The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Bêthberry]

If mortality is the gift of Eru to the race of men (and hobbits), why is it being viewed here as a punishment or unjust act? That perspective sounds a bit Black Numenorean, eh?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

If mortality is the gift of Eru to the race of men (and hobbits), why is it being viewed here as a punishment or unjust act? That perspective sounds a bit Black Numenorean, eh?

Hmm, another interesting thing we obviously all forgot. Except Bêthberry! We were all deceived by Morgoth's lies, obviously? I now once again see that it was probably not easy not to believe Morgoth's lies: though pure readers, we have been all deceived.

Originally Posted by Silmarillion 1

Death is their fate, the gift of Ilúvatar, which as Time wears even the Powers shall envy. But Melkor has cast his shadow upon it, and confounded it with darkness, and brought forth evil out of good, and fear out of hope. Yet of old the Valar declared to the Elves in Valinor that Men shall join in the Second Music of the Ainur; whereas Ilúvatar has hot revealed what he purposes for the Elves after the World's end, and Melkor has not discovered it.

In the light of this, the children "just" didn't have the possibility to enjoy the beauty of the Creation... which rose from Ainulindalë... but would that have been something to enjoy, a life in the fear of shadow on an island where people make bloody sacrifices to Morgoth? Not a kind of place to spend my life in.

[Lalwendë]

Meh. But wouldn't that mean that all good Men should be completely suicidal nihilists?

OK, seriously, it's always possible that Eru thinks they will be better off turned into Davy Jones' Locker rather than sharing a life of sin with their naughty husbands, and maybe he thinks they'd be better off dead than living and ending up grieving said naughty husbands?

What I think is that Eru had gifted them Numenor which was close to Valinor and it turned out this was a mistake and he had to take it from them. But how could Eru get rid of an entire land mass without also hurting some of the people who lived there? Many must also have died when Beleriand was lost, so it's not like he hadn't done it before.

What's making me laugh (in a sick, twisted fashion) though, is how we keep on trying to justify it when really it was sick. Why are we trying to do that? Tolkien doesn't. He just writes about it.

[Folwren]

I haven't read the entire thread - I don't have time - but I wanted to suggest something.

I never considered the Valar evil...I never thought that what they did to Numenor as evil...The faithful got away with their wives and kids.

This discussion made me think more about it, though, in what ten or so posts I read. Perhaps it could have been much like Sodom? When God destroyed Sodom he told the one faithful man and his family to leave the city and not to look back. He destroyed Sodom, but he let the faithful escape - but the faithful man's wife looked back and she too was destroyed.

There were warnings given, were there not? And the faithful did get to escape, didn't they? If the women and children didn't leave, wasn't it their own fault? Well, the children were innocent, surely. How many of them do you think would have left their home to go with the remnant of the faithful? Another argument is the kids were too young to make such a choice... What was Eru to do? Let them live until the children were old enough to make their choice? What are the chances that they would make the right ones?

I don't think the Eru or the Valar were evil in this destruction of Numenor. I think it was the case of Sodom - they didn't find enough faithful within the city to spare it.

-- Folwren

P.S. I think capital punishment would solve a lot of our problems...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Meh. But wouldn't that mean that all good Men should be completely suicidal nihilists?

The good die young, Lal.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

What's making me laugh (in a sick, twisted fashion) though, is how we keep on trying to justify it when really it was sick. Why are we trying to do that? Tolkien doesn't. He just writes about it.

Within the context of the story, mind you...., to call 'sick' Eru's retribution against the disobedience and evil to which the Numenoreans had fallen, is to take the side of the disobedient and evil Numenoreans. The reader is of course welcome to identify with any character in any story as s/he sees fit. Some of us identify with Elves, others with Men, some with Eru, some with the Valar; and I suppose some readers might even be willing to identify with Ar Pharazon or Sauron, who, it is certain, would consider Eru's decision to punish them for their wickedness, most deplorable. But that does not make their wickedness any the less deserving of the punishment that Eru, within the context of the story, apparently decides they are worthy of.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Within the context of the story, mind you...., to call 'sick' Eru's retribution against the disobedience and evil to which the Numenoreans had fallen, is to take the side of the disobedient and evil Numenoreans. The reader is of course welcome to identify with any character in any story as s/he sees fit. Some of us identify with Elves, others with Men, some with Eru, some with the Valar; and I suppose some readers might even be willing to identify with Ar Pharazon or Sauron, who, it is certain, would consider Eru's decision to punish them for their wickedness, most deplorable. But that does not make their wickedness any the less deserving of the punishment that Eru, within the context of the story, apparently decides they are worthy of.

