The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by davem

But as 'creator' he seems more of an artist - his great concern seems not to be that what is produced be good in any moral sense, but rather that it be 'beautiful'. To the extent that morality comes into it at all it seems to be Eru's annoyance with Morgoth's attempted spoiling of his 'opera'. Eru doesn't seem at all concerned with the suffering that will result on the human/Elven level from allowing Morgoth's dissonances into the creation, only with making sure its impressive, & redounds to his glory. It must be impressive, however much blood is shed. When he pops into Arda to sort out the Numenoreans its the same thing - do something impressive.

I often view Eru this way as well. I find him a rather disturbing character; not like "God" at all (though he is a lot more honest than God in that he doesn't claim to be all-loving and yet still allows suffering of the innocent). I completely fail how anyone (including Tolkien) can make such a comparison between Eru and God even though Eru gives out the Gift of Men and does not throw Melkor out of the Timeless Halls for attempting to defy him. Giving Death as punishment and throwing Satan out of Heaven are two of the acts that define our understanding of the Christian God, after all. So I don't see the similarity between them. Eru may be Almighty, but he is not omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent, and neither gives out a moral system for his creatures to follow nor follows one himself.

But even though he plays such a small part in the events (I tend to think it's so that he won't be anthropomorphized by his creatures who see him act), I still find Eru to be a very compelling character just for his inexorability, which is one of the few things he does promise. You can't attempt to rebel against his Will forever; you'll find your place in the end. (This idea also goes directly against the Christian God's statements about eternal damnation and whatnot.) I can definitely see your viewpoint that Eru is hardly necessary to the story and the it's the Valar who "really" run things, de facto. But I would be disappointed in the story if the Valar were the highest powers; they're even more foolish and negligent than Eru seems (or pretends) to be. I have little liking for them. Plus, "Melkor vs. the Valar" is annoyingly dualistic to me. Having Eru, the One, in the picture allows the story to be viewed more monistically.

I also agree with you in that Tolkien felt a conflict between his beliefs and the story he wanted to write. But I don't see why this is a bad thing. To me, Nordic values and Christian vision (Eru is not like the Christian God, but his "feel" is Abrahamic, I will definitely admit that) put together make for a stronger metaphysical background than either would alone. However, that's simply the way I see things.

And I still don't think that the Downfall of Númenor was a direct punishment. It actually got Men away from the arbitrary rule of the Valar.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

To me, Nordic values and Christian vision (Eru is not like the Christian God, but his "feel" is Abrahamic, I will definitely admit that) put together make for a stronger metaphysical background than either would alone. However, that's simply the way I see things.

Of course. The problem I have with the character is its 'primitiveness' & 'simplicity' (in a bad sense). The character lacks the necessary depth & complexity to sit well in the developed Legendarium. I still feel this is Tolkien's motivation in the Athrabeth - not to bring the Legendarium into line with Christianity, but to try & salvage the character. To go back to the edit in my last post - if Tevildo had not evolved into Sauron he would either have had to be removed from the Legendarium altogether, or take on a role like Shelob.

Tolkien puts no real effort into developing the character because he doesn't need to - Eru's role is so minor that he might as well not exist other than as something that prevents things sliding into dualism. As long as there's something there which stops that happening (even though most readers will not care one way or the other, being caught up in the story) it doesn't really matter what that thing is - call if Eru & forget it. Yet it still becomes a problem as the Legendarium outgrows such simplistic figures & so Eru has either to be forgotten altogether, replaced, or changed into something else. The Athrabeth seems Tolkien's attempt to do just that.

Tolkien understood that the only way to begin a proper allegory is for a whole to be divided.

But its not an allegory. Its Art, & Art either works or it doesn't. And Eru isn't 'divided', he continues to exist, seperate from what he creates. Yet even conceding your point it still leaves Eru as a plot device rather than a fully developed character. He serves the purpose he is designed for & can then be safely forgotten. Say the Singers stepped forth from the Void, or sang themselves out of the Void & you have the same effect.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by davem

But its not an allegory. Its Art, & Art either works or it doesn't.

