The Lord of the Bible?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I think Tolkien would be more in line with Tom Shippey's remarks in The Road to Middle-earth that 'Luck' would be a more suitable word in Tolkien's works than 'Providence' or 'chance':

Shippey goes further to say that it is perhaps better to have luck than it is to have providence:

It's the ability of individuals where they can 'change' their luck, and therefor fate can be denied.

However, the old meaning of 'luck', which Tolkien no doubt knew from his Anglo-Saxon readings, was that the king's luck was from the gods. When the king became 'unlucky', it meant that the gods had 'unlucked' him, and the folk would believe themselves in need of a new king; would kill that one and raise up another one who was 'lucked' by the gods. So 'luck' in Tolkien does not necessarily signify something other than doom or fate or providence.

[Lalwendë]

I think we've definitely got both free will and fate/luck in the story. And this is one instance where its definitely up to the reader to interpret how they see it. Especially the most famous example of Gollum falling into the fires with the Ring when Frodo 'fails'; this works in a really satisfying way from both perspectives. I'm sure those who read LotR before the Sil was out (and where we find out about Eru) got as much satisfaction from the ending as we do now?

I'm wary of attributing everything down to 'fate' though - there are many instances where a character is given an outright choice and he or she makes a right or wrong one. Of course it would be easy to put down simple plot lines to 'fate' but in the main that's what they are, twists and turns of plot.

Here's an interesting question. does anyone else get the impression that in Middle-earth the Men are more attuned to Free Will and having to take on board the responsibility of making the right choces while the Elves are much more gloomy and seem to think more things are 'fated'? I get this impression, and it maybe has something to do with the nature of mortality?

[littlemanpoet]

This is one instance of what I mean by Reality shining through LotR. Both doom and choice are there, written into the very weave of the tale. Many authors fail to account for one or the other, but our human experience is confronted by both. Both are real, and our attempts to deny one or the other sends us toward illusion or delusion (very often followed by disillusionment). Tolkien's tale satisfies because he acknowledges both and refuses to say the one trumps the other.

[Boromir88]

So 'luck' in Tolkien does not necessarily signify something other than doom or fate or providence.

I can agree with that...I just think that within LOTR someone has the ability to change their 'luck' or their 'fate' through the choices (free will) that they make. As I think is what happened to Frodo, Frodo's actions towards Gollum won him Mercy from Eru. Though admittingly, as Lal points out, it can be taken a few different ways.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Here's an interesting question. does anyone else get the impression that in Middle-earth the Men are more attuned to Free Will and having to take on board the responsibility of making the right choces while the Elves are much more gloomy and seem to think more things are 'fated'? I get this impression, and it maybe has something to do with the nature of mortality?

Lal,

Interesting comment. There are a couple of ways to view this, I believe. One of the possibilities is to think about Elves and Men in terms of their relationship with history.

One of the things that strikes me about Middle-earth is that most Men of the Third Age actually knew so very little about the origin of the universe or the early history of Man, even when expressed in mythic terms. With the exception of characters like Faramir or Aragorn who were direct descendents of the Numenoreans, most men/hobbits had limited knowledge about the "actual" origins of their world. The names of the Valar did not even register in their heads. One wonders, for example, whether a hobbit like Sam had even uttered the name of Varda before he left the Shire. It's true that hobbits and Rohirrim and, I suspect, other men knew the recent history of their own peoples, which was then couched in terms of family genealogy or deceased ancestors gathered together in a mead hall. But that's a lot different than having a wider understanding of past ages, both the accomplishments and mistakes.

The Elves on the other hand had carefully preserved their history. They were vitally aware of every mistake they had made as well as the role of the Valar and of Morgoth in the crafting of Arda. Such history can be a heavy burden: to see mistake after mistake made, and little indication that the pattern is ever going to be broken. Surely this had something to do with the Elves' negative attitude. The fact that some of them had actually lived for thousands of years and witnessed the various atrocities didn't make this any easier.

When I finish reading parts of the Silm, I am downright depressed. It seems that nothing goes right no matter how the Elves tried; they are trapped in their past mistakes. (LotR is the one exception to this in the Legandarium in that it is at least a partial, temporary victory.)

In some ways men were "blessed" by their relative ignorance. Not knowing how many failures there'd been in the past, they were foolish enough to try again and not give in to fatalism. Certainly, one of the most optomistic of the free peoples--the hobbits--had the least knowledge of the past. This shouldn't come as a surprise. In our own world, we have seen Afro-Americans "worn down" by the memories of slavery and Jews who are still dealing with the horrors of the Holocaust. Things like this affect how people react and think; the Elves are no exception.

[Lalwendë]

Good points - I think that one of the 'gifts' of mortality was not to be burdened by the weight of the past. It also gave Men the opportunity to actually learn to do the right thing. Contrast this with the Elves who know exactly where they are going in the end, they always know their fate. I'll ask the question - what incentive would an Elf actually have to learn to do the right thing? Men in contrast do not know what will happen after death, so if they have that in mind, then they must try to learn what is the right thing to do. there is also the matter that althoughMen may be leaving the earth behind one day and so why should they care what happens, they will live on thorugh their descendants, and want to leave the world safe for them. Elves on the other hand will carry on no matter what. Kind of a blameless existence.

And Men are created to live 'outside' the Music anyway, i.e. outside fate. So part of the very essence of Men is that they must learn what to do, think what to do, act in the right way, as their destiny is very much in their own hands.

It is sad that the Elves feel they have to dminish and leave Middle-earth for Valinor, but I also think it was the right choice to make, to withdraw from the lives of mortals (Men, Hobbits and Dwarves alike) and to leave them the room to grow and learn, and to be Men! Note that even Faramir is suspicious of what goes on in Lorien, so the divide had grown incredibly wide.

Maybe if we had to say who was optimistic and who was pessimistic in Middle-earth, then its the Elves who are the pessimists, not Men, who are not bound by fate and basically, well, to use a cliche, the world is their oyster! Could we say that its the pessimistic Elves who are the 'Christians', as they have had the revelation of their ultimate fate and of God? And the Men are the Pagans without the 'revelation', unaware of what Eru intends for them (unaware of Eru at all in fact, except Aragorn, who himself does not 'know' as an Elf might, he only 'trusts'), yet optimists to the core? So that knowing your fate takes away your power, whereas not knowing (i.e. for Men) makes anything possible.