I agree, in fact you could say...let's put it politely as I can...that this is one of those instances where Eru just gets it over and done with and scitan happens, as they say.

But still, I am sure there are no other instances where children are lumped in with the sins of the fathers, where they are viewed as being likely to carry the same 'evil'; I want to know if there are as this will help square it up. So why kill the innocents? The only way I can get my head around this, even within the context of the secondary world, is to assume that Eru allowed them to die too to underscore the tragedy which resulted from their fathers' wrongdoing. Which is poetic, but still a bit sick.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

So why kill the innocents?

I believe that Tolkien himself said something to the effect that the situation in Numenor was not unlike that of the biblical Israel from the Old Testament Bible. Yahweh, as the comparable Eru is there named, commands the Israelites to destory whole nations: men, women, children, beasts, everything. When they obey these commands they are called righteous, for having obeyed; and those who do not obey, or not completely, are named unrighteous. Now, Tolkien didn't have his faithful Numenoreans wreaking death upon the Numenoreans that worshiped Sauron, but the comparisons are there.

The point is that we presume that the children are innocent. It appears, from the text of The Silmarillion, that "the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the third and fourth generation", seems to hold true. The Noldor have to deal with this, in terms of their oath.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I believe that Tolkien himself said something to the effect that the situation in Numenor was not unlike that of the biblical Israel from the Old Testament Bible. Yahweh, as the comparable Eru is there named, commands the Israelites to destory whole nations: men, women, children, beasts, everything. When they obey these commands they are called righteous, for having obeyed; and those who do not obey, or not completely, are named unrighteous. Now, Tolkien didn't have his faithful Numenoreans wreaking death upon the Numenoreans that worshiped Sauron, but the comparisons are there.

The point is that we presume that the children are innocent. It appears, from the text of The Silmarillion, that "the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the third and fourth generation", seems to hold true. The Noldor have to deal with this, in terms of their oath.

Hmm, but what is carried out in the Old Testament is just Jihad, Holy War, the same thing that some extremists are waging today - as seen by the actions of terrorists, they do not care that they also kill those of their own creed and colour as they are doing it in God's name and are righteous in taking life. However in Tolkien's world it's not people who wreak Jihad on other people, but Eru who does it, which is a very different thing. In fact, when the Noldor rebel, they are in many ways enacting a Jihad, and they are punished for it heavily - and rightly. In the world Tolkien creates, it seems only Eru has the authority to do such things and if mere people attempt them then they are not deemed 'righteous' but are damned.

As for the children being innocent, I still can't find anything to say otherwise than that Tolkien thought children in his secondary world were innocents. And in terms of the sins of the fathers being visited on other generations, you could say that some things come out in character flaws when in adulthood, but likewise they often do not (witness the comparison of Boromir and Faramir).

[Břicho]

"Nothing is evil in the beginning. Not even Sauron was so."--Elrond(or somebody)

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Hmm, but what is carried out in the Old Testament is just Jihad, Holy War.

Actually this is not the case. A close reading of the story text shows that Y*H*W*H (for those of you who prefer to see it that way) required the "children of Israel" merely to march around a city once per day and then seven times on yet another day, sing and blow horns and shout, and that's it. Y*H*W*H was the one who destroyed the city. And this is not an isolated incident. Time after time, the people in this story are required to do very little, and Y*H*W*H destroys their enemies in a variety of ways.

