And Eru Smiled

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

Or maybe He's just lazy - as Treebeard says 'Its easier to shout 'Stop!' than to do it'.....

I realise that this was probably intended in jest, but to take it in a serius direction...

If one assumes that Eru = God (of Catholics,etc), then when Eru says "Stop", it must happen. As in creation, "God said, "let there be light," and there was light", etc, etc.

In any case, Eru having been the one to direct the Music that caused Arda, and having been the One to call it into being, and having been the sole creator of the Children of Eru, I think it unlikely that he played NO part in the workings of Arda. I would agree that, if Arda is part of his thought, however, that his workings would be very subtle, being the workings of Arda, Time, and Fate, and as inexplicable to the Ainur as to his lesser children.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

If one assumes that Eru = God (of Catholics,etc), then when Eru says "Stop", it must happen. As in creation, "God said, "let there be light," and there was light", etc, etc.

Way, way too much of an assumtion for me! Eru is as much an invented character as Frodo or Feanor. Eru sprang from Tolkien's mind, while Tolkien sprang from God's mind. One can discuss the nature & motives of Eru as one can the nature & motives of any other character in the story because on one level all the inhabitants of Middle earth are equal in that they are inventions of an author. One can declare Eru is stupid, callous, lazy, incompetent, etc, because one is 'greater' than Eru. One cannot make the same kind of judgement of God, because God is greater than we are.

Jumping back on my hobby-horse for a moment, this is the danger of bringing primary world baggage into the secondary world. Eru is not, cannot be, God. The most he can be is a reflection of Tolkien's idea of God - but we can't even be sure He's that. We can't make any one to one correlation between Eru & God. All we can say is that Eru is the supreme deity of Middle earth & while we sojourn there we must accept Him as that, but while we are there we must leave God in the primary world (well, to be precise, we must keep the worlds seperate - God is not Eru or vice versa, anymore than Shelob is Lilith ). Our knowlege of the one may inform our understanding of the other, but that is subjective & optional.

(Just wanted to clarify my position in case anyone took offence at my post - I wasn't saying God is lazy)

[Formendacil]

Never said that you did...

However, it isn't such a huge assumption as you want to make it.

Granted, not everyone will take it as assumeable, but I don't think it takes a leap of faith.

Tolkien had Eru and the Valar to reconcile his love for the multiple, Norse gods with his beliefs in a One, omniscient God, who is the God of Catholicism. Therefore, if he is trying to reconcile his world with Catholicism by creating a parallel Eru, then surely it stands to reason that this Eru should, statements contradicting notwithstanding, have the same powers and such as the "real" person on which He is based.

Furthermore, later in life, Tolkien took the time to reconcile "the One" of Eru with the "Trinity" of God (in the Debate of Finrod and Andreth).

So, disagreers statements to the contrary, I stand by my assumption as being reasonable and not far-fetched.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Tolkien had Eru and the Valar to reconcile his love for the multiple, Norse gods with his beliefs in a One, omniscient God, who is the God of Catholicism. Therefore, if he is trying to reconcile his world with Catholicism by creating a parallel Eru, then surely it stands to reason that this Eru should, statements contradicting notwithstanding, have the same powers and such as the "real" person on which He is based.

Furthermore, later in life, Tolkien took the time to reconcile "the One" of Eru with the "Trinity" of God (in the Debate of Finrod and Andreth)..

Still, Eru is Tolkien's invention, God is not. Tolkien may have been attempting such a reconciliation, but are his readers? My position is that Middle earth should stand alone & not require any primary world input/baggage to make it wither understandable or accessible. Therefore, Eru must stand alone as a figure within Middle earth, & not be dependent on God to be meaningful. Eru may have the same or similar attirbutes to God, but does that come across within the story? If you had no knowledge of God how would you understand Eru? Would he seem omnipotent, omniscient, compassionate, involved in the life of His creatures?

Is the Legendarium a 'parable'? Probably, to my mind, but it is not an allegory, in that it is not dependent on, or in the service of, another story - if it was it would not be able to stand alone. As far as the Athrabeth goes, Tolkien himself was uncomfortable with its similarity to the Christian Incarnation. Personally, I think that the incarnation of Eru as predicted in the 'Conversation' fits in with the internal logic of the Legendarium, & its relationship to the Christian story owes more to applicability than allegory, similarity to, rather than dependence on, a primary world event.

He himself stated that primary world religious symbols did not belong in secondary worlds, because they inevitably either make the secondary world into an allegory, or they result in the 'purposed domination of the author'. If Tolkien had made 'Eru=God'. 'Eru's incarnation=Christ's incarnation' then the reader would be 'dominated' by the author's interpretation of the story.

From this perspective, what Tolkien intended is not really relevant - he may have intended what you say (actually I agree with you), but he was also a great enough artist to write his story in such a way that the reader is free to apply a Christian interpretation or not.

