The Quenta Silmarillion Eucatastrophe-less

[Kuruharan]

But once the reader has experienced it, and is therefore expecting it, isn't it diminished the second and third etc time round?

Well, actually, the two parts of my previous statement were intended to be taken separately. The first part referred to the reader and the second to characters in the story.

I suppose in re-reading the readers experience might diminish but the reader can obviously re-read a particular passage as often as possible.

The part about not happening the same way twice is specifically intended as a comment on the construction of the story itself.

And if, each time, a Gollum popped out of a crevice and somehow vanquished Grendel, Grendel's mom, and the dragon-- then it would be repetitive, going against Tolkien's "Never to be counted on to recur." Am I getting close...?

Repetitive and strange.

the horns of Rohan will never interrupt the Witch-King's speech at the gate again;

Sam will never see another star above the Ephel Duath that affects him quite like that one;

Aragorn will never unexpectedly unfurl his banner from a corsair ship again;

the Morannon will never fall again;

A wounded ringbearer-hobbit sailing west cannot be counted on to happen again;

...but we, in rereading these things, may still catch a glimpse of…evangelium

Yes, exactly.

[Aiwendil]

Kuruharan wrote:

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.

I'm not so sure. Eucatastrophe, even defined objectively, does not equal a fortunate event or a happy ending. When Merry and Pippin escape from the Orcs, for example, that's not eucatastrophe. Eucatastrophe is, I think, a very specific sort of fortunate event. It's in a way the positive aspect of the old "deus ex machina". The requirements, I think, are, very broadly speaking, hopelessness or near hopelessness initially, then a sudden and unexpected turn for the better which, nonetheless, can be seen to follow naturally from what has gone before. And not just a turn for the better - a profound turn for the better. It's easy to see how such a thing can cause "piercing joy", and in my opinion the War of Wrath fits this account perfectly.

[Guinevere]

I wish I had noticed this thread earlier...! Imladris takes up an issue that has bothered me as well for a very long time.

When I first read the Silmarillon I was struck with the deep sadness of it. The whole mood is so very different from the one in the LotR !
In LotR the sadness is mixed with hope, and overall I get a feeling that there is a meaning behind it all, a merciful providence that will guide everything to the ultimate best. The sacrifices that are made, are not meaningless, courage and loyalty and pity are rewarded.
It's just this balance between melancholy and hope that makes me love LotR so much.

In contrast to LotR, the Silmarillon seems so sombre and pessimistic! To be sure, there are some glimpses of joy, some instances where the Valar interfere with mercy , as in the story of Beren and Luthien, or in the instance where the eagle comes to bear Fingon up to rescue Maëdhros.
The story which depressed me most is of course the tale of Túrin.
After having read the "Narn i hîn Húrin", where the characters are more developped, the tragedy and injustice of the fates of this family touches me even more. I just can't get over it. Whereas I can see that Túrin (and Morwen) in some measure brings trouble on himself by his pride and rashness, I can see no such character flaws in Húrin. He is only valiant and faithful and has in no way deserved such a terrible fate: to be forsaken by everybody and to end his own life in complete hopelessness.
I kept asking myself why Tolkien would write such an utterly discouraging story ?
Was it an expression of his bleakest and most depressive mood ??

I have read this whole discussion with interest, and I found several points with which I agree very much.

Saucepanman wrote:

This to me seems to me to be the essence of this question. It is not the "facts" themselves, but the manner in which they are recorded that inspires eucatastrophe in the reader.

Turgon wrote:

yet if your perspective is that the Sil is "eucatastrophic-less" would that not add to the realism of the tale? Isn't life after all full of tragedy and ecstasy; with no clear idea of what may come next except the glimmer of hope?

Quite true: After all, real life is like that: one cannot expect justice.

Bethberry wrote:

quoting Tolkien:

This raises an important issue: if The Silm does not have Eu (no pun meant about Eru), does that mean either that Tolkien was wrong about fairy, or that The Silm is in fact not a fairy tale but something else? For instance, is it more fitting to describe it as myth rather than as fairy? Are the two terms interchangeable?

"LotR is a fairy-story, but one written for adults" Tolkien said in letter 181.
In my opinion the Silm is something different, as Bethberry here suggested above - more like a myth or an epic tale like "Beowulf".

Bethberry wrote:

We might, in fact, reach a better understanding of The Silm if we ask whether Tolkien's ideas about fairy were something he came to after the main body of his Legendarium was written, or if in the writing and reworking he came to understand something which his text initially did not demonstrate.

I think you're on the right track here! I feel this might be the answer to my nagging questions .

[Imladris]

Regarding Eucatastrophe:

I will be using On Fairy Stories definition because I think that that is the way Tolkien meant it to be used -- that is how he defines myth, or as he calls it, Fairy Stories.

But the "consolation" of fairy-tales has another aspect than the imaginative satisfaction of ancient desires. Far more important is the Consolation of the Happy Ending. Almost I would venture to assert that all complete fairy-stories must have it. At least I would say that Tragedy is the true form of Drama, its highest function; but the opposite is true of Fairy-story. Since we do not appear to possess a word that expresses this opposite -- I will call it Eucatastrophe. The eucatastrophic tale is the true form of fairy-tale, and its highest function.

The consolation of fairy-stories, the joy of the happy ending: or more correctly of the good catastrophe, the sudden joyous "turn" (for there is no true end to any fairy-tale)...it denies (in the face of much evidence, if you will) universal final defeat and in so far is evengelium, giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief.

