Turin the Hopeless?

[Sir Kohran]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

In fact, Túrin is the only character in the entire story who virtually brandishes the Nordic Ethos. Húrin comes closest after him, but even his talk has more to do with the righteousness of the Eldar. The Eldar are written by Tolkien to appear little if anything like their Alfar counterparts from Nordic legend. The words of all Eldar in the story, and even the wisest of the men (such as Brandir in his better moments, and others) counsel caution and hanging on, cognizant of the devastating power of Morgoth.

And Morgoth. This is one entity that cannot be found in the Nordic mythos. This evil personage goes way beyond a Loki, or a Surtr, or any such antagonistic figure from Norse myth. This is a will full of malice, seeking by means of a curse, and the carrying out of all of his plans, to fulfill that curse. And the curse might have been overcome had Túrin become powerful enough, and just one plot turn not have turned out for the worst, despite his pride. If Mím had not acted upon his vengefulness, if he had not been forced to sit idle while his son died, .... and so on. There are so many turns of the plot where something better could have happened, but the worst thing did. This goes to show that Túrin was up against an unbeatable foe. This is not blind fate, even though Túrin may think so. This is Morgoth willing Túrin's life to be a living hell.

So yes, there is plenty of hope in The Children of Húrin, but not for the Children of Húrin, ironically.

That's a very interesting look at the Nordic ideas and in particular Morgoth.

Morgoth seems almost out of place in COH. You're absolutely right in stating that the Nordic mythology, upon which the era of COH is 'based on', contains no-one equivalent to him - though there are evil beings, even terrifying beings, they just don't have that sense of malice and overhanging wickedness that surrounds the figure of Morgoth. In many ways Morgoth is, in this regard, most similar to Satan - the Christian being of evil. Both Morgoth and Satan are the prime evils in their worlds - the greatest, oldest incarnation of the shadow in its most evil form.

I'm reminded of the story of Job from the Bible - like Turin, he is tormented by the ultimate evil and put through absolute hell. The big difference is that Job is eventually relieved from his evil fate and is rewarded for his endurance. Turin receives no such reward from Eru for his heroism. Instead he is damned to a bitter, tragic end. The Christian 'hero' survives thanks to his Christian god whilst the Nordic 'hero' perishes thanks to his Christian devil. Essentially the world of COH lacks any Nordic god to defend it. Am I getting anything here or is this just mindless rambling?

[littlemanpoet]

Well, yes, I think you're getting the gist of what I'm saying, Sir Kohran. Just a few things to note. You will remember that Ulmo had a role to play in Turin's life, but Turin rejected the god's counsel. It's a shame that the Beren & Luthien tale, and the Fall of Gondolin~Eärendil tales probably won't get the same treatment as the Children of Hurin tale, because as The Silmarillion shows, Ulmo, like Manwë, comes closest of all the Valar to understanding the mind of Eru. So if Ulmo is giving the counsel, it is safe to conclude that it is in agreement with the mind of Eru.

I understand why Job might come to mind as comparable to Children of Hurin, since Satan is introduced as a persona in the book as is Morgoth in CoH. However, a closer comparison can be drawn to King Saul of Israel. Both Saul and Turin labor vainly against curses; Turin's initiated by Morgoth; Saul's initiated by Yahweh as punishment for Saul's disobedience. Saul's life after the punishment begins is every bit as "downhill" as is Turin's.

Another thing CoH does not tell the reader (therefore yet another fault in the work as published) is that Turin will be at the Arda version of Ragnarok, and will slay (shoot I forget who) either Morgoth or some great evil wyrm or monster of some sort. So Turin's "eucatastrophe" is assured.

[Aiwendil]

Another thing CoH does not tell the reader (therefore yet another fault in the work as published) is that Turin will be at the Arda version of Ragnarok, and will slay (shoot I forget who) either Morgoth or some great evil wyrm or monster of some sort.

Up to at least the 1937 Quenta Silmarillion, Turin was to slay Morgoth at the Dagor Dagorath. In the post-LotR revision (which, however, was very cursory in the later chapters) Tolkien made a note that Beren was to accompany Turin in this endeavour.

