The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by hewhoarisesinmight

I've tried to get a passport

Something more like an argument maybe? Related to Tolkien's opinion preferrably?

Drigel, I would be more than happy to continue our discussion if you could provide something more specific about both my particular questions. And as to ancient history being more violent, the very first result which appeared on my query on google on the topic you mentioned lists the 20th century with the highest rate of casualties. For the worst of it, I don't think it lacked anything of the past centuries' wars; but it sure repeated them on an unimaginable scale, with more "refined" and "efficient" means of destruction. But this is off topic.

[Lalwendë]

Firstly, to answer SpM, I too don't like what Eru did. But I can reconcile this as the action of Eru, who is a very odd kind of god. He's not the kindly sort of God that modern worshippers know, but more the Old Testament type of God who would happily smite you down just for fun, for a bit of a cosmic joke. He's like the God of the Book of Job who toys with even his most faithful followers and is let's be frank, a wee bit cruel. But he can do this simply because he is omnipotent, and in fact its the kind of thing you'd expect of an omnipotent god - play around with even the most faithful, just to keep them 'in their place'.

That's just how Eru is - and it works if you consider the difficulties Tolkien himself had with reconciling his belief in God with the real horrors he saw on the Somme (such horrors as none of us has ever seen so we can't even get to the point he must have got to). I have to say, this Eru who Tolkien turned up isn't someone I particularly like, but he's interesting enough as a literary creation, and he certainly gives the writer incredible licence to do dodgy things to his characters as it can all be explained away as "Eru did it", and we all go "Ahhhhh, I see......"

The nature of omnipotent gods is that they can be as horrible as nasty as they like, but we can't question their motives because they are beyond our own concept of morality.

Now, getting on to those evil little kiddies who drowned. I seriously doubt that Tolkien really believed that children playing at being Orcs meant said kids were by nature 'evil' - you only have to read biographical works on Tolkien to see just how much of a family man and devoted father he was. Such a man simply would not kill off children and want us to believe this was 'justified' - has anyone ever thought that he put this there so that we would question Eru's actions? We are allowed to, you know! Remember there is no final word to say that this here literary creation, Eru is God, and nobody/no deity is going to smite anyone who questions this Eru's actions against mere children!

The other character who concerns me is indeed Miriel. Tolkien does NOT set her up as evil! Where does she condone the actions of Sauron? She is simply trapped in a marriage she does not want. The reason she did not speak out is laid out in the story - she simply could not. Putting a modern analogy to this - there were many ordinary Germans during WWII who did not speak out against Hitler - but this does NOT mean they condoned his actions or were 'evil'! I believe there is a letter mentioning Tolkien's own belief that ordinary Germans should in no way be held 'to blame'. They were simply trapped in a situation where they were inable to speak out for fear of their own lives. Tolkien is not in the habit of creating figures who are martyrs - and he does not make one out of Miriel. Rather he invites us to view the very human tragedy of Miriel (and many others too) caught up in events outside their control, and invites us to ask questions, not to draw lines and prepare nooses.

Finally, back to Atlantis. I am afraid that one letter in which Elendil is called 'Noachian' does not turn Tolkien's story into a Noachian story, no matter how much we want it to be one. The overwhelming evidence is that this is simply has little if anything to do with the Biblical flood, it is to do with Tolkien's Atlantis complex. That one Noachian figure proceeds from the story certainly does not mean that the story itself is Noachian - that I am afraid is simply speculation as Tolkien tells us the story is not Noachian, it is Atlantean.

[Raynor]

but more the Old Testament type of God who would happily smite you down just for fun

I see. And one instance where Eru does this for fun would be...?

I seriously doubt that Tolkien really believed that children playing at being Orcs meant said kids were by nature 'evil'

They are evil by choice. May I ask if you read it? Or letter #256?