Legate, you said what I was going to say, and in a clearer way. And I think that you have stated the question very clearly and succinctly, though not without an assumption:

Eru is good. Eru destroys Numenor. All the inhabitants die. Are they innocent? Maybe, maybe not. We don't know; at least, it is not stated directly in the text. If some were innocent, how could they be killed by an Eru who is good? Can one posit that there must be something better for them on the other side of death? One may hope so, but the text gives us no certainty. The only conclusion we are allowed is this: if Eru destroys innocents, Eru must be evil. Since Eru is not evil, but good, those whom he destroys cannot have been innocent.

"But that can't be right." "That's too simplistic."

If such objections come to mind, please note that I have simply used logic to reach the only conclusion that can be reached.

[Břicho]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

If mortality is the gift of Eru to the race of men (and hobbits), why is it being viewed here as a punishment or unjust act? That perspective sounds a bit Black Numenorean, eh?

Mortality may not be a punishment or an unjust act in a universe in which the soul lives on after Death; but most mortals would think that it was, especially if they are living in the world with immortals--why them, and not us? I think it's a completely natural reaction.

. It's not as if Eru talks to any of them to comfort them when they are afraid of Death.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Břicho

Mortality may not be a punishment or an unjust act in a universe in which the soul lives on after Death; but most mortals would think that it was, especially if they are living in the world with immortals--why them, and not us? I think it's a completely natural reaction.

. It's not as if Eru talks to any of them to comfort them when they are afraid of Death.

Well, the Numenoreans worked like mad to avoid death but there are several questions to be asked of this state. Do other races of men in Middle-earth fear death? Most don't have close contact with the elves.

The other question has to do with what it is exactly that people fear. Do they fear any possible pain in the cessation of life? Or do they fear the "afterlife", having been inculcated with horrific visions of physical torment in a lake of burning fire? I thought that the afterlife was a complete unknown in Middle-earth rather than a scene of retribution and punishment.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Well, the Numenoreans worked like mad to avoid death but there are several questions to be asked of this state. Do other races of men in Middle-earth fear death? Most don't have close contact with the elves.

The other question has to do with what it is exactly that people fear. Do they fear any possible pain in the cessation of life? Or do they fear the "afterlife", having been inculcated with horrific visions of physical torment in a lake of burning fire? I thought that the afterlife was a complete unknown in Middle-earth rather than a scene of retribution and punishment.

It always strikes me as interesting how those who have contact with Elves come out of it with one of two views: they either accept their fate and their 'special' role in Middle-earth or they do all they can to get what the Elves have. Maybe it all stems from understanding or not the burdens of immortality? I often find that in Real Life a lot of those who think immortality would be 'cool' are younger, but those who have lived a bit longer gradually come to an acceptance of death as their fate (or are looking forwards to an eternal nice rest, a cup of tea and a sit down ).

Anyway, yes a lot of people in Middle-earth (most people) have had no contact with Elves, let alone any Ainur, but many of them appear to have come to terms with the prospect of death; they have no knowledge of what the afterlife (or even if there is one) might be like yet they find comfort in their own ways, e.g. the Rohirrim seem to believe they return to their ancestors as seen in what Theoden says about it; and what's even better is he is not disabused of this notion. I like that.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

The other question has to do with what it is exactly that people fear. Do they fear any possible pain in the cessation of life? Or do they fear the "afterlife", having been inculcated with horrific visions of physical torment in a lake of burning fire? I thought that the afterlife was a complete unknown in Middle-earth rather than a scene of retribution and punishment.

If they didn't know, then this would be obviously the well-known "fear of the unknown", which is, as we know, the worst. However, I think that the horrific scenes are just what Morgoth put before the men: if we consider the Day of Doom, which was said to come at the end of times, the Númenoreans wouldn't probably have to be afraid of dying if they were OK, but when they didn't have peace with Valar (and Eru), it is logical that they were afraid, and if there were some gossips from Morgoth about terrific scenes after death, then I quite understand them. However, they were not right because the Powers wished good for them (which they, poor folks, at that time did not know, losing contact with them) - or maybe actually, they might have been right about that now they had something to fear about: at least Ar-Pharazon "buried in the Caves of the Forgotten until the Day of Doom" seems he had much to fear about (or maybe his punishment was enough?)

