Turin the Hopeless?

[Puddleglum]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

[I]
I'm drawn to the idea that CoH is in some ways ... a moral repudiation of the doctrine of "eucatastrophe". When the story ends, Hurin knows that his wife "had died" in his arms. No more is said, and no more need be said.

While CoH has (posthumously) been published as a separate book and can, to some extent, be enjoyed in its own right, I think its purpose and meaning can really only be interpreted or understood in the context of the world and mythos in which it is set.

Tolkien's concept of eucatastrophe relies on an appreciation of how bad and hopeless things are before the eucatastrophe occurs. Eucatastrophe refers to the sudden, joyous, turn which cannot be anticipated from what has gone before.

Thus, if good is gradually winning over evil and finally achieves victory, that is not a eucatastrophe. The war of wrath *was* a eucatastrophe because, while the elves and men might wish for divine intervention, they had no basis for expecting it based on anything that had gone before. The Valar had turned a deaf ear to all the destruction and killing of elves and, even, of Men (who had not been involved in rebellion).

Similarly, if there had been no death and destruction (if the Elvish kingdoms had simply managed to continue the siege of Angband indefinitely) the divine intervention and defeat of Morgoth would not be that special. Most Elves might just feel "we had things sorted just fine, thank you. We had our realms and here you come sinking our realms under water - destroying all we built. why didn't you just let us handle it."

In this context, the value of the eucatastrophe is proportional to the defeat and destruction and failure that preceded it. CoH (the Narn i hin Hurin) is one (the longest and most poignant) story of that evil - played out very personally in the lives of (in the mythos) real men and women with real egos, and loves, and strengths and faults.

The more we grieve at the evil of Morgoth (felt personally in CoH more than in any other tales of those days), the more we cheer or weep with joy at his eucatastrophic defeat.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad

Obviously? I'm not entirely convinced about that. It is clear that he put most of his effort into finishing this story, as opposed to the other more hopeful ones, toward the end of his life. And he didn't write it happily, or with a sense of hope, as I said. Although he could have done so if he had felt so inclined.

Let me quote you again, tumhalad:

CoH is not set in this world at all; it is a world wherein hope itself is futile because there is no God; indeed, one is almost tempted to agree with Morgoth and say that there is "Nothing" beyond the void. For all the characters in the story know, this is perfectly true. We think we know better because we have the Silmarillion, which says that Eru created the world, etc, but once again I'm not certain CoH should be read through that prism.

1. Tolkien was a deeply religious man. While I certainly don't think his work is just a Christian allegory, I would highly doubt he'd write something overtly athiest as a stand-alone work.

2. We "think" we know better? Um... it does rather appear to be set in the same world as the rest, doesn't it? You know, names, places, and all that? If you think Tolkien meant it to be set in a separate world, one with a different background as regards history, the nature of the supernatural, etc. then I rather think the burden of proof is on you.

Once again, I'm not saying the book can't be read, or doesn't work, on its own. What you're saying here actually goes considerably beyond that:

Originally Posted by tumhalad

Now, I think there are better readings and worse readings, by no means are all "equal". In this case, to completely diss the novel's major thematic, emotive energy in favour of a kind of reading that at best seeks to mitigate or at worst ignore the utter defeat and nihilism of it is, I think, fatuous.

"Fatuous". I see. You know, I could find some equally colourful ways to describe what I consider to be your leaps of logic (see above)– but heck, that's not how I play, my friend

Originally Posted by davem

Many people do live desperate, pointless lives, devoid of hope & purpose

And many people– almost all people, in my personal experience– don't. I don't. Thus, a world without hope altogether does not and cannot convince me.

Originally Posted by davem

Just because the stories are set in the same world doesn't make one of them less true - or even dependent on each other. And it certainly doesn't mean we should see one of them as untrue if read alone.

But davem, that's not what I said. I say that I find the story of the Children of Hurin more satisfying if read as part of the greater story. This is partly because of the general richness of the background, the sense of past and future history, and partly because for me a tale of total despair, presented as the last word on life, the universe and everything, does ring essentially false. (Once again, this is my temperament and my experience of life, neither of which we get to choose, I think.) For me, both these considerations make the "in context" version more real, and thus more emotionally affecting. I also think that the story is in its turn an integral part of the greater work, which would be diminished without it. Again, just my reaction.