Such a man simply would not kill off children and want us to believe this was 'justified'

One would have to balance the justice of this killing against growing up in a ever increasingly corrupted world, where they would be zombies doing Sauron's work, oppressing others in ways unimaginable, losing every bit of humanity, falling ever lower on the chasm of madness. I wonder if a mother would suffer her children to go about that way.

there were many ordinary Germans during WWII who did not speak out against Hitler - but this does NOT mean they condoned his actions or were 'evil'

No tyrant survives without the consent of his people - I truly believe in this.

Where does she condone the actions of Sauron?

If condone means to disregard without protest or censure, then she did all that. There isn't a single card of dissent, inward or outward, that we know she played. All we know is that in that period the luxury was ever increasing, more so at the top, presumably; there is no mention that she was an exception. There were clear signs that all riches came off at the expense of slavery and oppression - esspecially so concerning the king's house and his riches. All we know is that she enjoyed all that and did nothing about it. Nothing. Meanwhile, the faithfuls remained true to their beliefs, even when they were most often the victims of cruelty. No moral person can live in such times, enjoy the greatest luxury, with no sign of remorse, and still reject the label of evil.

I believe there is a letter mentioning Tolkien's own belief that ordinary Germans should in no way be held 'to blame'.

If you find it, perhaps we can discuss it.

The overwhelming evidence is that this is simply has little if anything to do with the Biblical flood, it is to do with Tolkien's Atlantis complex. That one Noachian figure proceeds from the story certainly does not mean that the story itself is Noachian - that I am afraid is simply speculation as Tolkien tells us the story is not Noachian, it is Atlantean.

Again, I see this as the logical fallacy of the false dillemma. The story can be both, I see no reason why not. I find your argument esspecially questionable, given that you were the first to quote Tolkien as calling this a noachian situation.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

They are evil by choice. May I ask if you read it? Or letter #256?

Children 'evil' by choice....and does Tolkien state how old these children were? 2? 5? 12?

One would have to balance the justice of this killing against growing up in a ever increasingly corrupted world, where they would be zombies doing Sauron's work, oppressing others in ways unimaginable, losing every bit of humanity, falling ever lower on the chasm of madness. I wonder if a mother would suffer her children to go about that way.

What mother wouldn't happily see her children killed for playing at being Orcs? You've sure convinced me...

No tyrant survives without the consent of his people - I truly believe in this.
If condone means to disregard without protest or censure, then she did all that. There isn't a single card of dissent, inward or outward, that we know she played. All we know is that in that period the luxury was ever increasing, more so at the top, presumably; there is no mention that she was an exception. There were clear signs that all riches came off at the expense of slavery and oppression - esspecially so concerning the king's house and his riches. All we know is that she enjoyed all that and did nothing about it. Nothing. Meanwhile, the faithfuls remained true to their beliefs, even when they were most often the victims of cruelty. No moral person can live in such times, enjoy the greatest luxury, with no sign of remorse, and still reject the label of evil.

As I stated earlier, in Robert Foster's Complete Guide to Middle-earth Miriel is stated to have been one of the faithful, & Christopher Tolkien himself praises that book for its accuracy.

If you find it, perhaps we can discuss it.

Its Letter 81.

There was a solemn article in the local paper seriously advocating systematic exterminating of the entire German nation as the only proper course after military victory: because, if you pleasse, they are rattlesnakes & don't know the difference between good & evil! (What of the writer?) The Germans have just as much right to declare the Poles & Jews exterminable vermin, subhuman, as we have to select the Germans: in other words no right, whatever they have done.

So, in Tolkien's opinion the 'extermination' of the German people could not be justified - whatever they had done - even 'consenting to a Dictator'.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Again, I see this as the logical fallacy of the false dillemma. The story can be both, I see no reason why not. I find your argument esspecially questionable, given that you were the first to quote Tolkien as calling this a noachian situation.