So, I'm not saying that your 'application' of God to Eru is wrong, only that it is not an inevitable one-to-one correlation, & that it is not necessary to an understanding & interpretation of the character. I would say, though, that if Eru is only understandable as an allegory of God then the secondary world is not self contained & is merely an aspect of the primary & dependent on it for its meaning & relevance. In other words, the secondary world & its inhabitants are dependant on us to supply the reason for their existence.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

My position is that Middle earth should stand alone & not require any primary world input/baggage to make it wither understandable or accessible.

Wither?

Your position requires an impossibility. No readers can read any book without bringing in their baggage.

As to your other questions, I daresay enough is presented throughout the Legendarium that readers can safely draw conclusions as to the nature of Eru. Based on these conclusions (among which are that Eru is Good and in no wise Evil, is All Powerful which is based on His ability to draw even Melkor's rebellion into His purpose (omnipotent), the Source of Life (holder of the Secret Fire), etc., etc.,), readers can then build an understanding of Eru which .... surprise! .... bears a striking resemblance to the Christian God!

I am so thunderstruck. How amazing. Who would have thought that an author who is a self proclaimed Catholic Christian, would actually subcreate a Creator that is for all practical purposes equivalent to the Christian God?

Spellbindingly obvious, isn't it?

[HerenIstarion]

*hums under his nose no dark sarcasm in the classroom...

um, I know I'm not Eru and there is no reason my 'stopping' should have an effect, but unless stray Eru-substitute in the face of a mod passes by and puts a stop to whole show, would you mind pleasing old (relatively) windy me by staying cool?

Thank you

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Wither?

'either'.

I think we may be risking some very boring posts if we start picking each other up on every mis-keying that slips past us.

Your position requires an impossibility. No readers can read any book without bringing in their baggage.

No, it merely requires us to distinguish between 'me' & 'not me', between Eru & God. Even if your point is correct, one should still make the effort to distinguish between your baggage & what's already there. You seem to be saying that a kind of 'participation mystique' is inevitable & that its impossible to know where the primary world ends & the secondary world begins, where God ends & Eru begins - or even where you end & 'Frodo' begins. 'Know thyself & Know thy baggage'. Or if you can make those kind of distinctions, then I'm not asking the impossible.

As to your other questions, I daresay enough is presented throughout the Legendarium that readers can safely draw conclusions as to the nature of Eru. Based on these conclusions (among which are that Eru is Good and in no wise Evil, is All Powerful which is based on His ability to draw even Melkor's rebellion into His purpose (omnipotent), the Source of Life (holder of the Secret Fire), etc., etc.,), readers can then build an understanding of Eru which .... surprise! .... bears a striking resemblance to the Christian God!

I am so thunderstruck. How amazing. Who would have thought that an author who is a self proclaimed Catholic Christian, would actually subcreate a Creator that is for all practical purposes equivalent to the Christian God?

Spellbindingly obvious, isn't it?

I'd say that Eru is definitely similar to a certain concept of God, but He does not correspond exactly to the 'Christian God' for either practical or non practical purposes. As I said, he may (or may not) correspond to Tolkien's concept of the Christian God, but that 'similarity' or 'correspondence' is not the issue. The issue (as I see it) is: does Eru stand or fall as a figure in His own right, or does He need a knowledge of the Christian God to be understandable? If He does then he is an allegory, dependent on something external to the secondary world in order to be intelligeable. Seeing in Eru the Christian God is applicability - its something you as a reader are doing - it does not 'come with the set'.

[Lalwendë]

Eru is not God, Eru is Eru. He is a literary creation, which has some similarities to the God of certain sectors of Christianity, but not all. Eru, and the greater cosmological structure of Middle Earth, also have similarities to the God or Gods of other religions and beliefs. Eru ought not to be 'claimed' by followers of one faith, but if they wish to see the similarities then obviously they are perfectly entitled to! I think that referring to Eru as He much as we would refer to God as He does not help, either (and likewise, some Christians may indeed find that blasphemous).

Yes, Tolkien was a Catholic, but he also did not want to write an allegory, so if we can happily say that Eru is the same as God, then equally we could say that Sauron is Hitler, and so forth. In my opinion, such debates may be interesting, but I'm not sure how useful they would be as one 'given' about Tolkien's work is that it was not allegorical.

I believe Tolkien's Christian faith was visible in the morality of the world he created, but remember that these morals are not exclusive to Christianity, they are universal morals, whatever our beliefs. This is why people from all cultural and religious backgrounds can enjoy and appreciate Tolkien's work. When he said that the symbols of religion had no place in fantasy, I think this could be what he was getting at - that a newly created secondary world had to be concrete within itself, and that symbols which could be divisive in the real world had no place in a created world. I think he was also aware that his work should not be misappropriated, bearing in mind that he wrote at a time when Nordic myth was being misappropriated by political groups.

I don't have a faith, but I follow broadly unitarian principles in that all faiths have equal merit and deserve equal respect. Coming from this angle I see that while LotR was written by a Catholic, it is no more about Catholicism than about any other faith. Likewise, if you wish to see such similarities in Tolkien's work then you are perfectly free to do so, and indeed, such discussion is interesting, but it is important to bear in mind that LotR is not an allegory. I'm hoping here that we can all be careful when aligning Tolkien's work with our own faiths.