Turin the Hopeless?

[Formendacil]

One thing that has occurred to me in reading through the recent discourse here, is to what extent it is fair to say that Tolkien always considered CoH as a part of the "The Silmarillion" and not as an independent story. Obviously, I think, you cannot divorce it from the wider Legendarium (and I would consider anyone who attempted such an endeavour to be a fool). At the same time, however, "The Silmarillion", as it stands, is not really a single tale, but a compendium of related tales. It is somewhat like the Bible, in that respect, the Bible being a collection of books (a library) rather than a single book.

It's more complicated than just saying "The Silmarillion" is just a library of tales, however. Like the Bible, there is a single story throughout, and unlike the Bible, it is the work of a single human editor, who was specifically interested in following a specific story. It is worth noting that I am not speaking of "The Silmarillion" here as the 1977 volume published posthumously, and including "The Ainulindalë," "The Valaquenta," etc. Rather, I mean the "Quenta Silmarillion," considered as a single narrative tale. "The Silmarillion," then, considered as a single narrative, is really the story of the Silmarils, the story of the Noldor, the story of the House of Fëanor, and the story of Morgoth. It intersects with the stories of the House of Húrin, of Gondolin/Eärendil, of Beren and Lúthien, and so forth... but these other stories are, for "The Silmarillion" really only chapters, and not fully considered tales in their own right.

From the point of view of "The Silmarillion," the real chief characters of "The Lay of Leithian" are Celegorm, Curufin, and Morgoth--they are the continuing characters of the previous chapters, who are now jointly spited by the interloping lovers. From the perspective of "The Silmarillion," Beren and Lúthien only start becoming really important AFTER they have the Silmaril--in other words, when they become entangled in the Doom of the Noldor, and avenge Thingol's killers, and thus set up Doriath for both the creation of the Nauglamír and the revenge of the Sons of Fëanor--and the deaths of Celegorm, Caranthir, and Curufin.

What about the love story, however, of the Man and the Elf, and the doomed romance of death and inevitably sundered destinies and the eucatastrophe of Mandos bending Lúthien's doom? This barely plays from the perspective of the main narrative in "The Silmarillion," because it is not the point there.

I think this difference of focus is even stronger with CoH, because CoH features even fewer of the main players of "The Silmarillion" story, and is an even more insignificant chapter in that narrative. The Nirnaeth, which is the biggest "Silmarillion" event in CoH is given a separate chapter and treatment in "The Silmarillion," and within the context of the wider work, is not really seen as a part of the story of Húrin so much as of Maedhros.

And after that? Well... Nargothrond falls, and Morgoth eventually loses his new prototype weapon, after having proved its effectiveness--and Glaurung will soon be replaced by Ancalagon and the winged dragons anyway, so perhaps it's best that he was put out of his misery by Túrin. It's only once Túrin is dead, and Húrin can then be released, that Morgoth starts getting what he's looking for: the approximate location of Gondolin, the other shoe falling for Thingol having taken the Silmaril.

My point is not that CoH--or "The Lay of Leithian," or the Gondolin/Eärendil saga, for that matter--is insignificant in and of itself, nor that "The Silmarillion" can go on without it. No story can go on as if some of its chapters, in which the plot is advanced, were not written. My point, however, is that the emphasis on what is more broadly "important" changes depending on whether one is following the story of the Silmarils in the chapter on Túrin, or whether one is following the tragic tale of the Children of Húrin from beginning to end. In the former, it is crucially important that Nargothrond fall and Húrin be broken to Morgoth's will. In the latter, the emphasis is on Túrin and Nienor, and their own, personal tragedy. Morwen is of very little consequence to "The Silmarillion" narrative--she is too far from the main events to really matter as the source of crucial action--but in CoH, she is at its very heart, and it could not be understood without her.

I have one last point before I end, and since my copies of the HoME are boxed away somewhere in my van, I cannot offer any proof of what I am about to say, so bear with the possible misremembering. However...