You are assuming Tolkien said that the downfall of Numenor was a Noachian situation. He did not. He said the escape of Elendil was a Noachian situation, which it was to a small extent (in that Noah is said to have led the only human survivors of a cataclysm whereas Elendil leads the survivors of one cataclysm and other humans continue regardless of it). But one chapter of a novel does not define the whole. Especially when we are told what it is meant to represent. There simply is no argument.

Originally Posted by Raynor

One would have to balance the justice of this killing against growing up in a ever increasingly corrupted world, where they would be zombies doing Sauron's work, oppressing others in ways unimaginable, losing every bit of humanity, falling ever lower on the chasm of madness. I wonder if a mother would suffer her children to go about that way.

There is no need to 'balance' anything morally.

And you underestimate mothers' love which transcends anything that mere morality can impose upon it.

Now if the children really were zombies, wouldn't their mothers also be 'zombies'? So the argument doesn't hold up. And that's putting aside that Tolkien, a family man, would not have been able to contemplate the idea that children could be 'evil'. I don't know how much you know about children, but ever since humans walked upright children have played all kinds of games and being an Orc does not mean a child is evil. How many children play at being pirates these days? Or indeed, Orcs?! My friends' nephews play at being Orcs - should they be put to death or maybe exorcised? They are anything but evil, they are just kids, play acting at thrilling, slightly scary things!

Even if we look at the downfall from a purely textual viewpoint then Eru was not punishing the people of Numenor for consorting with Sauron, he was taking Numenor from the face of the world because the Valar had told the Numenoreans that if they broke the Ban then they would never see Numenor again - a certain way of achieving this is to wipe it from the face of the world. If Eru was in the business of punishing anyone for consorting with Sauron then what did he do about those Men on Sauron's side who lived in huge numbers in Middle-earth? Nothing. Eru wiped out Numenor because the Valar begged him to, because they could not enact the Ban; Sauron was merely supplementary to what the Numenoreans did, exacerbating, aiding and abetting behaviour which was already in the minds of some of these people.

[Raynor]

Some points of Lal which I overlook:

Now if the children really were zombies, wouldn't their mothers also be 'zombies'?

I haven't made my question clear: it is a general one, where the mother - the judge - maintains independent judgement and her morality. The consequences of letting the children live are those that I mentioned. What is your answer?

My friends' nephews play at being Orcs

I actually like the orcs of the Warcraft world. Not all orcs in all fantasies are the same. Some of them are examples of courage and nobility. The point in question was that those children were doing evil acts, which later would lead to a satanic cult at least for some of them.

the Valar had told the Numenoreans that if they broke the Ban then they would never see Numenor again

Hm, where is that stated?

If Eru was in the business of punishing anyone for consorting with Sauron then what did he do about those Men on Sauron's side who lived in huge numbers in Middle-earth?

Same problem I raised to davem: Numenor made a very powerful impact on the balance of power in M-E. Without it, the other black numenoreans were far less advantaged and in a lesser position to pursue the same evil goals - their problem was more than half-solved. Plus, those of M-E did not suffer Sauron's marring, at least not continuously/increasingly.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, if you could give a better solution...

Being omnipotent, nothing was beyond him, so he could presumably have surgically removed the corrupt (and the corruptor) and left the Faithful. The wholescale destruction of an island and all its inhabitants does seem rather a blunt weapon, although suitable perhaps for the fleet. Then again, it probaly wouldn't have made for such a compelling tale ...

Which leads me back to the point that I am more interested in. The destruction of Numenor provides a stirring image within the fantasy world which Tolkien created. But, for those of us who have a problem with the justice of it (and I, like davem, reserve the right, as a reader, to judge the actions of a fictional character in a novel, deity or no deity), this does surely have an impact on our understanding of that world.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

But I can reconcile this as the action of Eru, who is a very odd kind of god. He's not the kindly sort of God that modern worshippers know, but more the Old Testament type of God who would happily smite you down just for fun, for a bit of a cosmic joke.