Now, look, guys, I don't have a problem with anyone who prefers to read it as a stand-alone work. What I am disputing is that a.) this is an inherently "better" reading, b.) that it's what the author intended, c.) that reading it in the context of the Legendarium necessarily "cheapens" or "disses" it, and d.) that wishing so to read it is a sign of weakness or moral failing (or– in tumhalad's words, is "fatuous"). I don't know if you all intended this last, but that's kind of how it's coming across.

Can't you see this is a matter of personal taste, and nothing more?

[Nerwen]

Also, since having an overall happy(ish) ending does not erase individual suffering– what's the problem? I quite agree, for instance, that Turin & Co. had no way of knowing Morgoth would be eventually defeated. Therefore I don't see why reading the whole thing– or reading CoH with the rest in mind– somehow "invalidates" Turin's anguish.

My guess– though this may be way out, and possibly offensive, for which I apologise in advance– is that the answer perhaps lies in what some of you imagine is taking place in the minds of people reading it the "wrong" way. I mean all this talk of "shoving it into the world of LOTR to 'make it fit in'", of people having a "determination to see it as simply part of a greater tale where good wins out & everyone lives happily ever" of the in-context reading being "easier on the reader". It is my belief that in saying this you're attributing "bad" (as you see it) motives to other people which aren't necessarily there.

Once again, you are all free to read any book any way you like. If you don't like one of the author's concepts, why, then, reject it. One is not obliged to take a writer's whole philosophy onboard, anyway. I never do.

[Vultur]

I agree that the omission of any mention of Turin's return from Mandos (whether to slay Ancalagon at the War of Wrath or to slay Morgoth at the Dagor Dagorath) changes the feel of the story dramatically.

I'm not sure what other choice CT had, though, as Tolkien never settled on a final version of that bit. I think it was a matter of the original Turin story being incompatible with the universe of Arda as it developed, with Turin and Nienor becoming Valar, as the Doom of Men became a central element of the legendarium (as it wasn't in the Book of Lost Tales era, where 'Turin and Nienor become Valar and Turin kills Morgoth' came from) -- but Tolkien wasn't willing to discard the conception of his return in some form at least.

In a way, Tolkien thoroughly changed his views of the role of Men in relation to Elves in the final fate of Arda. In the early texts it's said that the fate of Men after the end of the world is not spoken of in the prophecies of Mandos "save of Turin only, and him it names among the Gods"; but later that is changed to it being said that Men will participate in the Second Music of the Ainur, and the fate of Elves is not spoken of. And then there is some discussion in Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth about Men healing Arda in the end.

Essentially, the role Turin was meant to play (as representative of Men in the end of Arda's evils) became both irrelevant and impossible with later developments in the legendarium. So I'm not sure there was really any better solution than to leave the matter entirely out of Children of Hurin -- though it does seem crucial to his story.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Gotta say I've never understood the point of view which holds that LOTR ends on a "hopeful note"...the Elves have departed Middle-earth and taken with them all that remains of the light of the Eldar, the power of the Rings to preserve and inspire is gone, the Dwarves are still dwindling, Gondor is restored but explicitly only for a time and as a lesser reminder of past glories, the Hobbits have retreated even further into their realm and into their hopless parochialism unable to appreciate even the heroes in their very midst, the Ents have no Entings...in short, the Age of Man has begun, which is our own age. Having fallen so fully for the enchantment of Middle-earth (which you would have had to have done to reach the end of LOTR at all) that is the most depressing part: that world is gone, replaced by our own, and in particular by the 20th century.

Sure individual characters have happy endings, but on the whole things look really bleak. Sauron is gone, but we know from history and precedence that something will be back to replace him, as he replaced Morgoth. And sure, it won't be as 'bad' but neither is there anything as 'good' left to confront him: Aragorn is the last of his kind; Arwen is the last of her kind; Frodo has left Middle-earth; Sam can no longer go adventuring; Merry and Pippin are old soldiers reliving their past glories for an increasingly amused progeny.