As far as my memory goes, the Fall of Gondolin, the Lay of Leithian, and Turin and the Dragon are the oldest components in the Book of Lost Tales, the first "Silmarillion." "The Book of Lost Tales," by itself, is a more compartmentalised account than the "Quenta Silmarillion," and the focus is much more on the individual tales than one the broader arc. What is more, we really only have these three tales in their later Lost Tales form, and not in the very germ of story-thought in which they were conceived. Knowing the source of "Beren and Tinúviel" in Tolkien's own marriage, and more strongly of "Turin and Glómund" in the Finnish Kallevala, it seems to me entirely possible that these three tales were NOT, in origin, conceived as part of a cohesive whole--possibly part of a related mythology, but that is several steps from the united tale of "The Silmarillion."

I think, if I am right here, that this original conception of these tales as independent, and less as part of the cycle, gives them a tenser relationship with the rest of "The Silmarillion" than, say, "The Account of the Sun and Moon." Tolkien continued to work on larger, "independent" accounts of these tales from the 1920s through the 1950s, the same period that saw the formation of "The Silmarillion" largely as we know it. This gives us the abortive tale "Of Tuor and his Coming to Gondolin," the text of CoH as we have it, and poetic accounts of both Túrin and Leithian.

In short--if I can be short--there is a back-and-forth between inclusion in "The Silmarillion" and their own stand-alone qualities, which goes back through their whole history of creation, and is, I think, quite deliberate on Tolkien's part. From this, I hardly think it is legitimate to either separate the tales totally from this context, or to attempt to examine them exclusively within this context. Depending on the situation, and the need or the desire, either or both approach is valid.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

In short--if I can be short--there is a back-and-forth between inclusion in "The Silmarillion" and their own stand-alone qualities, which goes back through their whole history of creation, and is, I think, quite deliberate on Tolkien's part. From this, I hardly think it is legitimate to either separate the tales totally from this context, or to attempt to examine them exclusively within this context. Depending on the situation, and the need or the desire, either or both approach is valid.

Form, that's sort of what I've been trying to say, though you put it more clearly and elegantly than I could.

What I've been specifically arguing against is the claim that this particular tale is so radically different from the rest of Tolkien's work that it can only be properly understood out of context... even that it is somehow "wrong" to keep the rest in mind while reading it.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

It is entirely unlike either the LOTR or the Sil. It brings to bear its own style, and thereby its own unique tone and atmosphere. How is this to be understood?

They all have their own unique tone and atmosphere. I'd guess this story seems so aberrant to you only because you're reading it out of context, and then thinking about how the rest of Legendarium looks without it. Er... does that make sense?

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

However, I think where I'm getting at is that CoH, in its novelistic form, seems to undermine this construction; it seems to make eucatastrophe gratuitous.

Weellll... if you wish to, I'd say you could argue this for the whole Quenta Silmarillion, at least to some extent. My reaction on reaching the end has never been, "Oh, well, at least the good guys won in the end! What a lovely story!" So much of it concerns sadness, loss and destruction, and Húrin and family are hardly the only characters whose lives end in despair (see Morth's examples). Not to mention that the final victory against Morgoth comes at tremendous cost.

What seems to be the sticking point for you, as far as I can work out, is this:

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

(...)The wider Silmarillion too is repleat with much suffering, of course, but the Valar are nonetheless shown to be active participants in thought or deed. In the novel, the Children of Hurin, they are distant, amourphous and almost entirely unkown entities, especially to humans.

(...)unlike Feanor, he has not held personal recourse with the Valar.

Okay, so the rebelling Noldor have absolute personal certainty that the Valar exist. (Proof rather than faith, really.) However, as the rebels have explicitly put themselves beyond their help, and as, apart from Ulmo, the Valar seem to be pretty comfortable with this state of affairs (really, what do you mean, 'active'?), I'm not clear how much of a comfort it would be to them, or why they would have any more reason to believe things would turn out all right in the end.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Yes, the War of Wrath constitues a eucastraphe, an underserved episode of grace. But still, I'm uncomfortable with the notion that we should be complicit in it.

??? "Complicit"? Meaning...?

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Form

What I've been specifically arguing against is the claim that this particular tale is so radically different from the rest of Tolkien's work that it can only be properly understood out of context... even that it is somehow "wrong" to keep the rest in mind while reading it.