Okay, back to the original question... I think there is something we need to make clear. Just a little bit of a revision. (Who does not want to waste time or on the other hand who wants to make a mess in the thread by posting something which does not make sense, stop reading here and jump right onto next post.) What is actually the question we are trying to anwer here?

If the question is simply "Why did Eru let the innocent die", then if we consider ourselves in the world of Middle-Earth, then we have probably nothing to say, after all, it is Eru's world, not ours. We just live there because he created us, and let us live our human, elvish, hobbit... lives there, to care of our ships, groves, gardens, whatever we like...
If we consider ourselves outside of the world, as mere watchers, and we consider the story living its own life, we also have nothing to care about. We are just watchers (readers) and the world has a life of its own, once again, we are just "visitors", or even less. I think a serious Tolkien fan will not be content to end simply just with this conclusion

If the question we are trying to solve here is "Is Eru really good and just or is he, perhaps just a little bit, evil", well, that's something more. This question would ultimately mean: is Middle-Earth an ultimately good world, or is it not? Once more I think a serious Tolkien fan will be sure that it is, and Tolkien himself said it many times. (And just look Břicho's one-sentence post above.) I know, I am silly to even mention it, I think to every Tolkien reader it must be obvious.*

So now: is the question we are trying to answer "How is it possible that Eru, being good, did allow the innocent to die?" Lalwendë posted before that it seems we are trying to "justify" Eru's act. How does it go together with the image of someone ultimately good and just that the innocent die? Now you probably await some shocking revelation in which I explain it. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't know. But this is what I wanted to say: this is the question which I'd like us to answer on this thread. Eru is ultimately good (statement). Innocent die (statement). How does this go together? Point.

Just a little suggestion at the end: were not the drowned children (with small c) his Children (with big C) as well? Do you think he was not sad when they died? (I think it is not necessary to explain the terms of "loss" and "destruction of many good things" in the context of Middle-Earth) I'm pretty sure he was. So, why did he kill them.

*Note: if anyone thinks otherwise, I think it'd be better to start a new thread for it: "Is Middle-Earth/Eru good?" But since Tolkien says it's good, we probably just have to believe that it is, and now try to think, how is that possible if it doesn't seem to make sense to you.

[Volo]

I might be ignorant to say, but I doubt that the innocent children would prefer to be taken away from their whole sivilization than have peace. I do think that there are things worth than death. Death is permanent, but so is the death of others. Probably the innocent children wouldn't be innocent for long if they were brought alone to Middle-Earth. Most of them would die or be killed and the rest most certainly would become killers themselves.

I think that it should be all or nothing is such a case. Open to better ideas.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Why was it so important for the Valar to keep Aman "man-free" ? Surely if they had aloved men to settle there, there would never have been an invation. Men would know that it would not give them eternal life. . . .another thing I don't understand is why the Valar refuse to have interaction with men, is it not the valars job to take care of Arda? How do you take care of a place by sitting at home watching elves, while others have to suffer under the evil of Sauron?

and to say that the Children of Nuemenor could just have left is silly. . .first of all how could a child leave if their parrents stayed? they have no means of making such a desition. . .another thing is that it is crazy to say that people deserved death because of where they lived.

I must say that I have been hesitant to enter this talk, as I think it very easily can become more of a RL discution than a LotR. . . and I must say that it still show these tendencies.

[Volo]

I'd say because of that:

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

Men would know that it would not give them eternal life. . . .

Men would start asking for more...

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

what? I don't understand. . . If men knew that they could not achiev eternal life by living with the Valar, they would start asking for what?

[Elmo]

I don't know what the Valar's space for their beach towels...

Myself I believe that men weren't allowed in the undying lands because the Valar did not consider men 'fair' enough' Consider that Ingwe and the Vanyar were Manwe's faves because they were fairest and the most skilled at poetry. Compare this to Beor's men and their 'rude harps'. Basically the Valar considered having men in the undying lands would make the place untidy.

