The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[davem]

Tar-Telperien Accepting much of what you say, it still leaves us with Eru as a cypher, while every other character is drawn in depth. He doesn't seem to fit. Maybe Tolkien didn't want to say to much about him for the reasons you give, but it still leaves him as as little more than a name. We don't know why he does most of what he does, what his intentions are, or why he bothers to do anything at all. He seems to exist only to make the world monotheistic. I suspect this is what leads readers to project their own God concepts onto him, & lead to religious arguments which get nowhere. He is probably the only character Tolkien invents who is not a 'character' at all.

An author can't do this! A theologian may speak of the 'ineffability' of God, but a storyteller must create characters - or if he doesn't he isn't doing his job right. If someone had just popped up in Mordor to hand Sam & Frodo a canteen of water & then just wandered off again, with no explanation as to how or why he was there, we'd rightly dismiss him as a 'get out of jail free' card Tolkien was playing. We'd demand to know who he was, why he was there. We might assume there was a reason for him being there, but if there was no reason to be found (if his appearance could not be accounted for in any way & if his existence in the story was logically impossible) we'd have to say Tolkien had failed in his creation of a logically consistent secondary world - particularly if he admitted that he'd put the character in there simply because he didn't want Frodo & Sam to die of thirst & couldn't be bothered to come up with a better idea.

Yet this seems to be exactly what he does in the case of Eru - he needs 'something' to make the world monotheistic, one who can 'fill the gaps' in the narrative, & so comes up with Eru.

Now this is not to say that Eru cannot be perceived by other characters as 'ineffable', but he shouldn't be so to the reader (or the writer), because the writer in this case is not writing a work of theology, but a story, & characters in a story must fit logically into the story & be explainable within the rules of the story world.

So, I find Eru unsatisfying, & try to ignore him, or put down his appearances to the character's belief systems. Accepting him as an actual character within the secondary world is too much for me. Ainulindale as 'fact' (the 'fundamentalist' approach) is something I can't stomach. Ainulindale as an Elvish creation myth, a metaphor or parable, just about works for me.

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by davem

Accepting much of what you say, it still leaves us with Eru as a cypher, while every other character is drawn in depth. He doesn't seem to fit. Maybe Tolkien didn't want to say to much about him for the reasons you give, but it still leaves him as as little more than a name. We don't know why he does most of what he does, what his intentions are, or why he bothers to do anything at all. He seems to exist only to make the world monotheistic. I suspect this is what leads readers to project their own God concepts onto him, & lead to religious arguments which get nowhere. He is probably the only character Tolkien invents who is not a 'character' at all.

I thought I explained that not "knowing his intentions" is vital for the creatures he desires to make. They have to trust and learn for themselves. If there's one moral a person can get out of the "Tale of Adanel", it's that Eru isn't pleased when his creatures beg for easy answers, from him or anyone.

Of course, you are perfectly free to see him as a cipher. But then, I think that was exactly the effect Tolkien wanted. I have strong doubts that it was unintended by him.

Originally Posted by davem

An author can't do this! A theologian may speak of the 'ineffability' of God, but a storyteller must create characters - or if he doesn't he isn't doing his job right. If someone had just popped up in Mordor to hand Sam & Frodo a canteen of water & then just wandered off again, with no explanation as to how or why he was there, we'd rightly dismiss him as a 'get out of jail free' card Tolkien was playing. We'd demand to know who he was, why he was there. We might assume there was a reason for him being there, but if there was no reason to be found (if his appearance could not be accounted for in any way & if his existence in the story was logically impossible) we'd have to say Tolkien had failed in his creation of a logically consistent secondary world - particularly if he admitted that he'd put the character in there simply because he didn't want Frodo & Sam to die of thirst & couldn't be bothered to come up with a better idea.