Okay, so the rebelling Noldor have absolute personal certainty that the Valar exist. (Proof rather than faith, really.) However, as the rebels have explicitly put themselves beyond their help, and as, apart from Ulmo, the Valar seem to be pretty comfortable with this state of affairs (really, what do you mean, 'active'?), I'm not clear how much of a comfort it would be to them, or why they would have any more reason to believe things would turn out all right in the end.


??? "Complicit"? Meaning...?

To take your points here in reverse order: The Children of Hurin is not about the Noldor at all, it is primarily about the struggles of humanity in a blighted world. The Noldor have reason to think the Valar will not intervene, yes, but the Men of CoH did not participate in the Kinslaying. Furthermore, they die and go where they know not whither: in other words, they don't have any answers. Yes, the book is set in Middle-earth; yes, there are elves. But once again, there is no guiding star, there is no "chance, if chance you call it", no providential assistance. It is therefore an atheistic world, in the sense that the gods are so absent as to remains practically redundant. How do Men cope in such a world? That is the question CoH seems to be asking, and we are never afforded a complete answer. LOTR is set in a qualitatively different place: divine assistance is available to the faithful, and to those who have been awarded a special part to play.

I am not claiming that CoH can only be understood "out of context". I'm arguing for a more nuanced understanding of the the context of Tolkien's work in the first place; a wider understanding that encompasses the very different worldview postulated in the Children of Hurin. I'm not saying CoH and LOTR are diametrically opposed, but as Davem has noted in the past, they contain starkly contrasting approaches to the canvass of Middle-earth.

In the Mieville thread, Puddleglum posted a quote from the Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth dialogue found in Morgoth's Ring:

Originally Posted by Puddleglum;

There is the thing that men call "Hope", an expectation of good which has some foundation in what is known. Elves call this "Amdir" which signifies "looking up"

But there is another thing, which is founded deeper. "Estel" that is called by elves, meaning "Trust". If we (elves and men) are indeed the Eruhin, the Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves. This is the uttermost foundation of "Estel".

This seems to encapsulate the theology that underpins the Lord of the Rings. Although Eru is never explicitly mentioned, Gandalf is confident that there is some force working for good that drives events so that Frodo is meant to possess the ring. As Davem asked in the first post in this thread:

Originally Posted by davem;

Is Garth right? Is this work a reflection of Tolkien the Somme veteran, while LotR, it could be argued, is the work of Tolkien the Catholic? LotR presents the orthodox Catholic view, that God is watching over us all, & that while there may be suffering & loss, in the end God will bring good out of evil, & that, in the end, 'All shall be well, & all shall be well, & all manner of thing shall be well'. CoH seems to present a vision of a world where God won't - where he doesn't actually care enough to bother

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Form, that's sort of what I've been trying to say, though you put it more clearly and elegantly than I could.

What I've been specifically arguing against is the claim that this particular tale is so radically different from the rest of Tolkien's work that it can only be properly understood out of context... even that it is somehow "wrong" to keep the rest in mind while reading it.

They all have their own unique tone and atmosphere. I'd guess this story seems so aberrant to you only because you're reading it out of context, and then thinking about how the rest of Legendarium looks without it. Er... does that make sense?

I do not conted CoH can only be read out of context, or that it is 'wrong' to do so. Of course all the works have their own unique tones, and no, I don't believe the story seems aberrant merely because I'm not reading it in context; I am, but even within the context of the larger 'legendarium', I find that it contrasts quite markedly, for the reasons I have outlined.

Please demonstrate to me, in some textual way, how exactly you think the metaphysics of CoH and LOTR are similar? Or are they similar only in terms of the "larger context"? I don't understand your point. How does the "larger context" make CoH consistent with LOTR, and why should it even be expected to do so? Is it because there really is suffering in both, but in the end good comes of it? Perhaps that is true of LOTR, but it is manifestly not of the story of Turin. No 'good' comes of it at all.

So, I want to be clear.