I can readily accept the analogy between Eru and the God of the Old Testament. But I disagree that this resolves the problem, since I have no inclination to accept as credible that work, nor indeed to reconcile the portrayal of the God it presents with real life experience. But Tolkien is asking me, if I am to find his fantasy word credible, to accept as the source of all goodness within it the fictional God that he presents. Fine. But I find that credibility stretched to be told on the one hand that Eru is the embodiment and source of good within that world and that anything contrary to his will is evil, but be presented on the other hand with a deed perpetrated by him which I find hard to characterise as "good".

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

That's just how Eru is - and it works if you consider the difficulties Tolkien himself had with reconciling his belief in God with the real horrors he saw on the Somme ...

That doesn't help me either. I don't share Tolkien's beliefs, and so I have a different perspective from him on the horrors of the Somme (and other attrocities perpetrated by man against man). And we are not talking here about attrocities committed by the Men of Tolkien's world (who are subject to corruption), or by those committed by the proponents of evil and their minions. We are talking about an attrocity (as some, myself included, see it), perpetrated by one who, by his very nature, is presented as being free from all corruption and the highest ideal for all those characters within Middle-earth that we are supposed to (and, by their actions do) admire.

In other words, while I can admire the deeds of the likes of Elrond, Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo and Sam I cannot admire this one deed of the character whom they are presented as serving and to whom they aspire (whether they know it or not).

To my mind, it presents a logical flaw in the world which Tolkien portrays.

[Raynor]

and does Tolkien state how old these children were?

I am not aware that he does.

What mother wouldn't happily see her children killed for playing at being Orcs?

You are mixing the situations in an uncalled for manner. I have never argued such a thing. You can see that from the quote above this.

As I stated earlier, in Robert Foster's Complete Guide to Middle-earth Miriel is stated to have been one of the faithful, & Christopher Tolkien himself praises that book for its accuracy.

May I see a direct refference from Tolkien anyway?

So, in Tolkien's opinion the 'extermination' of the German people could not be justified - whatever they had done - even 'consenting to a Dictator'.

Nothing in that quote exonerates the germans on behalf of fear. That was the initial statement made by Lal, which is unsuporter by this particular letter. Furthermore, we would need to establish where the analogy with the germans should stop - ideology and manipulation doesn't match Sauron's marring, and anything that the nazis did doesn't amount to an actual attack on Valinor.

You are assuming Tolkien said that the downfall of Numenor was a Noachian situation. He did not. He said the escape of Elendil was a Noachian situation, which it was to a small extent (in that Noah is said to have led the only human survivors of a cataclysm whereas Elendil leads the survivors of one cataclysm and other humans continue regardless of it). But one chapter of a novel does not define the whole. Especially when we are told what it is meant to represent.

Nothing warrants restricting the religious comparison only to Elendil; that qualifier isn't found. One similarity doesn't exclude the others. This still is a false dillemma.

There simply is no argument.

So exceptions are possible?

Yes.

As would Numenor without its Fleet.

Numenor still intact would have Sauron and most likely other servants at his will. The system would continue.

So the Children of Numenor were more 'evil' than fully grown Numenoreans on the Mainland?

If not by choice, then by Sauron's marrring.

If that was the 'best' he could do, I'm not impressed.

Well, if you could give a better solution...

So burning them alive would have been ok if there had been proof? Its not that burning someone alive is wrong in & of itself, only if you have no evidence?

The point was that there was nothing to justify taking their life. And I believe no one should be burned. I also don't believe in the capital punishment that still is practiced today in certain countries - it does little after the fact. I am interested to explore if there were better approaches than Eru's to Numenor.

And you're still saying its ok to kill 'evil' children.

Ok, let me ask you too: do you think a parent would rather have his children grow up to be instruments of the most horrible evil that can be conceived than not live at all? I agree, again, that this is the most crucial part of the debate.

Killing someone does not guarantee their free will.

