Was Eru a Sadist?

[Bombadil]

Was middle-earth just a chess board for Eru? Creating the white pieces and the black pieces(unintentionally, or intentionally perhaps) for various checkmates thorughout the region?

I'm not very familiar with how much Iluvatar had in terms of power after the creation of middle-earth, so correct me if Im wrong. This thinking came to me while re-reading appendix B as it stated:

It was afterwards said that they came out of the far west and were messengers sent to contest the power of sauron, and to unite all those who had the will to resist them; but they were forbidden to match his power with power..."

Now im not sure on the origin of the istari and if they were sent by Eru himself, or the reasons for not allowing them to match sauron's power, but it almost seemed to me like it would ruin the fun if Sauron was so easily matched.

Other things to note are his gift/curse to elves of immortality and his gift/curse to men of mortality. Was he teasing each race by showing the potential of both sides of life?

And finally, One could say that Eru represents Tolkien, because he created Arda - and we all know Tolkien loves to write tragically.

And with no further ado, im open this topic for discussion or people putting me in my place because Im utterly wrong about something!

[Child of the 7th Age]

I will respond only to the one issue that you raise, which is that of the istari and the limitations placed on them. This was not a matter of 'sadism'. Rather the istari were to teach and instruct Men so that the latter would be able to stand on their own feet and face whatever evil came at them.

Remember that the Fourth Age was to see the dominion of Men. What good would it have done if Gandalf and the others had come blazing in from the West and defeated Sauron with their own might? What would Men have learned? They would still be like children who are cared for by others.

It was only when things got very grim, after Gandalf fought the Balrog and was killed, that he was permitted to return with fewer restrictions placed on him. Even so, he was generally very careful to teach and persuade rather than directly confront.

[Bombadil]

Very good analogy of the Istari being like parents, thanks for clarifying!

[Bêthberry]

And finally, One could say that Eru represents Tolkien, because he created Arda - and we all know Tolkien loves to write tragically.

I see no necessary logical association between "writing tragically" and "being a sadist."

However, one of the largest quagmires in all reading is the assumption that authors usually write themselves the juiciest parts. Often the great beauty or persuasive power of an attractive character is enough to make us feel this must the author himself or herself. Such a response usually takes aesthetic power for biographical inspiration, wrongly.

Once, two major Victorian novelists met, William Makepeace Thackeray and Charlotte Bronte. She was a naive country Parson's daughter immersed in the sophisticated world of London literati for the first time. He introduced her to his dinner guests as "Jane Eyre." Unused to his games of attitudinising and play of wit, she became livid. Afterwards, a friend overheard them arguing in hi study. Thackeray, well over six feet tall, being lectured to by a small woman under five feet. Thackeray could not understand her objections to being identified with Jane; he asked if she would not associate him with Pendennis, the hero of one of his novels. She retorted no; she would call him---one of the minor characters. He was stung. She had hit home with more perspicuity than he had, with devastating effect.

Okay, what does this have to do with Tolkien? First, that our assumptions about how we go about identifying literary characters with their creators need to be very carefully reasoned. You barely consider the association between Tolkien and Eru except on this flimsiest of notions that both were creators. If you want to seek Tolkien in his work, look as Bronte did for Thackeray at his minor characters. Somewhere here on the Downs there is a thread suggesting Tolkien's close affinity with Faramir, I think it is. And even that is tentative and circumspect. Authors are far more likely to write facets of themselves into several different characters, or imbue a characters with their features amalgamated with features from several other people. They're a shifty lot, but not sadists. There's too much fun in their play.

[Bombadil]

haha i think that this thread is more of a "putting me in my place" one, and i thank you for your views on the suggestion.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Remember that the Fourth Age was to see the dominion of Men. What good would it have done if Gandalf and the others had come blazing in from the West and defeated Sauron with their own might? What would Men have learned? They would still be like children who are cared for by others.

This was precisely the point I made when my husband (the aptly named Witch-King) told me he held a grudge against Gandalf for not helping the hobbits scour the Shire at the end of the War of the Ring. Those four hobbits were more than ready for the challenges they met back at home! It is tempting to some to adopt the expressed opinion of Saruman, that mortals are Gandalf's playthings and he "drops them when their usefulness is at an end," (paraphrasing from memory here); but that is a dangerous view, and would lead to the idea that mortals are indeed but pawns in a larger game, toiling blindly without ever gaining any rewards for their labors. The higher power as sadist would then be a possibility within the minds that thought so.

Somewhere here on the Downs there is a thread suggesting Tolkien's close affinity with Faramir, I think it is. And even that is tentative and circumspect.

Tolkien wrote in one of his Letters (or it may be a footnote to a letter) in response to a question of which character is most like himself (I do not have the Letters to hand at the moment, so I can't be more specific, sorry!) that he saw himself most like Faramir, because of the more spiritual nature to Faramir's outlook. I don't remember what qualifiers he gave. Having read many of Tolkien's Letters, I can't imagine him identifying himself with Eru!