[Volo]

Originally Posted by Volo

Men would start asking for more...

Meaning that men wouldn't stay happy in Aman for long. In a few hundred years they would probably start rebelling and claiming their right on immortality...

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

Why was it so important for the Valar to keep Aman "man-free" ?

It was not their fate, as it was said, they were destined by Eru to something else. The Undying lands were something of an "equivalent" of death for Men in that the others couldn't come there, as well as the Elves couldn't die. This is also why the tale of Beren&Lúthien is important (apart from that it's so beautiful and sad), because it clearly shows this.
I think you might also use the word "Faërie" for Aman (as it is used in Hobbit, for example), and as we know, this was a very important word for Tolkien. I think if you read the essay "On Fairy Tales" and also "The Smith of Wootton major" (this one especially), it will be clear to you. Because even though this does not connect directly with the ME, I think for Tolkien it had overall validity.

Originally Posted by Rune son of Bjarne

If there is something better for them after death, would that not mean that Eru rewarded them for invading Aaman?

Okay, I hope this is meant as a joke... but, someone before posted here that it was not said what was there after death... only that they'd join the Second Music of Ainur... but this was at the end of times, after the Last Battle... and Day of Doom... They were not alive anymore, after all. Which brings me to... hmm, it must have been super-cruel to Ar-Pharazon not even to let him die(but after all, this is what he wanted)... do you think Eru gave him to the hands of Valar, that he'll be judged with the Elves? By Mandos? Okay, off-topic...

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

please note that I have simply used logic to reach the only conclusion that can be reached.

I did as well. And I expected nothing more.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

If such objections come to mind, please note that I have simply used logic to reach the only conclusion that can be reached.

Not really.

Eru is good. Eru destroys Númenor. All the inhabitants die. If there were innocents among those, then, according to the sense of justice I think at least most of us share, this was not a just act. Therefore: If Eru kills innocents, Eru cannot be entirely good (that's the negation of 'Eru is good' ). Indeed we have two assumptions here (Eru is good, Eru killed innocents) which cannot be both true at the same time.

So, were there innocents? Well, it's not stated directly in the text, but there must have been children, even babies, on Númenor at the time. According to our sense of justice again, these are innocents. And if Eru killed them, he cannot be entirely good. (If you think the children weren't innocent, it means we don't share the same sense of justice (could be...) and use different measures for 'good')

Is it even possible that Eru isn't entirely good? I think so. After all, Melkor was an offspring of his thought, and Melkor's dischords had their source in Eru as well, as is stated. One could argue that even the Marring of Arda was, in a way, intended by Eru. This might lead to far, though. All I want to show is that it is possible that Eru is not entirely good. I can easily imagine that he was subject to, for example, wrath. I don't think this would make him less praiseworthy.

[Lalwendë]

There is of course the very great possibility that notions of good and evil simply don't come into this. They are, after all, creations of human minds. So where would that leave Eru?

Well, Eru just is.

If this secondary world was intended to be anything like Faerie then ultimately it would indeed be neither good nor bad, it would just be.

Now for an additional mad thought. Alongside Eru we get glimpses in the text of another being, Ungoliant, who seems to be a polar opposite to Eru. He creates, she consumes. He makes Light, she makes Unlight. And she too, came out of the void; the Elves had no notion whatsoever of where she might have come from, and Morgoth did not make her. She is not 'bad' in the truest sense, she just does what she does. Just as Eru does. Is Eru amoral just like Ungoliant?



lmp, the bit I was looking at was where you said this:

Yahweh, as the comparable Eru is there named, commands the Israelites to destory whole nations: men, women, children, beasts, everything. When they obey these commands they are called righteous, for having obeyed; and those who do not obey, or not completely, are named unrighteous.

It's the 'obeying commands' bit that is basically Jihad; if they obey they are holy, but if they do not obey then they are not worthy. They might only be marching round, but if that then prompts destruction then it's not far off laying a bomb with your own hands. Or does the marching have nothing to do with what God then does? In which case, why are they doing it?