Free will doesn't come with a white check to do unrestrained evil, against one's self or others. If violence can be avoided, free will respected and life preserved, I agree it is the best way out.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I am not aware that he does.
You are mixing the situations in an uncalled for manner. I have never argued such a thing. You can see that from the quote above this.

I'll be honest. I'm not sure exactly what you are arguing as far as 'evil' children are concerned.

Nothing in that quote exonerates the germans on behalf of fear. That was the initial statement made by Lal, which is unsuporter by this particular letter. Furthermore, we would need to establish where the analogy with the germans should stop - ideology and manipulation doesn't match Sauron's marring, and anything that the nazis did doesn't amount to an actual attack on Valinor.

You see, I'm stepping back from that one, 'cos that last point is just too wierd.

Ok, let me ask you too: do you think a parent would rather have his children grow up to be instruments of the most horrible evil that can be conceived than not live at all? I agree, again, that this is the most crucial part of the debate.

I don't think you understand how parents think about their children. No parent would wish their child to grow up to do evil, but no parent would wish to see their child killed.

Free will doesn't come with a white check to do unrestrained evil, against one's self or others. If violence can be avoided, free will respected and life preserved, I agree it is the best way out.

Eru took away the Numenoreans' free will when he killed them, because in assaulting Valinor they were exercising said free will.

However, this is going round in circles. And I noticed something interesting.

The Akalabeth states that Eru was responsible for the Fall of Numenor, & that is the accepted version of the story. However, in the Letter to Milton Waldman of Collins Tolkien gives an alternative:

The Valar lay down their delegated power & appeal to God, & receive the power & permission to deal with the situation: the old world is broken & changed. A chasm is opened in the sea & Tar-Calion (sic) & his armada is engulfed. Numenor itself on the edge of the rift topples & vanishes for ever with all its glory in the abyss.

Now, there are a couple of interesting things here. First, this is a very different situation, in that Eru does not destroy Numenor, the Valar do - Eru simply gives them the power & authority to do so. In this scenario he is not personally responsible. And neither are the Valar.

Think about it - the Valar are described as acting effectively in self-defence - they don't trash Numenor on purpose - their intention is merely to remove Valinor out of harm's way, it just so happens that the Island is on the edge of the rift & falls in. One can almost hear Manwe's tortured cri de cour echoing from the heights of Taniquetil: 'Doh!'

Point being: the Valar in this version did not destroy Numenor with malice aforethought, & therefore could not be held morally accountable - & those of us who have a problem with the 'official' version would not (i suspect) have such a problem with this one.

So the other interesting thing to speculate on is why Tolkien chose the version where Eru is directly responsible for the destruction of Numenor over the one where the Valar are indirectly responsible. The 'Valar are responsible but its not really their fault' ( or TVARBINRTF) version is certainly easier to stomach than the 'Eru is responsible & it really is his fault' (or EIR&IRIHF) version, & no-one, really, comes off looking too bad in a moral sense.

Quite interesting, also, that the Second Edition of The Sil has the Letter as a Foreword, so the reader first of all reads TVARBINRTF before the EIR&IRIHF version.

Now, one recalls that Tolkien quoted Chesterton in OFS (on the subject of why children like the 'cruel' punishments meted out to villains in many traditional tales) along the lines of Children are innocent & prefer justice, while we (adults) are wicked & therefore prefer mercy. Does this apply here: 'Children' being 'innocent' prefer the EIR&IRIHF (conspiracy) version, because it clearly depicts Eru punishing the Numenoreans for their sins, while we 'grown-ups' would perhaps choose TVARBINRTF (Cock-up), where it was all an accident?

[Raynor]

Unless, of course, Eru had removed him as had been done with Morgoth.

Which disregards that:
- all the ainur are supposed to stay within Ea until the end
- Eru must respect the free will of his created beings
- Melkor is the foremost candidate for an exception; the effects of him staying in Ea and regaining power are incomparable to Sauron doing so

But its not convincing anybody.

So far, I believe you are the only one who remains unconvinced of their veracity. If don't have an actual counter-proof, your argument is fallacious.

