Evil things

[davem]

Well, if we accept that this interpretation is correct - & here we have Tolkien the Mythographer analysing the Legendarium as though it is genuine myth - then we have to say I am, as you say, both correct & incorrect.

Yet it is presented in the form of an 'interpretation' of the events by a 'detatched' expert, it is not presented as an explanation by the author of the stories - in other words, I read this as Tolkien playing the role of an interpreter of an ancient mythology, a scholar offering an personal analysis of events.


Quote:It has to be remembered that the 'mythology' is repre¬sented as being two stages removed from a true record: it is based first upon Elvish records and lore about the Valar and their own dealings with them; and these have reached us (fragmentarily) only through relics of Númenórean (human) traditions, derived from the Eldar, in the earlier parts, though for later times supplemented by anthropocentric histories and tales.

Well, this was Tolkien's (not entirely successful) attempt to explain the inconsistencies within the Legendarium, & the lack of consistency between the Legendarium & modern scientific accounts of the history of the world. I've said before that I find (sadly) a great deal of Tolkien's attempts in this late period to 'clarify' the legendarium has the opposite effect.

My own feeling is that the explanation is problematical, as it has the Valar standing back & allowing a lot of innocent people to suffer in order that they can become 'better' people through suffering - bit like the parent about to beat his child senseless saying 'this is for your own good!' I think that Tolkien is trying to construct an account of the Valar's behaviour which would be consistent with the later form of the Mythology - the selfish, confused, proud Valar worked fine in the context of the Lost Tales, even of the '30's Quenta Silmarillion, but by the later period, where they have moved from the equivalent of the Pagan gods to incarnate Angels their behaviour has to be accounted for in a different way. The account Tolkien gives in the quote is one possible explanation for the Valar's behaviour, but I'm not sure it works completely - like so much in the later writings.

Quote: Yet Morgoth is finally overthrown by the Host of the West, which mainly consists of humble and calm Vanyar. Proud and andry Noldor are crushed.

I don't recall the Vanyar being described as 'calm'. I doubt they were all that calm when faced with dragons, Balrogs & orcs slaughtering their comrades during the battle. And as Tolkien says, only the Noldor could have done the job of holding Morgoth in check throughout the FA - the Noldor as they were, with both vices & virtues.

[HerenIstarion]

Vanyar re: I suppose they must have been calm since they were not proud. (anger as the direct consequence of pride)

Tolkien is trying to construct an account of the Valar's behaviour which would be consistent with the later form of the Mythology

Where is the bad thing in that?
Somewhere in preceeding posts you also mentioned that when authors were all elves it made it even more confusing as to why accounts differed to that extent. It is fine by me (as was quoted in someone's signature around here, "some people are wise, and some are otherwise") - some scribes knew better, some not. Most of what was written accounts the history of elves this side of the sea. Possibly, those allegedly calm Vanyar and other dwellers of beyond the sea were exactly the people to know better (all them kinds of things - that sun was round, that Manwe was wise and not confused - they were on the spot to judge it, whilst those on this side had their sight dimmed with distance and, yes, again, you guessed rightly, with their pride)

bit like the parent about to beat his child senseless saying 'this is for your own good!

Three cases (or possibly four, if we separate sindar as distinct group)

A) Men
Valar were not in a position to be viewed as parents to men - men were too great a thing for them to handle. Even if we hold on to my argument that difference of their freedom is only in their death. If we lean on your argument of men having different kind of freedom, than it is impossible ofr Valar to help out men whatsoever. Indeed, how can creature moving in one direction at atime only (i.e., actualizing this particular theme and not other, step out of its rails and change the course. So, dead lock:

1. If Valar are after actualization of the Music, they can not let such an actualization be and change their course. For the pause when they do nothing is already in there in the Music, and can not be altered whatever Manwe's personal position
2. If we hold on to what I think can be the case - i.e., all, including Valar and Men, have their freedom expressed as simple choice - "do-don't", whilst each action is measured in this respect against built-in standard of "good-evil", than judgement comes in and defines further action. What kind of judgement prevailed, see up there

