The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[drigel]

Ive been enjoying this thread. I think this story is about all of the afore mentioned reasons - Atlantis, the Old Testament, etc. It is not complete in it's message, as I believe that JRRT wasn't writing for theological reasons as the primary motivation. But it is there - and for a reason. Whether or not he wanted, or was able to completely flesh out his idea - is another question.

So why kill the innocents? The only way I can get my head around this, even within the context of the secondary world, is to assume that Eru allowed them to die too to underscore the tragedy which resulted from their fathers' wrongdoing. Which is poetic, but still a bit sick.

...could've thought on that they also might influence the life of those around themselves. I think we all agree on that parents take responsibility for their children as long as they are not grown up enough to take care of themselves, right?

As the parents are to the children, so are the shepherds are to the flock. And upwards... but that question is applicable today - why do bad things happen to good people? Or, in other words, what was the bigger atrocity - the sinking of Numenor, or the cruel fate of the rest of the mortals that were doomed to live out their wretched lives back on the squalor of what was left of the broken ME? Surely there were innocents caught up in that as well. Many more, plus all their cursed decendants as well. Generation after generation. Sickness, darkness, forsaken. Thousands of years.

Within the context of the story, mind you...., to call 'sick' Eru's retribution against the disobedience and evil to which the Numenoreans had fallen, is to take the side of the disobedient and evil Numenoreans.

No man knoweth the plan. Accordingly, no Vala or Elf knoweth the role of men in the music.

It always strikes me as interesting how those who have contact with Elves come out of it with one of two views: they either accept their fate and their 'special' role in Middle-earth or they do all they can to get what the Elves have.

Thats why Numenor, as well as the Sauron (and the lesser Maia) issue, to me, represented a huge mistake, or imperfection in the Vala's governing of order.

No, I don't agree--I don't think the Valar were "racist": they are the Guardians of Men as well as Elves and they loved them.

They loved mankind, but completely misunderstood them. Their role both in this world and in the next is a complete unknown to them.

This is why I say one cannot rationalise the behaviour of Eru & make it good - though one can attribute all kinds of things to him, in order to make him 'good', but if one takes what Tolkien actually gives us, we have almost nothing to build on.......What he does display is pride, lack of compassion & brute force.

To me your describing exactly what life was about on ME at that time for mortals (and to an extent our descendant as well - pre bronze age). Cruel, merciless, the brute force of life was not good at all. Yet there was hope. Which leads me to -
What the purpose of (IMHO) the Eru figure is.

Yet Tolkien insists on bringing him into the story as an active participant at certain points, & this causes a problem due the fact of his one dimensionality. When he appears it is to do something & we don't really know why he does what he does because we don't know who he is.

The way for salvation of pre-prophet man. There was a plan for him there, in that sub-creation. It was a bleak existance, dire circumstances, but grace could still be obtained. Not complete in it's explanation, I agree. Not satisfying in any way. But the motivation was to create a story of mankind's mortality, which to me explains the plot of Numenor. The changes in revisions show the difficulty in dealing with the issue - mainly, in driving the story away from it. But it's there, and that means something to me. I think it meant a lot to the Catholic JRRT as well.

[davem]

Found an old post of mine on the 'Is Eru God?' thread, which is a quote from an essay by Verly Flieger: here. The most interesting point she makes is the following:

The supreme godhead, Eru/Iluvatar, who both proposes the theme and conducts the Music, is neither the Judaic God of Hosts who alternately punishes and rewards his people, nor the traditional Christian God of love and forgiveness. Rather, he is a curiously remote and for the most part inactive figure, uninvolved, with the exception of one cataclysmic moment, in the world he has conceived.

Inactive & uninvolved about sums him up. Of course, my earlier point about his existing in order to stop the Legendarium being dualistic must be qualified. There are, of course, two kinds of dualism. Middle-eastern dualism posits a conflict between equal forces of good & evil - ie it is 'moral' dualism. North Western cultures produced a dualism which was about the conflict of order & chaos (whether Odin against Loki or Apollo against Dionysus). Tolkien seems to have used Norse myth as a basis & set up an Odin/Loki conflict, but set it out in a 'Zoroastrian' form. Yet Eru himself remains aloof from the conflict. Its as though he creates the world (monotheism) but then steps back & plays no part in events, so that effectively the tale plays out along dualistic lines. Hence, in effect it is a dualistic mythology. What is needed to prevent it being that is for Eru to play a much greater part, be an involved presence, but this is something Tolkien never does.

EDIT I think the one statement in the work that confirms this 'dualism' is Galadriel's claim that she & Celeborn have spent three ages 'Fighting the Long Defeat'. Existence is an eternal battle between good & evil.

[Elmo]

Can I just point that if Eru himself is a moral character or not characters in Middle Earth believed he was a moral guide. Consider Tar-Meneldur when he receives the letter from Gil-Galad. He doesn't know what to do because whatever he does - to help Gil or not will result in death and he doesn't know how he will explain what he does to Eru.

[davem]

Originally Posted by hewhoarisesinmight

Can I just point that if Eru himself is a moral character or not characters in Middle Earth believed he was a moral guide. Consider Tar-Meneldur when he receives the letter from Gil-Galad. He doesn't know what to do because whatever he does - to help Gil or not will result in death and he doesn't know how he will explain what he does to Eru.

Which is just what causes the problem from an aesthetic perspective. Eru doesn't live up to the hype.

[Elmo]

I'd like to comment on that from an aetheist's perspective but this is a Middle Earth Forum...

[The 1,000 Reader]

I didn't read the thread through, but I noticed Numenor being spoken about, so I'll share my opinion on the subject.

Did anyone else think that Numenor was already on the road to doom before Sauron came there? Ar-Pharazon was ruler, the people were growing hostile to the concept of the elves being the only creatures with immortality, and Sauron was just the final piece of the puzzle that might not have even been truly required.

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

I didn't read the thread through, but I noticed Numenor being spoken about, so I'll share my opinion on the subject.

Did anyone else think that Numenor was already on the road to doom before Sauron came there? Ar-Pharazon was ruler, the people were growing hostile to the concept of the elves being the only creatures with immortality, and Sauron was just the final piece of the puzzle that might not have even been truly required.

Yes, this is a very common reading. The people and King had to have a certain degree of folly and pride before they would bring Sauron to their land, after all. However, to some degree this way of thinking gets close to the infamous "fate vs. free will in Arda" topic...