Eru may have shown such 'concern' as you state, but he also slaughtered many thousands of his children, innocent as well as guilty

I have presented my case concerning the marring of all the un-faithfuls in Numenor. I am looking forward to rebutals.

allowed many evil Numenoreans to survive in mainland colonies.

In a situation of power which is incomparable to what has been before.

So the possibility that the bodies may not have been seen makes the killing more acceptable?

That was not my point. I have simply pointed out the unlikelyness of your theory.

I'm sure, for instance, that destruction of the Fleet alone would have had the desired effect, without killing the civilians.

You disregard the fact that killing people _in_land_ by lightning strikes had no effect either; or that Sauron was still in Numenor, more of a ruler than before, above a people he tainted with his power. That situation would simply have removed all obstacles in Sauron's path, as he was already musing how to go about his business, now that the Edain were out of his way. Destroying only the fleet would have actually helped Sauron. He was glad about it.

I do not accept that any children on the Island can be held to have been guilty enough to justify their deaths while Nuemnoreans who actually did go along with the attrocities were spared by virtue of their being on the mainland.

Those on the mainland, unlike those on the island, weren't under Sauron's continuous, ever increasing, corruption.

Have to say that the most effective way of taking away someone's free will is to drown them.

I have asked you what would you have done better, if someone continues to kill and oppress, and will do so as long as he/she lives. So far, you have only nitpick at my presentation of the situation, without pointing out to any other better solution. The One's responsibility is not only to save the aggressors (the best way he can), but the victims too.

Isn't that how they justified burning heretics & witches?

False analogy; in the situation of heretics and witches, the blame rested on their accusers. There was no real reason, religious or otherwise, to do so. The burden of proof has not been observed in fact. With the numenoreans, the evidence were in the day light, while there still was light. So, what is the answer to my initial question?

Destroy the fleet, spare the civilians.

In addition to what I have answered before to this theory, I would also note that the center of world-wide oppression would still be left - Numenor.

Eru intervened & killed people. Innocent & guilty.

I am aware that the younger those people, the lesser their fault (although their marring might be just as strong). For this, I propose we consider: the "mother" situation I presented to Lal; beyond all, the fact that Eru can turn any divine punishment into a divine gift.

You're making him out almost to be the helpless victim of circumstances beyond his control.

These circumstances are beyond his control, if he is to guarantee free will.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Which disregards that:
- all the ainur are supposed to stay within Ea until the end
- Eru must respect the free will of his created beings
- Melkor is the foremost candidate for an exception; the effects of him staying in Ea and regaining power are incomparable to Sauron doing so

So exceptions are possible?

In a situation of power which is incomparable to what has been before.

As would Numenor without its Fleet.

Those on the mainland, unlike those on the island, weren't under Sauron's continuous, ever increasing, corruption.

So the Children of Numenor were more 'evil' than fully grown Numenoreans on the Mainland?

I have asked you what would you have done better, if someone continues to kill and oppress, and will do so as long as he/she lives. So far, you have only nitpick at my presentation of the situation, without pointing out to any other better solution. The One's responsibility is not only to save the aggressors (the best way he can), but the victims too.

If that was the 'best' he could do, I'm not impressed.

False analogy; in the situation of heretics and witches, the blame rested on their accusers. There was no real reason, religious or otherwise, to do so. The burden of proof has not been observed in fact. With the numenoreans, the evidence were in the day light, while there still was light.

So burning them alive would have been ok if there had been proof? Its not that burning someone alive is wrong in & of itself, only if you have no evidence?

I am aware that the younger those people, the lesser their fault (although their marring might be just as strong). For this, I propose we consider: the "mother" situation I presented to Lal; beyond all, the fact that Eru can turn any divine punishment into a divine gift.

And you're still saying its ok to kill 'evil' children.

These circumstances are beyond his control, if he is to guarantee free will.

Killing someone does not guarantee their free will.