But it's worth noting that Tolkien made a late decision to change this; in a note on 'The Problem of Ros' he refers to a prophecy of Andreth: Turin would return at the Great Battle (i.e. the War of Wrath, not the Dagor Dagorath) and slay Ancalagon.

Both Saul and Turin labor vainly against curses; Turin's initiated by Morgoth; Saul's initiated by Yahweh as punishment for Saul's disobedience. Saul's life after the punishment begins is every bit as "downhill" as is Turin's.

Interesting that this makes Yahweh the analogue of Morgoth!

As long as we're finding parallels for Turin, let's not forget his intra-Legendarium doppleganger: Tuor. There are too many obvious parallels between their stories to list, but one slightly more subtle one is that between Morgoth's influence over Turin's fate and Ulmo's influence over Tuor's - the obvious difference being that Ulmo is good and Morgoth evil.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Another thing CoH does not tell the reader (therefore yet another fault in the work as published) is that Turin will be at the Arda version of Ragnarok, and will slay (shoot I forget who) either Morgoth or some great evil wyrm or monster of some sort. So Turin's "eucatastrophe" is assured.

Its not so much a fault in the book, as a fault in Tolkien. Tolkien wrote the Narn & the Narn ends with the death of Turin & Nienor. There is no eucatastrophe in this story & Tolkien clearly intended there to be no eucatastrophe. CT hasn't edited a eucatastrophe out.

And, unfortunately, I fear that this work will never be fully appreciated as a work of literature in its own right. It will always be read in the light of the other writings, & have a eucatastrophe forced on it, in order (imo) to make it 'safe' & 'palatable'. Read as a part of the Legendarium, in the light of the other writings, this is a supremely unncessary exercise - Bad guy triumphs temporarily, but its always darkest before the dawn, & just when you think all's lost, the sun comes out & everyone lives happily ever after. Pointless excercise & a waste of time & money for all concerned. We got that from LotR.

Its only when we read CoH as a stand alone work, divorced from the rest of the writings, entirely absent of any hope or eucaastrophe, that it becomes important & significant - & more importantly says something new
.

[littlemanpoet]

Regardless of what a reader may want from this particular author, I think it has been demonstrated that Tolkien never intended this story to be published on its own, in its current condition. He intended it to be accompanied by Beren & Luthien, the Fall of Gondolin, and the journey of Eärendil. So regardless of whether one wants eucatastrophes, Tolkien intended there to be one, for that is precisely what Eärendil's journey accomplishes, it's what the story of Tuor leads up to.

Saying something new would be nice, if that were what was really going on in CoH. It would be more accurate to say that this particular CoH says some things that some readers like. A lot.

But it is best to take the whole story rather than pick just the parts that most appeal if one is going to make sweeping declarations about it.

As has been demonstrated by other posters as well, as a stand alone, CoH is a stunted work. Plain and simple.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bad guy triumphs temporarily, but its always darkest before the dawn, & just when you think all's lost, the sun comes out & everyone lives happily ever after. Pointless excercise & a waste of time & money for all concerned. We got that from LotR.

Ouch! I think this is an overstatement of what LotR is. My own perception is different.

Rather than everyone living happily ever after, I saw a woman who gave up immortality and embraced death, however unwillingly, for a lifetime with someone she loved. I saw a "hero" who was not a hero, one who paid an unknown price....unknown because the reader can not even sail West to find out what happened to him. I saw a good man like Boromir corrupted because he, like many, could not withstand the evil that infects every corner of Arda because of a train of events originally initiated by Morgoth and now carried on by many others. This list of examples could be extended.

For every glimmer of hope in LotR, and there are many, I also saw a burden of sorrow and evil. We are given a short glimpse of one victory but at a heavy price and no indication that there was a "happily ever after".