I hold the second clause to be true. In this case, Valar and Men are coeval. But still Valar can not go and give them guidance and protection, for:

Men's fate after death is to go where elves knew not [but assumptions there are that to Eru directly]. Death came around as a result of the Fall (again too), when men ceased to listen to Eru's voice. So men were not to be tinkered with by Valaron two additional grounds :

1. Before the Fall, there was Eru to guide them. Were the Valar to walk in and take the Men away?
2. After the fall, two more points: 2.1 As shutting of Valinor against Noldor is just, so denial of help to those who rebelled not against mere Manwe, but Eru Himself is even more justified. 2.2 There is not time enough even if Valar choose to go for it - men die soon and go to Eru. If you take Men to Valinor, it can bring disastrous results (I'll try to provide you with quote later, for now, summary: fea will want to go, but hroa in the bliss of Valinor would have the powerto, ehich bind it. In case of stronger fea, it will break free by force. In case of stronger hroa, man will degenarate into kind of monster or zombie. And fea and hroa will hate each other). Valar can not themselves go to Beleriand to protect Men on the spot for the reasons given above.

That's why Earendil is essential - to repent on behalf of both races. And existence of a person to do so for both would not be possible without Valar letting things develop a bit. (not to mention whole line of kings of Numenor etc)


B) Noldor
Noldor chose to go away freely, though they were warned. But coming back to parent argument - is there a parent which would not want for their children to grow up, but to remain small for ever? Not to be able to do things for themselves, but look up to parents for ever? Here you seem to try to eat a cake and have it - let them be proud and independent, but when push comes to shove, why do not we get a help, it is unjust! But that is not a kind of argument I oppose you with, it's just an impression I've got, beggin your pardon, if you follow my meaning, kind sir , pray correct if I err.

C) Sindar
Sindar knew their peril when they decided to stay behind

D) Dwarves

Dwarves were more the concern of Aule, than of all Valar combined. Ask of him what he did not...

But it seems to me, above given exerpt explains it more or less adequately, without further need for me to find additional ones

Besides, I'm running out of steam, I suppose, for I have a feeling of forgetting to put something important in and can't tell what precisely. Maybe because of late hour it is, so, with the hope of morrow bringing better judgement, I stop here for now.

later

[davem]

Quote:Vanyar re: I suppose they must have been calm since they were not proud. (anger as the direct consequence of pride)

Quote:
Tolkien is trying to construct an account of the Valar's behaviour which would be consistent with the later form of the Mythology
Where is the bad thing in that?


The problem with Tolkien doing this, as I just mentioned in the Unnumbered Tears thred, is that he is not so much adding & developing the Legendarium as trying to 'explain' it - sometimes to explain certain events away. In the later writings he is writing theology, & what he writes has more to do with his feelings about events in this world, than events in ME. He attempts to explain the Valar's lack of action. He says this is necessary because 'some' have criticised their lack of action against Morgoth during the FA . But who are the critics? My own feeling is that after LotR, partly as a result of letters recieved questioning events in the book, often questioning its 'orthodoxy', he began to look at it in a more 'detatched' way, analysing events & characters. Its notable that during the writing of LotR & later he begins referring to the Devil by the name of Sauron, & uses the term 'The Authority' when he is referring both to God (in this world) & to Eru. The Legendarium begins to overlay the 'real' world in his imagination. The 'critics' I mentioned seem really to be one (by the time of the later writings the Inklings are no longer meeting) - Tolkien himself is the 'critic'. He has re read the Silmarillion, & it no longer works - or rather it is no longer what he wants or needs to write. The behaviour of the Valar, which in their original form of Pagan gods, was capricious, confused, selfish. Now, it can't be. So he either has to rewrite the whole thing (which he eventually attempts, unsuccessfully), or he has to construct complex theological explanations, which really explain very little. His problem is that the stories are fixed in his mind, integrated with each other - changes in one tale would necesitate changes in all the others. This is one reason he cannot finish the Silmarillion. The other is that, as an old man who had seen terrible things, & known incredible loss - parents, friends - he felt a need to write somthing else. Theology - specifically a theology of suffering. How can a good God allow pain, loss, death. So lots of things which earlier could be simply stated as background events - like the fall of Man - come centre stage, & are dealt with. But this is no longer about creating a mythology, it is about understanding God, himself & all the suffering in the world. The Legendarium provides the means for this exploration, but he's no longer writing the Silmarillion - that was effectively finished before LotR was begun, & simply needed 'tidying up' for publication. He wanted, needed to do something else. Its not so much that its a 'bad' thing. Its a 'different' thing. Unfortunately, pursued in the way it was, it risked unravelling the Legendarium. I think he simply wanted to write something else - perhaps follow Lewis as a Christian apologist, but couldn't leave the Legendarium, so he combined the two.

