Silmarillion - Chapter 01 - Of the Beginning of Days

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

The Silmarillion, as I think I remember discussing in an old thread, is somewhat unusual in that there is a total absence of humour - that is, there is really nothing in it that is designed to make the reader laugh. But there is merriment - there are characters who laugh. Not many, perhaps; but I think you're onto something when you note that it is Tulkas's laughter (in addition to his physical strength) that defeats Melkor in the first war. Actually Tolkien's phrasing is quite interesting: Melkor flees before 'his wrath and laughter.' Wrath and laughter are not things that we would normally associate with one another.

Yery true, there is nothing designed that makes the reader laugh. Are there other aspects of The Silmarillion which demonstrate readerly, emotive appeal? If there aren't, would this suggest anything about Tolkien's concept of storytelling? He wrote The Hobbit for a very clear, precise audience and LotR began at least as a continuation of that. His readings at the Bird and Baby clearly had an audience--his friends The Inklings. What would make The Silm differ in that it does not have this emotive appeal to an audience? Would that suggest Tolkien's use of the Legendarium was mainly a personal exercise, a personal interest in philology and mythology and his desire to make something coherent to his own lights? I know that I often 'dip into' The Silm as I do encyclopedias, for specific points or characters. Perhaps this is due to my own personal tastes in narrative. But perhaps it also relates to how Tolkien thought of The Silm, as a working out of material rather than as a full blown narrative? I know of course that there are narrative arcs and consistencies in it and wonderful tales. But why does The Silm not have a comedic aspect which Tolkien's other writings do?

The connection between Tulkas' wrath and his humour is fascinating, and, as I said, I wish more had been made of it. Even keeping in mind Mister Underhill's observation that the old injunction to show rather than tell can often be overly ascribed, it would have been intriguing to see a demonstration of Tulkas' humour. Yet some of western culture's most scurrilous and scandilous humorists--Laurence Sterne, Jonathan Swift, Rabelais, Voltaire--have been passionately indignant about many shortcomings in human society. Can humour change things more effectively and less violently than rationality?

Obviously, I am sitting here with my cuppa and that engenders wild speculation.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Life is the ultimate engine of entropy

Engine, at least in its more modern sense of machine, seems an unlikely metaphor for life, particularly in view of Tolkien's own attitudes towards mechanism. Or are you using 'engine' in its pre-Industrial Revolution sense? At any rate, could you expand on this cryptic comment?

I suppose my question was more philosophical than analytical. What happens to the story as a consequence of the idea that Arda's Spring, the fresh young growth, was lead to decay and disease by Melkor? Look at all those words connoting disgust for what is, after all, a biological process. I mean, there was T.S. Eliot writing at the same time as Tolkien but who wrote that "April is the cruellest month", in contrast to poetic traditions of lovely Spring. It is one thing for Tolkien to argue about Melkor's nihilism but as so often when I read his Letters, I sense here someone working out a justification after the fact, rather than presenting an original motivation. I could be wrong, of course, as I haven't read all of HoME. Is "the long defeat" not possible without this sense that life's decay is 'corruption'?

Again, second cuppa, more ruminations.