I do wonder how JRRT would feel about one of his stories (and this story in particular) being separated out from the Legendarium and examined in isolation, without reference to the rest of the structure, beliefs, powers etc. of Middle-earth that he so carefully defined and crafted. I am extremely grateful to CT for editing this story and making it available. I think Davem makes some excellent points about the tone of this tale and to what extent modern readers will have an easier time identifying with it. But in the end, for me at least, this story fails to capture my heart or attention to the same degree as LotR or Silm, which present a much broader picture.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

And, unfortunately, I fear that this work will never be fully appreciated as a work of literature in its own right. Read as a part of the Legendarium, in the light of the other writings, this is a supremely unncessary exercise - Bad guy triumphs temporarily, but its always darkest before the dawn, & just when you think all's lost, the sun comes out & everyone lives happily ever after. Pointless excercise & a waste of time & money for all concerned. We got that from LotR.

Are you really claiming that :

1. LotR has a simple "everyone lives happily ever after" ending
2. The Silmarillion has a simple "everyone lives happily ever after" ending
3. Once there exists one story with a happy ending, it's pointless for there to be any more
4. Tolkien, contrary to all evidence, would have published the 'Narn' on its own, deliberately suppressing the tale of Earendil
5. The eucatastrophe of the War of Wrath erases all the suffering of Turin and his family; tragedy is so weak a thing that subsequent joy robs it of its potency?

I think that each one of those points is clearly false.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Davem wrote:


Are you really claiming that :

1. LotR has a simple "everyone lives happily ever after" ending
2. The Silmarillion has a simple "everyone lives happily ever after" ending
3. Once there exists one story with a happy ending, it's pointless for there to be any more
4. Tolkien, contrary to all evidence, would have published the 'Narn' on its own, deliberately suppressing the tale of Earendil
5. The eucatastrophe of the War of Wrath erases all the suffering of Turin and his family; tragedy is so weak a thing that subsequent joy robs it of its potency?

I think that each one of those points is clearly false.

Well, I think my posts on the LotR read through more or less confirm that as my position, yes.

However, CoH has been published as it is, as a stand alone work, & I think it stands as one of the most important & significant works of fiction in recent years. I also think that if it had been published as part of a wider story much of that significance would have been mitigated. If JRRT would not have published it alone & CT has, then I think CT is the wiser of the two.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Regardless of what a reader may want from this particular author, I think it has been demonstrated that Tolkien never intended this story to be published on its own, in its current condition. He intended it to be accompanied by Beren & Luthien, the Fall of Gondolin, and the journey of Eärendil. So regardless of whether one wants eucatastrophes, Tolkien intended there to be one, for that is precisely what Eärendil's journey accomplishes, it's what the story of Tuor leads up to.

But it stands as it is - a separate story, with a beginning, middle & end. Just as TH stands as a separate story, without needing LotR to give it meaning (or LotR without needing The Sil).

CoH is not 'stunted' as far as I'm concerned. I find it one of the greatest, most profoundly interesting & challenging works Tolkien produced - as it is. Its only going to seem 'stunted' or 'incomplete' to those who want it to be something other than it is, to have a different 'message'. In itself it is as full & complete as LotR - it simply says something different.

My fear is that it will be judged & critiqued not as a work in its own right, but as an episode in a 'greater' story & that it will never be seen for what it is - because too many readers don't want it to be what it is, or say what it does.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

CoH is not 'stunted' as far as I'm concerned. I find it one of the greatest, most profoundly interesting & challenging works Tolkien produced - as it is. Its only going to seem 'stunted' or 'incomplete' to those who want it to be something other than it is, to have a different 'message'. In itself it is as full & complete as LotR - it simply says something different..

Then please outline what LotR says, and what CoH says that is different. I'd like to see your comparisons, point for point. In other words, please prove what you're saying.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Then please outline what LotR says, and what CoH says that is different. I'd like to see your comparisons, point for point. In other words, please prove what you're saying.

I already did. I 'outlined' what I think LotR is saying in the CbC thread - I think, (apart from Esty's intros for each chapter) that I was the only one who contributed to every chapter. I've outlined what I think CoH is saying on this thread. As you know, I'm not someone who goes in for needless repetition.....

EDIT

Just linked to this article on the 'Christopher Tolkien' thread, but I think it contains some support for my position that CoH is essentially different in mood, tone, & 'message' to LotR.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle1742663.ece