Would you care to elaborate this? Ars is tekhne, something that the humans can do, like know-how (to use an antique based but outdated term), things that can be taught and learned: skills, disciplines, technical stuff... If you're using the term 'art' in it's romantic version / meaning as something that is the contrary of the initial meaning - as something mystical, creative, personal, whatever - it's a different thing. But also an illusion, I'm afraid.

So who / what is an art? How it works or does not? (Sorry, it might be my broken English, but I really didn't catch your meaning here - I see what you're driving at, the arbitrariness - or whatever it is with proper English - of Eru in the whole, but how this discussion of art and it working or not is related to it?)

[Child of the 7th Age]

And it is. Is M-e monotheistic or polytheistic? It can't be both. the simple answer is that it is monotheistic - except Eru doesn't do very much after Ainulindule, & the world is effectively ruled by the Valar. So for 99% of the Sil we have a polytheistic world.

Basically what we have is a monotheistic world that has been "deserted" by its Creator. I believe Tolkien says as much somewhere in the Letters. Whoever or whatever god is in the Legendarium, he is normally very distant. There are so few times when Eru puts his finger in the pot.

I guess I really have two issues that haven't been addressed on this very long thread..... Here goes.

The situation in Numenor was really a mess. The description of blood offerings and the enslavement of many in Middle-earth in the Silm was pretty disgusting. Frankly, if I had been living in Middle-earth at that time and had seen what was happening, I would have begged and pleaded for anyone to make the situation go away, even if that meant the death of a lot of people (though drowning the island would never have entered my mind). We don't have numbers for what is happening here, but it sounds as if a large number of people were affected by the atrocities (and they were atrocities).

So assuming that there really was a need for all this to stop, what would the alternatives have been short of drowning the island? Swallowing up the ships would not have done the job in my opinion, since there was still Sauron sitting with the Ring on top of his little hill. Taking out Sauron somehow? That would be a possibility, but could Sauron be gotten rid of so easily since he had the Ring? (Would it have been possible for the Valar to destroy the Ring while leaving everything outside the Temple boundaries nice and tidy?) And even if you took out Sauron and the fleet, the whole infrastructure of the Temple system would exist. The people of Numenor had the knowledge and resources to remake the ships. I doubt their behavior would change. Could anything effective be done short of what was actually done? What I am asking us to do is to look beyond the question of who does the punishment and ask if there were alternatives as to what was done.

**********

Now regarding the whole issue of a natural disaster versus a punishment….. Yes a tsunami would flatten the isle, and Eru could keep his hands clean. But isn't there a wider question? Tolkien is raising a moral issue concerning the behavior of the men of Numenor. To me that judgment is central to the story, whether the judgment is made by Eru or by the author himself. Indeed, I would say that moral element is central to all Tolkien's stories on some level. If that is the case, wouldn't a punishment be necessary, whether you agree with the form that the punishment took or not? A freak weather event just doesn't cut it for me in the context of the Legendarium.

This is myth, and much of myth involves questions of “why” and judgments concerning behavior (gods may get some leeway re behavior, but not men). Ancient cultures from around the globe have stories about massive flooding; such stories almost always involve a judgment made by the unseen powers that rule the world. Such stories says as much about the insecurity of man, the fact that everything we have can be swept away in the blink of an eye (and I’m not just talking physical possessions here), as they do about the nature of the ruling gods. Almost always, the ancient floods are explained in terms of a punishment given out for immoral behavior. That is certainly true of Atlantis, which is the closest analogy to Numenor. The most prevalent reason cited for the destruction of Atlantis and the Atlantean culture were the misuse of power and the moral decay of the Atlanteans themselves. Secondary emphasis is placed on the wrath of the gods.

In this sense Tolkien is following in the steps of myth with his tale of Numenor. When we raise questions about a god committing an atrocity by unleashing the flood, we are reacting like men and women of the twenty-first century rather than adjusting our brain to the mythic paradigms that Tolkien proposes. Myth rarely judges the power of the gods. It merely describes what is a real fact: the gods have amazing power and can pull the rug out from beneath your feet whenever they choose to do so.

The problem with focusing attention only on the question of whether or not Eru is just is that it pulls our personal beliefs from the twenty-first century into the equation. For those posters who’ve been here a while, I can pretty well predict what side of this question they are going to take. It depends how they feel about "religion" in real life. (And undoubtedly, you folk could predict my own answer as well). To keep the discussion from going in circles like a dog chasing his tale, aren’t we better off trying to look at this story not merely in terms of modern political/religious sensitivities, or the believer versus non-believer framework, and instead think in terms of myth itself?