What makes Tolkien's stories great is that he wasn't just "an author". He was a world-builder. And when you devise and describe an entire constructed world, yes you can put irreducible mysteries in it like this. After all, what do you think Tom Bombadil is if not an irreducible mystery? People have had "arguments that go nowhere" concerning his nature for decades, but you aren't complaining about that. And the mysteries must only get deeper and yet more impenetrable when you're dealing with the One who created them in the first place.

Originally Posted by davem

Now this is not to say that Eru cannot be perceived by other characters as 'ineffable', but he shouldn't be so to the reader (or the writer), because the writer in this case is not writing a work of theology, but a story, & characters in a story must fit logically into the story & be explainable within the rules of the story world.

Tolkien wasn't just writing a story, he was writing a history. And what is, for example, the Bible if it is not a history (especially to the people who believe in it most)? Yet the reader of the Bible perceives God as being quite ineffable indeed. So why shouldn't Eru be viewed the same way, if Tolkien's intent with how the text is to be read was similar?

Originally Posted by davem

So, I find Eru unsatisfying, & try to ignore him, or put down his appearances to the character's belief systems. Accepting him as an actual character within the secondary world is too much for me. Ainulindale as 'fact' (the 'fundamentalist' approach) is something I can't stomach. Ainulindale as an Elvish creation myth, a metaphor or parable, just about works for me.

I encourage you to read it as a parable. That is what the Elves themselves did, apparently.

Originally Posted by Note on the 'Language of the Valar', from "Quendi and Eldar

If we consider the First History, which is called the Ainulindalë: this must have come from the Aratar themselves (for the most part indeed from Manwë, it is believed). Though it was plainly put into its present form by Eldar, and was already in that form when it was recorded by Rúmil, it must nonetheless have been from the first presented to us not only in the words of Quenya, but also according to our modes of thought and our imagination of the visible world, in symbols that were intelligible to us.

[davem]

Of course this means that Eru is not actually a character as such - which is waht I've been arguing. I'm not sure the analogy with Tom works. Tom is enigmatic, but he has a character & plays a specific role in his world & in the story He is a person. Eru seemingly exists only to make the mythlogy monotheistic. Eru is so far outside the world & the events of the story that effectively he is not a part of it.

Yet Tolkien insists on bringing him into the story as an active participant at certain points, & this causes a problem due the fact of his one dimensionality. When he appears it is to do something & we don't really know why he does what he does because we don't know who he is. You can't just have a metaphor popping into the story & then popping out agan - not if this changes the story in a major way. If the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan had popped up in the Gospels as an actual person we'd be totally confused as to to the point of the parables - suddenly they would become reportage & not stories with a moral truth behind them. If Ainulindale is a parable/myth how 'true' is it? Is the 'mythic' Eru the same as the Eru who appears to trahs Numenor, or is he different? We need to know more about Eru if he is to become a physical fact within the world. If we'd never encountered him outside the Music, no problem. The point at which he enters in he becomes a problem, because he becomes a fact which changes the world of which he is a part.

[drigel]

Ive been enjoying this thread. I think this story is about all of the afore mentioned reasons - Atlantis, the Old Testament, etc. It is not complete in it's message, as I believe that JRRT wasn't writing for theological reasons as the primary motivation. But it is there - and for a reason. Whether or not he wanted, or was able to completely flesh out his idea - is another question.

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.

...could've thought on that they also might influence the life of those around themselves. I think we all agree on that parents take responsibility for their children as long as they are not grown up enough to take care of themselves, right?

As the parents are to the children, so are the shepherds are to the flock. And upwards... but that question is applicable today - why do bad things happen to good people? Or, in other words, what was the bigger atrocity - the sinking of Numenor, or the cruel fate of the rest of the mortals that were doomed to live out their wretched lives back on the squalor of what was left of the broken ME? Surely there were innocents caught up in that as well. Many more, plus all their cursed decendants as well. Generation after generation. Sickness, darkness, forsaken. Thousands of years.

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.