Sorry if I'm a bit of a downer. (Get it: Downer? )

[Raynor]

Sauron is gone, but we know from history and precedence that something will be back to replace him, as he replaced Morgoth

Up until this moment, the world as it was known was at the risk of total enslavement to an evil of mythological proportions, or even total annihilation. You might say the sword of Damocles was removed from the world; surely that ought to improve the overall quality of life.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Up until this moment, the world as it was known was at the risk of total enslavement to an evil of mythological proportions, or even total annihilation. You might say the sword of Damocles was removed from the world; surely that ought to improve the overall quality of life.

Not sure Tolkien would've agreed with you on this one. More to the point, I'm not sure I can agree with you on this one: there are still enough nukes on the planet to obliterate all human life, what, 100 times over? Ecological destruction, climat change anyone? Tolkien never thought that there was any 'real' danger of a Sauron enslaving the world, but used Sauron to encapsulate what he saw as a very 'real' and human threat to the world. Those threats are still around and, if anything, even worse than when Tokien wrote LotR 60 years ago.

[Puddleglum]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

Not sure Tolkien would've agreed with you on this one. More to the point, I'm not sure I can agree with you on this one: there are still enough nukes on the planet to obliterate all human life...

I think here you are mistaking what Tolkien was addressing in LOTR. Tolkien did not believe (nor was he trying to say) that the "Good Ending" was only possible when all evils were finally removed for good and all. In that case, fairy stories (as he used the term) would be impossible.

Instead he wrote ("The Last Debate", Return of the King)

If the ring is destroyed, then Sauron will fall... and so a great evil will be removed.
Other evils may come... Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succor of those years wherein we are set,

uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till.

What weather they will have is not ours to rule.

Tolkien's story was essentially about (from the view of) Hobbits. The "Good Ending" of Tolkien's story was that, as Frodo said, "I Tried to save the Shire and IT HAS BEEN SAVED."

There was sadness mingled in, but that adds richness to the good that was gained. It is human nature to appreciate more that which costs more. Tolkien understood this and folded it into his story - from one end to the other. It makes the story MORE meaningful and full, not less.

Recall what else Gandalf said at The Last Debate

If Sauron regains the ring, his victory will be so complete that none can forsee the end of it while this world lasts.

That was the danger - a Tyrant worse than Hitler, Stalin, Genghis, Atilla Nero, and all the others rolled into one - a Tyrant who not only has demonic power, but one with immortal life. One who would stiull be holding us under his boots even today.

Remembering that the story is from the vantage of the Hobbits, Tolkien sums up the GOOD ENDING in Frodo's words to Sam in this way ("Grey Havens")

You are my heir: all that I had and might have had I leave to you. You have Rose, and Elanor; and Frodo-lad will come, and Rosie-lass, and Merry, and Goldilocks, and Pippin... You will be Mayor as long as you want, and the most famous gardner in history;

You will read things out of the Red Book, and keep alive the memory of the age that is gone, so that people will remember the Great Danger and so love their beloved land all the more.

And that will keep you as busy and happy as anyone can be, as long as your part of the story goes on.

And with that sentence, Tolkien gives us HIS version of "and he lived happily ever after."

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Hey man, I'm not saying anything so daft as, "LotR doesn't have a happy ending" as it most palpably does. I'm just disputing the premise of the book review that begins this thread that "The Children of Hurin" is diametrically opposed to LotR along simplistic binary lines of "hoplessness" vs "hope" -- I just don't see LotR as ending "hopefully" in the sense that we are presented with a world that is now going to get better and better (which is, I think, the false sense of the book that the reviewer is working from) in opposition to CoH in which the reviewer sees a more 'realistic' view that the world will, at best, stay pretty much the same in terms of good and evil...which is what I see at the end of LotR. You are right, Sauron the super-baddie, the one who is as bad as all the worst human tyrants put together, he's gone. But soon, so too will Aragorn be gone (the epitome of all good humans), Galadriel, Elrond, Frodo, Bilbo, Gandalf are leaving too...so the superbad and the supergood are gone leaving just the bad and the good. The situation is the same, only diminished.