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

So assuming that there really was a need for all this to stop, what would the alternatives have been short of drowning the island? Swallowing up the ships would not have done the job in my opinion, since there was still Sauron sitting with the Ring on top of his little hill. Taking out Sauron somehow? That would be a possibility, but could Sauron be gotten rid of so easily since he had the Ring? (Would it have been possible for the Valar to destroy the Ring while leaving everything outside the Temple boundaries nice and tidy?) And even if you took out Sauron and the fleet, the whole infrastructure of the Temple system would exist. The people of Numenor had the knowledge and resources to remake the ships. I doubt their behavior would change. Could anything effective be done short of what was actually done? What I am asking us to do is to look beyond the question of who does the punishment and ask if there were alternatives as to what was done.

I did look at such alternatives earlier in this thread, and also failed to come up with any good ones; I too believe the story is about how a people painted themselves into a very bad corner, chiefly because they were proud and thoughtless and had no idea what they were getting themselves into by bringing Sauron to their island. If we want to read it in moral terms, we can almost view Eru's actions as merciful in that they fulfilled Amandil's wish for Men to be "delivered from Sauron the Deceiver". There was no easier way, and it's because the Númenóreans brought this upon themselves and their children. Foolishness kills. The only reason I don't hugely bother to see it this way is because I myself do not see Eru as a moral figure, and so don't bother to explain his actions in that light. But I did offer that sort of answer earlier for those who do see it that way.

Originally Posted by davem

Of course. The problem I have with the character is its 'primitiveness' & 'simplicity' (in a bad sense). The character lacks the necessary depth & complexity to sit well in the developed Legendarium. I still feel this is Tolkien's motivation in the Athrabeth - not to bring the Legendarium into line with Christianity, but to try & salvage the character. To go back to the edit in my last post - if Tevildo had not evolved into Sauron he would either have had to be removed from the Legendarium altogether, or take on a role like Shelob.

Tolkien puts no real effort into developing the character because he doesn't need to - Eru's role is so minor that he might as well not exist other than as something that prevents things sliding into dualism. As long as there's something there which stops that happening (even though most readers will not care one way or the other, being caught up in the story) it doesn't really matter what that thing is - call if Eru & forget it. Yet it still becomes a problem as the Legendarium outgrows such simplistic figures & so Eru has either to be forgotten altogether, replaced, or changed into something else. The Athrabeth seems Tolkien's attempt to do just that.

Odd. Because when I reread the earliest version of the Ainulindalë some time ago, my breath was taken away by how different Eru's character was. If anything, Ilúvatar was the character who changed the most over the varying traditions of that story. In the first version, he preached long messages about how Melkor's "ugliness" would bring forth "beauty" and that it would be the thing that made the Music most worthwhile. We are basically given a long sermon on theodicy in the first version. But as time goes on, Tolkien takes out huge sections of Eru's dialogue, making him a much more aloof figure whose motives are far more unclear. If Eru seems one-sided and overly mysterious, it's fairly obviously because Tolkien came to want him to be that way. He was actually more like the Christian God in the beginning than he afterwards became. Eru became more unique of a figure, not less of one.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Okay pals, now when I stop at what I just wrote, I think that I accidentally resolved the debate about what is or what is not "allowed" in M-E. I think this is pretty clear now. The dischord could have been OK, had Melkor not tooth and nail held it to himself. This is the slight difference, and it is really a slight difference, but I think it is important and I hope I hit the nail here: the definition of what is "good" and what is "bad" is defined by Eru; since he is All, he defines it. And I daresay he defines it on the basis of many factors, and the main is if the one goes with his plan = not that Eru had any plan like "Manwë goes there and Ulmo comes to him at 3 AM" but "can I go to Manwë at 7 PM? I want to make one more river here". In certain points, Eru might say "no" (for example, I think, to a question "Can I kill Manwë?" According to what I am able to guess from Tolkien's works, the latest possible answer would be "Ask him first", unless, of course, there was any reason why Manwë would have to be killed). As I said, I quite stand with the opinion that it is about learning. The reason why Eru has let the dischord and the evil to take place is, that he gives everyone (no "evil ones" or "good ones" distinction here during the process) a chance to learn. And on this basis the "good" and "evil" are defined. So Eru says: If you know what you are doing, I will bless it. (I know this sentence is quite simple and can be interpretated in many ways, but applying this Secondary World thesis on us here, who wants to learn, will find the right meaning in it. Who wants not, might argue until the end of this thread).