So ecuastrophe is a glimpse of Joy. What is Joy?

The peculiar quality of the "joy" in successful Fantasy can thus be explained as a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality or truth. It is not only a "consolation" for the sorrow of this world...but in the "eucatastrophe" we see in a brief vision that the answer may be greater -- it may be a far-off gleam or echo of evangelium in the real world.

So, a eucastrophe contains Joy -- the Joy fo the Christian story, the Christian myth become fact.

...such joy as the very taste of primary truth...It looks forward (or backward the direction is unimportant) to the Great Eucatastrophe. The Christian joy, the Gloria, of of the same kind; but it is pre-eminantly (infinitely, if our capacity were not finite) high and joyours. But this story is supreme, and it is true...it has followed them, especially the "happy ending."...

I believe that it is very clear that Eucatastrophe happens at the end of a story. First, it is defined as the happy ending. Second, it is Eucatastrophe not Eucatastrophes. Thus I must eat my words about sub-Eucatastrophes.

Style has nothing to do with Eucatastrophe -- in fact a badly done story with a Eucatastrophe is often the redeeming grace of such a story.

Joy, I believe, is relative. If you see the fleeting glimpse of Joy -- the reflection of the Christian myth become fact, then there is eucatastrophe. I see the Christian Story in the Silmarillion -- in fact I see it all too clearly -- not even as a mere reflection. Do I see joy in the Christian story/Silmarillion? No, I do not. Thus...do I have Eucatastrophe?

[Kuruharan]

Style has nothing to do with Eucatastrophe -- in fact a badly done story with a Eucatastrophe is often the redeeming grace of such a story.

So if style has nothing to do with eucatastrophes then it is something built into the story and is not tied to the reaction of the reader.

[Bêthberry]

Catching up here, but perhaps the catching up has its value, in putting several posts into perspective.

It is well to remember that the text of The Silm which we have is not like other literary texts. It does not come down to us with the impremature of the man who conceived it. It was compiled and published postumously. And in so being, parts of it arise from the hand of its editor. It is not a uniformly coherent text the same way that many modern stories are. But then neither are our forms of ancient myths.

Another point it is well to ponder is that the events of The Silm were constantly being reconsidered by that primary author. ChristopherTolkien tells us (in the Foreward to my edition) that "considered simply as a large narrative structure, [The Silm] underwent relatively little radical change; it became a fixed tradition, and background to later writings." Then, then, he goes on to describe it what changes and variants it did undergo. HoMe and UT shows us just how various and variable were those changes.

Christopher's most important comment about those changes refers to how Tolkien's own persective on the narrative changed.

In his later writings mythology and poetry sank down behind his theological and philosophical preoccupations: from which arose incompatibilities of tone.

I wonder if there is more than just 'incompatibility of tone" however. I wonder if Christopher does not put a gloss on the changes and so distract us from some of the possibilities here.

This, at least, is my way of understanding The Silm. It is a book which reflects multiple intentions and perspectives, begun with the delight in philology and mythology. And later emended to reflect Tolkien's theological interest, "consciously so in the revision." (I'm relying on memory here when quoting it.)

So we have an author who believed that his story reflected something at first unconsciously which he then worked to make more consistent. This is Tolkien's later explanation of his intention. But, for me, for the book we now have, that reading back into the story as well as his memory obscures some of the very intriguing points of the book. Please note I am not saying Tolkien was wrong. What I am saying is that we can read The Silm for its earlier, incoherent "intention". And by intention I mean that we can see the seams of the story as it first began rather than, always, as theology it became. This is not to denigrate Tolkien's personal beliefs or to deny the philosophical aspects.

We have two versions of the creation in Ainulindale and Valaquenta--in itself a reflection of the two versions of creation in Genesis. But to me, particulalry in Valaquenta I have always imagined the Valar similar to the stories of the ancient Greek and Roman gods and goddesses which I read as a child, particularly in the way they are ascribed different aspects. And then in their bickering and rivalries and sometimes unsympathetic responses to the elves. The ancient divinities I have seen as amoral, selfish, petty and petulant. Then add to that other mythologies and legends. Thus, in The Silm I see a palimpsest (a piece of paper on which the original writing was partially or incompletely erased and then overwritten by other writing). It shimmers to me with these possibilities, that the less philosophical or less theological still can be glimpsed. This is, to me, what accounts for the kind of frustration which Imladris has identified here. (And I apologise in advance if this misrepresents her perspective.) And also accounts for how the book can be read in so many different ways, as Helen suggested here when she said she first read it as encyclopedic but then had a different experience on rereading. Or Son of Numemor's experience.

It will be obvious that I bring to my reading of The Silm everything that I have read before reading it--as we all do. And that everything I have read is itself subtly changed by reading Tolkien's work. This is why, for me, the question of whether the eucatastrophe 'exists' in the text or in the reader is a fruitless dichotomy. It exists where the reader brings his or her mind to bear on the story, in that eighteen inches or so between the book and our eyes. And then in our memories.

[Imladris]

This is, to me, what accounts for the kind of frustration which Imladris has identified here.

*nods vigorously*

This is why, for me, the question of whether the eucatastrophe 'exists' in the text or in the reader is a fruitless dichotomy. It exists where the reader brings his or her mind to bear on the story, in that eighteen inches or so between the book and our eyes. And then in our memories.

I have never thought of it that way...

Thank you, Bb, for posting that post. I had never considered that the Sil had morphed from mythology to theology...