-CoH is part of a larger story arc.
-It can be read as part of this larger story arc. Of course
-How does this diminish the metaphysical, aesthetic, tonal, and qualitative difference between it and LOTR, whether it is read as part of the Silmarillion or not? Specifically?

[Nerwen]

*sigh* Unfortunately, after the lapse of several months, I no longer have all the arguments posed on this thread at my fingertips, but I'll do my best.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I do not conted CoH can only be read out of context, or that it is 'wrong' to do so. Of course all the works have their own unique tones, and no, I don't believe the story seems aberrant merely because I'm not reading it in context; I am, but even within the context of the larger 'legendarium', I find that it contrasts quite markedly, for the reasons I have outlined.

Please demonstrate to me, in some textual way, how exactly you think the metaphysics of CoH and LOTR are similar? Or are they similar only in terms of the "larger context"? I don't understand your point. How does the "larger context" make CoH consistent with LOTR, and why should it even be expected to do so? Is it because there really is suffering in both, but in the end good comes of it? Perhaps that is true of LOTR, but it is manifestly not of the story of Turin. No 'good' comes of it at all.

So, I want to be clear.

-CoH is part of a larger story arc.
-It can be read as part of this larger story arc. Of course

tumhalad, wasn't your position that it wasn't and it couldn't? I'm not clear why you feel it necessary to roll your eyes at this.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

-How does this diminish the metaphysical, aesthetic, tonal, and qualitative difference between it and LOTR, whether it is read as part of the Silmarillion or not? Specifically?

tumhalad. I cannot be bothered re-reading this entire thread, but to the best of my recollection you, and davem, were arguing that CoH belonged outside the rest of Tolkien's creation, and ought to be read separately, not as part of the larger story– that it fact reading it in context would "cheapen" it. Therefore it would seem you thought it made a difference. Nice about-face.

Anyway, my purpose here was to argue that it is at least equally valid to read it as part of the whole. Furthermore, I was talking about the legendarium as a whole at that point, as I think we all were. If you can't understand my point about context... well, I'm at a loss, because it seems a very simple one to me.

[tumhalad2]

I will roll my eyes if I wish. Thanks.

Apparently I have not been clear enough. I argue that it can be read "out of context" or "in context". Clear?

I have never argued it belongs out of the rest of the creation. I argue it contrasts on many points with other aspects of it.

Perhaps we agree more than you think. Yes, it can be read in context. Whatever. I don't care, and I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in the story, and whether you read it in context or not, how it contrasts with LOTR in particular.

I have not about faced, nor have I contradicted my argument. If you think I really have, show me a quote.

[Nerwen]

Quotes? Okay, here you go.

Originally Posted by tumhalad

I think CoH is cheapened if it is merely perceived as a part of a greater story

Originally Posted by tumhalad

Obviously? I'm not entirely convinced about that.

Originally Posted by tumhalad

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.

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.

Good enough for you?

Incidentally, before you get angry– please recall that I stated repeatedly on your "CoH film" thread that I was not interested in starting up this debate again. I'm not– I got bored with it long ago. I replied to you only because you specifically, not to mention rather aggressively, demanded a reply. Now you've had it. Enough.

EDIT:X'd with tum's self-edit.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Quotes? Okay, here you go.


Good enough for you?

Incidentally, before you get angry– please recall that I stated repeatedly on your "CoH film" thread that I was not interested in starting up this debate again. I'm not– I got bored with it long ago. I replied to you only because you specifically, not to mention rather aggressively, demanded a reply. Now you've had it. Enough.

EDIT:X'd with tum's self-edit.

Those quotes do not demonstrate that I argued in favour of exclusively reading CoH out of context of the legendarium. They merely show that I was interested the way different readings might yield certain outcomes.

[Nerwen]

tumhalad, please calm down. I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings– and yes, I'll admit I do quite enjoy baiting you. I don't really mean any harm by it, though. (However I am probably often the first to respond to your posts simply for time-zone reasons.)

Anyway, since other people may want to continue the topic, I suggest you delete those last two paragraphs before one of the mods closes the thread. They usually do when things get this heated.

~Nerwen, Internet Bully.

EDIT:X'd with tumhalad again.