If I understand you correctly, I agree. And the reason it is good, bad, right, wrong, etc. in Eru's eyes seems to be whether it is possible according to his Will or not. Melkor and Aulë tried to pit themselves against the impossible, whether they knew it or not. If, like Aulë, Melkor had been willing to acknowledge the impossibility of his deeds, there would have been no problems for himself or anyone else, I think; or they would be quite lessened (there was, after all, still strife between the Dwarves and the Elves). But at least the Dwarves had been made into a coherent creation, and did not remain a vain imagining like Melkor's plans. If you go the route of vain imaginings, you will have to take a very long, hard road to get back into right thinking. This was the journey Melkor chose to take. Perhaps, in the long run, the fullness of his experience would give him more insight into the Will of Eru than he otherwise could have had, but it had to be bought with his own suffering and that of others.

Moderators: considering how off the main topic this thread has gone, it would probably be a good idea to split it now and name the new thread "Eru Ilúvatar" or something.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

Odd. Because when I reread the earliest version of the Ainulindalë some time ago, my breath was taken away by how different Eru's character was. If anything, Ilúvatar was the character who changed the most over the varying traditions of that story. In the first version, he preached long messages about how Melkor's "ugliness" would bring forth "beauty" and that it would be the thing that made the Music most worthwhile. We are basically given a long sermon on theodicy in the first version. But as time goes on, Tolkien takes out huge sections of Eru's dialogue, making him a much more aloof figure whose motives are far more unclear. If Eru seems one-sided and overly mysterious, it's fairly obviously because Tolkien came to want him to be that way. He was actually more like the Christian God in the beginning than he afterwards became. Eru became more unique of a figure, not less of one.

.

What it seems to do is make him more of a cypher than he originally was. If Tolkien is trying to distinguish Eru from God (& as I noted before these changes seem to correspond exactly to the period of the 20's when 'out of wickedness & sloth' he almost ceased to practice his religion) then we have him seeking to produce a non Christian deity who will keep the mythology 'monotheistic' & stop it being 'dualistic' while removing him to such a distance that he effectively becomes little more than a get out of jail free card.

The myths Tolkien loved are effectively both polytheistic & dualistic & the myth he creates is, in fact, exactly the same. Its as if he feels for philodsophical reasons he must keep a 'God' figure, but he wants to remove him as far as possible from the work. He wants to have his cake & eat it. I suppose a more complex Eru would have required him to be a more active participant in the story. Yet at the end (Athrabeth) he seems to want him to be just that.

Ok, in other words, I accept that what you say is correct - except I'd argue that he doesn't so much develop the character as remove the little 'character' that he seems to have. After that he seems to lose interest in him at all. I wonder whether the changes are for philosophical or narrative reasons?

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Neurion

In a historical sense, such things are VERY dull. A brief interlude of blind nature interfering in the vastly more interesting sphere of human affairs. Not even worthy of notice, really.

This will be a short comment, where I pour some water on Lal's mill.

I think that Pompeii shows that natural disasters is/can be very interesting. . .not only has there been made countless documetarys on this subject, but it is also one of Italys leading turist atractions.

And on a personal note, I think the story of Krakatoa is ever so facinating.

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by davem

What it seems to do is make him more of a cypher than he originally was.

Yes, and I think that was the point of Tolkien's alterations. Eru is mysterious. But then, so is the existence and character of everything else.

Originally Posted by davem

The myths Tolkien loved are effectively both polytheistic & dualistic & the myth he creates is, in fact, exactly the same. Its as if he feels for philodsophical reasons he must keep a 'God' figure, but he wants to remove him as far as possible from the work. He wants to have his cake & eat it. I suppose a more complex Eru would have required him to be a more active participant in the story. Yet at the end (Athrabeth) he seems to want him to be just that.