No man knoweth the plan. Accordingly, no Vala or Elf knoweth the role of men in the music.

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.

Thats why Numenor, as well as the Sauron (and the lesser Maia) issue, to me, represented a huge mistake, or imperfection in the Vala's governing of order.

No, I don't agree--I don't think the Valar were "racist": they are the Guardians of Men as well as Elves and they loved them.

They loved mankind, but completely misunderstood them. Their role both in this world and in the next is a complete unknown to them.

This is why I say one cannot rationalise the behaviour of Eru & make it good - though one can attribute all kinds of things to him, in order to make him 'good', but if one takes what Tolkien actually gives us, we have almost nothing to build on.......What he does display is pride, lack of compassion & brute force.

To me your describing exactly what life was about on ME at that time for mortals (and to an extent our descendant as well - pre bronze age). Cruel, merciless, the brute force of life was not good at all. Yet there was hope. Which leads me to -
What the purpose of (IMHO) the Eru figure is.

Yet Tolkien insists on bringing him into the story as an active participant at certain points, & this causes a problem due the fact of his one dimensionality. When he appears it is to do something & we don't really know why he does what he does because we don't know who he is.

The way for salvation of pre-prophet man. There was a plan for him there, in that sub-creation. It was a bleak existance, dire circumstances, but grace could still be obtained. Not complete in it's explanation, I agree. Not satisfying in any way. But the motivation was to create a story of mankind's mortality, which to me explains the plot of Numenor. The changes in revisions show the difficulty in dealing with the issue - mainly, in driving the story away from it. But it's there, and that means something to me. I think it meant a lot to the Catholic JRRT as well.

[davem]

Found an old post of mine on the 'Is Eru God?' thread, which is a quote from an essay by Verly Flieger: here. The most interesting point she makes is the following:

The supreme godhead, Eru/Iluvatar, who both proposes the theme and conducts the Music, is neither the Judaic God of Hosts who alternately punishes and rewards his people, nor the traditional Christian God of love and forgiveness. Rather, he is a curiously remote and for the most part inactive figure, uninvolved, with the exception of one cataclysmic moment, in the world he has conceived.

Inactive & uninvolved about sums him up. Of course, my earlier point about his existing in order to stop the Legendarium being dualistic must be qualified. There are, of course, two kinds of dualism. Middle-eastern dualism posits a conflict between equal forces of good & evil - ie it is 'moral' dualism. North Western cultures produced a dualism which was about the conflict of order & chaos (whether Odin against Loki or Apollo against Dionysus). Tolkien seems to have used Norse myth as a basis & set up an Odin/Loki conflict, but set it out in a 'Zoroastrian' form. Yet Eru himself remains aloof from the conflict. Its as though he creates the world (monotheism) but then steps back & plays no part in events, so that effectively the tale plays out along dualistic lines. Hence, in effect it is a dualistic mythology. What is needed to prevent it being that is for Eru to play a much greater part, be an involved presence, but this is something Tolkien never does.

EDIT I think the one statement in the work that confirms this 'dualism' is Galadriel's claim that she & Celeborn have spent three ages 'Fighting the Long Defeat'. Existence is an eternal battle between good & evil.

[Elmo]

Can I just point that if Eru himself is a moral character or not characters in Middle Earth believed he was a moral guide. Consider Tar-Meneldur when he receives the letter from Gil-Galad. He doesn't know what to do because whatever he does - to help Gil or not will result in death and he doesn't know how he will explain what he does to Eru.

[davem]

Originally Posted by hewhoarisesinmight

Can I just point that if Eru himself is a moral character or not characters in Middle Earth believed he was a moral guide. Consider Tar-Meneldur when he receives the letter from Gil-Galad. He doesn't know what to do because whatever he does - to help Gil or not will result in death and he doesn't know how he will explain what he does to Eru.

Which is just what causes the problem from an aesthetic perspective. Eru doesn't live up to the hype.