Quote:Somewhere in preceeding posts you also mentioned that when authors were all elves it made it even more confusing as to why accounts differed to that extent. It is fine by me (as was quoted in someone's signature around here, "some people are wise, and some are otherwise") - some scribes knew better, some not. Most of what was written accounts the history of elves this side of the sea. Possibly, those allegedly calm Vanyar and other dwellers of beyond the sea were exactly the people to know better (all them kinds of things - that sun was round, that Manwe was wise and not confused - they were on the spot to judge it, whilst those on this side had their sight dimmed with distance and, yes, again, you guessed rightly, with their pride)

Except we don't have any accounts from beyond the Sea - how could we - ok, possibly the Vanyar updated the people of ME - but my sense is that all these 'speculations' on the Valar's motives are not 'canonical' - what they are are Tolkien's own comments & interpretations -they are given in the form of a canonical work, certainly, but I think he had changed his 'role' by then - he was both recorder & interpreter of that world, & in some writings the roles blurred - often to his own confusion.

My own feeling is that originally the Valar intervened with the Elves, saw the whole thing turn out to be a mistake, & then didn''t know what the Music was telling them to do. They called the Elves to Valinor out of desire for them - a lesser 'sin' than Pride, perhaps, but not so much less. They learnt from that mistake, but were still unsure of what the right course of action was. The drive to actualise the Music is not wholly a conscious thing, even with the Valar themselves, because they don't know the whole of it - mostly only their own parts in it. So most of their attempts to actualise it would be 'best guesses'. After the death of the Trees & the Rebellion of the Noldor they were suddenly unsure of their skill at guessing. They wouldn't have had to bring Men to Valinor to protect them. Why not at least go to ME, explain the situation, offer to move them out of Beleriand, so they could deal with Morgoth. Why not at least try something. But here we are back with the situation of the Valar's behaviour being based on wholly different motives, not the High ideals of the later writings. We also come to the question of how much 'freedom' men & other races could be said to have in the extremely straightened circumstances they found themselves in. And finally, Morgoth is the Valar's responsibility, which they simply shirk for most of the FA. They leave the Chiildren at the mercy of a being who they cannot hope to defeat, in the midst of a war of attrition which they can only lose.

As to Earendel - if his repentence was the only thing the Valar were waiting for, why make it so hellishly difficult for him to get there & repent? I don't see either that the Sindar knew what they were letting themselves in for - they had no real knowledge of what Morgoth was going to do - & once he had been removed to Mandos, they certainly had no idea the Valar would release him. But then, either Manwe had to release him, because it was in the Music - which takes away any choice of the Valar, & they become 'puppets' without choice, or it wasn't 'specifically' set out in the Music, in which case it was a stupid thing to do - the Valar don't come off too well in either case.

My own feeling regarding the Music is that it sets out too possible 'futures' & Valar, Maiar & Elves are moved to try & bring about one or the other by choices they make - not that every single event is laid down by it & set in stone.

[HerenIstarion]

I find it easy to agree with you and accept your comments on Tolkien's doings in his later writings. Ok, he was doing the different thing. But I fail to see why such a change in motives and main factors underlying the legendarium is to be rejected and not to be welcomed as anything produced earlier?

