The Quenta Silmarillion Eucatastrophe-less

[Kuruharan]

I have a question to ask to see if anyone has any response to it.

From the beginning of this thread I’ve maintained that part of the cause for the differing reactions to The Lord of the Rings which I assume is generally viewed as being the positive case of a eucatastrophe being present (although perhaps I have been mistaken in this assumption) versus the reactions to the Silmarillion, which I am certain is viewed by some as lacking a eucatastrophe, is a matter of the style in which it is presented.

My question is: “Does story style make the eucatastrophe?”

Take Beowulf for example. I admit that I never had a feeling of particular joy at any point when I read the story. I would say that perhaps, in order for me to be a consistent and clear-thinking individual (tee hee), I should view the slayings of Grendel, Grendel’s Momma, and the dragon as each being eucatastrophic events.

(Yes, I realize this sounds like I am undermining my own position, but I have a follow up question to ask after I see what others have to say about the first. Hopefully, that will make it look less like I am talking out of both sides of my mouth.)

However, as I will explain further below, there is a certain repetition to Beowulf that makes me squirm, at least as far as looking for eucatastrophes is concerned.

I should add that Kuruharan was never comfortable with this as far as I can recall.

Well, sort of. My problem was not so much with the idea of multiple eucatastrophes as it was with a eucatastrophe happening the same way twice. I lay particular stress on Tolkien’s statement that it “can never be counted on to recur.” I don’t suppose that there is a limit to the number of eucatastrophes a tale could contain. However, I do feel that it is a fundamental principle that they never happen the same way twice and they must be unexpected. Perhaps part of the reason why Beowulf does not seem to hold a eucatastrophe because the events are not unexpected. Everyone expects Beowulf to kill his opponents by main force (or something closely equivalent) so in that way his victories are no surprise. He is fighting against the odds in some respects, but Gollum does not pop out of a crevice and push the dragon off a cliff and then fall down with it.

However, moving back to my original question, is this all only a response to our lack of “intuitive” (if I may use the expression) familiarity with that particular idiom.

If the story of Beowulf were presented in a different style (by someone truly qualified to do so, and I can’t think of anyone right of the top of my head that I’d like to see do it, perhaps someone has a suggestion?) would it have a more eucatastrophic quality?

(Now, I join in mark12_30’s hope that somebody with a greater familiarity with Beowulf lore than myself will weigh in because I think the reply would be quite interesting.)

This is exactly my point. Who was behind the riot? Who put the sparks to the wood? Melkor after he was released.

Yes, but the Noldor accepted his ideas to some extent and acted upon them. They were still culpable.

The Valar should not have been so unforgiving

They were not unforgiving toward Melkor and look how that turned out.

Feanor was doomed before he was even born.

There is a school of thought that says all elves were, but that is probably a discussion for another time.