Cheers!
Lyta

[HerenIstarion]

Anyone wants to place a bet how many pages this thread can carry on? Mine gamble would be somewhat around 11 (when folks on canonicity thread get wind (as I see you already started to) of what's going on.

So, thanks to bombadil for posing such a provoking question!

In the interim, I would simply state: no, Eru was not a sadist (still more much was already said by previous participants)

And go on watching what happens next (and after that, and after what happens after that etc etc )

cheers

[davem]

I don't know how relevant it is, but there is a poem by GB Smith, on of the TCBS, an elegy for Rob Gilson. Smith didn't long outlive Gilson:

As John Garth says the 'piece declares a stark view of divine providence: Gilson's death is 'a sacrifice of blood outpoured' to a God whose purposes are utterly inscrutable & who 'only canst be glorified / by man's own passion & the supreme pain'. (from Tolkien & the Great War)

Of course, we can't say that Tolkien saw God in this way, but he did share the views & values of his friends.

But does this description of God bear any relation to Eru? Are Eru's purposes 'utterly inscrutable'? Well, The Legendarium is not really clear on Eru's motives - why create anything at all - boredom? Because its His nature as a creator to create? All we are presented with is Eru the creator.

And is Eru a God who 'canst only be glorified by man's & (Elves'?) passion & supreme pain'?

In other words, is it all simply about the glorification of Eru? And if so, is that enough justification for all the suffering?

Perhaps what Smith is doing is attempting to find a reason for the horror of the Somme & his own grief. A gentle, loving God, is difficult to reconcile with the horrors his generation witnessed. Was he attempting to redefine God, rather than lose Him altogether?

Has Tolkien taken this idea of God over into Middle Earth?

Probably not so simple as that. Garth comments on Ainulindale:

'Elevated subject & style should not obscure the tale's pertinence to the terrible times Tolkien had known. It is nothing less than an attempt to justify God's creation of an imperfect world filled with suffering, grief & loss. The primal rebel Melko covets Illuvatar's creativity where the Satan of Milton's Paradise Lost coveted God's authority, a distinction reflecting Tolkien's aestheticist anti-industrialism & Milton's anti-monarchism. Melko enters the void to search for the Secret Fire, yet having failed to findd it he nevertheless introduces his own discordant music, brash but marked by 'unity & a system of its own'. But in this collaborative Genesis, he distorts Creation itself, as Illuvatar reveals: 'Through him has pain & misery been made in the clash of overwhelming musics; & with confusion of sound have cruelty, & ravening, & darkness, loathly mire & all putrescence of thought or thing, foul mists & violent flame, cold without mercy, been born, & death without hope.' These ills (universal, though strikingly evocative of the Somme) do not arise exclusively from Melko's repetitive music; rather , they spring from its clash with Illuvatar's themes.

In Tolkien's view, creative decadence & spiritual schism were inextricably linked. During the TCBS crisis of 1914, he had told Wiseman: 'It is the tragedy of modern life that no-one knows upon what the universe is built to the mind of the man next to himn on the tram: it is this that makes it so tiring, so distracting; that produces the bewilderment, lack of beauty & design; its ugliness; its atmosphere antagonistic to supreme excellence.' In 1917 he had again bemoaned the decay in 'beauty in all men's works & fabrications for more than two centuries', & located its cause & symptom in the 'clash of backgrounds' that had opened up since the Middle Ages.

'The Music of the Ainur' portrayed such schism on a universal scale, but moved beyond complaint to reach a consolatory view. Illuvatar insists that the cosmogonic discords will ultimately make 'the Theme more worth hearing, Life more worth the living, & gthe world so much more the wonderful & marvellous'. As if to shed some light on this rather bald assertion, he cites the beauty of ice & snow, produced from water (Ulmo's work) by intemperate cold (Melko's). So much for the natural wonders & marvels; but how do the discords improve the experience of life for the individual facing 'cold without mercy ... & death without hope'? This is left as a riddle for the ensuing stories of good & evil to unravel'.

I suppose that Tolkien is saying we can't judge the world from within it, that only an 'eternal' perspective can make sense of the world. For those who believe this world is all there is, then it will seem that evil, pain & suffering is the norm, & if there is a creator, & we judge Him only by events in this world, He will probably seem cruel & possibly sadistic, but if we make our judgement based on a transcendent view, then our judgement will inevitably be different.

Or to put it another way, when we put down LotR, or even the Sil, what impression are we left with? Is our overwhelming sense that of Eru's sadism? Isn't it rather our wonder at the beauty, heroism, sacrifice & love that we've seen enacted there?

Tolkien seems to be trying to tell us that that will be our impression when we (if we believe that sort of thing) look back on life here, 'from beyond the circles of the world'.