What, really, would a "more complex Eru" have been like? How could he have been much different from one of the Abrahamic Gods? I think that Tolkien makes Eru more vibrant through his addition of estel to the Legendarium, an addition that would not work if Eru were as active in the world and as promising as the Christian God is portrayed to be. Admittedly, estel only shows up decades after the major changes to Eru's character are made, but they fit very well with Eru's presentation, much better than they would if Eru were very different than he is. Tolkien used a typical "God figure" to draw the (typical Western) reader into the story, and then used Eru as a vehicle for bringing out different themes and concepts than are often discussed in Western religion.

Originally Posted by davem

Ok, in other words, I accept that what you say is correct - except I'd argue that he doesn't so much develop the character as remove the little 'character' that he seems to have. After that he seems to lose interest in him at all. I wonder whether the changes are for philosophical or narrative reasons?

Though I have no way of ever knowing, I tend to think more philosophical. The original version of the Ainulindalë was written, of course, just about at the time that Tolkien was fighting in World War I. To me, Eru's speeches in the original read very much like Tolkien was, through his words, grappling with the troubles in the world that he had encountered. He would not put words into the mouth of the God he actually believed in, of course, so he used the similar-seeming deity in his newly-constructed world to work out his concerns about good and evil. As time went on, however, he did not need Eru for this role, and so he took out many of these lines and made him more opaque. That's just how I see it, anyway.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The odd thing about Frodo going into the West is that he probably did die, and possibly much more quickly than if he had stayed in The Shire (laying aside the possibility that he may well have committed suicide had he not got any healing). Valinor is no place for a mortal:

But then, it wasn't to Valinor that he was going. Technically, Frodo went to live in Tol Eressëa, which may not have had the same effects on mortals as the land of the Valar proper (I tend to think it didn't). Admittedly, I am biased by my hope that Sam got to see Frodo after sailing into the West in his old age.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Child

The problem with focusing attention only on the question of whether or not Eru is just is that it pulls our personal beliefs from the twenty-first century into the equation. For those posters who’ve been here a while, I can pretty well predict what side of this question they are going to take. It depends how they feel about "religion" in real life. (And undoubtedly, you folk could predict my own answer as well). To keep the discussion from going in circles like a dog chasing his tale, aren’t we better off trying to look at this story not merely in terms of modern political/religious sensitivities, or the believer versus non-believer framework, and instead think in terms of myth itself?

And in arguing with myself I can only say we are 20th century readers of a book written by a 20th century man. The fact is we can only stomach what we can stomach. And what Eru does is too much. Well, too much not to be subject to our moral judgement. For all your points are true, Eru is responsible for his actions. Our ancestors burned people alive & felt it to be just - & it was. Yet we at the same time judge them harshly & call their actions barbaric.

The point is that Tolkien's heroes do not behave like our ancestors - they conform to our modern concepts of what heroes are & behave likewise. Now, the heroes of BoLT do behave in a more 'heroic' manner, but over time they develop into more 'modern' figures who we can relate to & sympathise with. Eru doesn't. He remains a simplistic 'jealous' deity, & is thus increasingly isolated within the Legendarium. The destruction of Numenor stands out as wrong because we don't think in that way anymore. Aragorn did not lead his armies on a crusade into Harad & embark on genocide, & while our ancestors may have approved of him doing so, we wouldn't.

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by davem

But its not an allegory. Its Art, & Art either works or it doesn't. And Eru isn't 'divided', he continues to exist, seperate from what he creates. Yet even conceding your point it still leaves Eru as a plot device rather than a fully developed character. He serves the purpose he is designed for & can then be safely forgotten. Say the Singers stepped forth from the Void, or sang themselves out of the Void & you have the same effect.

But Art does not step out of the Void. In Tolkien's case it is a process of creation which involves input (the unfoldment of reality as Tolkien perceived it), synthesis of that perception of unfoldment into word-thoughts, and output (the act of writing). The words which Tolkien creates can thus be seen not as Creation per se but as Metaphor. When one realizes that any literary criticism of Tolkien is a process of Artistic Creation (viewing the unfoldment of reality in the Legendarium, forming word-concepts, and writing) one realizes that it cannot be analyzed deductively or inductively. It can only be analyzed through metaphor.