but rather the kind of satisfaction that the Hobbits got from 'seeing everything laid out fair & square with no contradictions'.

Tolkien sets out the mystery of our place in Creation, confronts us with the way things are. Eru doesn't intervene to prevent the sufferings of His children in Middle-earth, & God doesn't intervene to prevent our sufferings here. Both Smith & Gilson died horribly, & their potential was never achieved. Fact. Frodo was chosen to perform an impossible task & he lost his life as a direct result. Fact. The easy option would have been athiesm - but that let's God off the hook. Tolkien wouldn't do that, take that 'easy' option. Tolkien places God firmly in the driving seat, in the position of ultimate responsibility, & says 'This is how it is!' God/Eru exists, is an inescapable fact, & yet there is horrible suffering & waste.

There is a lot of speculation among the peoples of Middle-earth as to why 'bad stuff' happens, but we're never given a convincing, definite answer - because Tolkien was just a man, & didn't have one to give.