What you have done in your previous, is the same what you 'accuse' Tolkien of - you have been interpreting actions of invented characters. In such a case, the author has the final word, rather than any other interpreter

Therefore, I would more willingly believe the creator of said characters who's actions you both (or we three, rather) try to interpret, even if the creator contradicts his earlier writings

Besides, I have already mentioned why inconsistencies do not confuse me, for I believe they can be explained away but assuming several authors for legendarium, each expressing his own point of view. So, for embittered Noldo it would have been only natural to accuse Valar of selfishness and reluctance to do anything about Morgoth.

As to Earendel - if his repentence was the only thing the Valar were waiting for, why make it so hellishly difficult for him to get there & repent?

Well, for one thing, sins have been great, so why should it be easy to get forgiven?

For another, the act is rather symbolic. Probably and possibly (speculation of yours truly, of course, but thing possible for all I can think of) Morgoth would have been kicked either way. But for all things else, Noldor and Men were nevertheless given the chance to repent.

My own feeling regarding the Music is that it sets out too possible 'futures' & Valar, Maiar & Elves are moved to try & bring about one or the other by choices they make - not that every single event is laid down by it & set in stone

My point exactly. With all mentioned 'pattern world is fitted into', and 'music does not eliminate freedom, it rather defines it' above. But you have come down to choice too seemingly, did you notice? For all this time I was trying to point out that the main expression of freedom for all (Valar, Elves and Men) as reserved despite the Music is the choice of 'do/don't' kind.

cheers

[davem]

Quote:'But I fail to see why such a change in motives and main factors underlying the legendarium is to be rejected and not to be welcomed as anything produced earlier?'

I do welcome the later writings - I think they are some of Tolkien's greatest works, & contain some of his most beautiful prose & profoundest thought. I just feel tht a lot of what is in there is so different from the original mythology that it is like putting new wine in old bottles - it starts to crack the whole thing, or like patching an old garment with new cloth. When Tolkien introduced works like Osanwe Kenta, The Athrabeth, Laws & Customs, etc, into the Legendarium as he found it when he turned back to it after completing LotR he was bound to cause himself problems. And this whole idea of the histories coming from different hands cannot accomodate two such completely different accounts of the origin of the sun, or a mad conception like the 'Dome of Varda' - which is simply an act of desperation on Tolkien's part, in his misguided attempt to make his mythology fit in with modern cosmology.

The point is, all these later conceptions -- ie Morgoth sending forth his power into Arda, which is incredibly clever - are later inventions, & played no part in the original stories. The effects of the War of Wrath on the world were not inspired by this conception of Morgoth's attempt to corrupt the Hroa of incarnate beings by corrupting the matter of Arda. They were a 'mythologisation' of the hellish destruction left by the mechanised warfare of WW1. The Valar did not intervene originally because they were haughty & proud & were simply leaving the Noldor to stew in their own juices. Hence, they have to be begged. Earendel has to come crawling before they will condescend to help. When Tolkien goes back to the Legendarium, he realises this behaviour will no longer work for the 'new' Valar he is concieving, so he begins to construct some very complex 'explanations', which don't convince at all.

(Sorry, More later)

[davem]

(Cont)

My own feelings regarading the Music is that in his original theme Eru basically put forward the vision of a supremely beautiful world. Melkor then introduces 'negative' forces to control, dominate & destroy. 'Specific' events are quite rare.

When it comes to 'actualising' the Music in Arda Valar & Elves are attempting to bring about the primal vision, but including later changes. It is a working toward that vision. Certain events - not all - will 'have' to happen, but most will be the result of choices made in order to bring the vision into being.

But they can only choose which of these two visions to actualise, & their 'freedom' consists in choosing which of the two alternative themes to work to bring about, but they have a great deal of choice in how they do it. Men are not bound to choose either theme, & may offer to Eru new possibilities which he may accept or reject.