Sauron vs. Your Mama - A Discussion of Power in Middle-earth

Sauron vs. Your Mama -----> this sounds so awful for a thread name, typical lower class american slang.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Sauron vs. Your Mama -----> this sounds so awful for a thread name, typical lower class american slang.

This is the second time you've objected to the thread title, Mansun, so perhaps a reply is in order.

Frankly, I find the title very funny, and I'm not even American. That humour arises from the very outrageous juxtaposition between the great villain and the American slang and to me is a reminder not to take the debate too seriously. "Power" seems to be a favourite topic among the guys here and bringing in "your Mama" tweaks that, to my way of thinking. (Of course, I could be wrong and oblo had no intention of providing a laugh at his own topic.)

If you search some of the long ago threads you will find that Downers often came up with outrageous or silly thread titles. Maril of the Long Nick was especially noted for this, as were Underhill and Sharkey, although in a more dry mode, even in the Books forum.

The rancor on the thread I don't find funny, though. Too much of the macho power tripping and not enough of the thread title humour.

We all have different tastes, you see.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Frankly, I find the title very funny, and I'm not even American. That humour arises from the very outrageous juxtaposition between the great villain and the American slang and to me is a reminder not to take the debate too seriously.

This creeping Americanisation I'm sure would have appalled Tolkien. Could this thread not be renamed 'Sauron vs. your Mater'?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

This creeping Americanisation I'm sure would have appalled Tolkien. Could this thread not be renamed 'Sauron vs. your Mater'?

Somehow I think, davem, given the varieties of style and languages Tolkien uses in his work, that he will get the joke without having his patriotism or philological pride too bruised. It's such a precioussss line, after all.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Somehow I think, davem, given the varieties of style and languages Tolkien uses in his work, that he will get the joke without having his patriotism or philological pride too bruised. It's such a precioussss line, after all.

I think such slang should be punished with a slap of cold water from the Mirrormere!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

This is the second time you've objected to the thread title, Mansun, so perhaps a reply is in order.

Frankly, I find the title very funny, and I'm not even American. That humour arises from the very outrageous juxtaposition between the great villain and the American slang and to me is a reminder not to take the debate too seriously. "Power" seems to be a favourite topic among the guys here and bringing in "your Mama" tweaks that, to my way of thinking. (Of course, I could be wrong and oblo had no intention of providing a laugh at his own topic.)

If you search some of the long ago threads you will find that Downers often came up with outrageous or silly thread titles. Maril of the Long Nick was especially noted for this, as were Underhill and Sharkey, although in a more dry mode, even in the Books forum.

The rancor on the thread I don't find funny, though. Too much of the macho power tripping and not enough of the thread title humour.

We all have different tastes, you see.

Bêthberry's comments on the reason for the thread title are excellent - its main purpose is to enable a topic to distinguish itself from others and make it easy for readers to find a specific discussion. It is much better to have an unusual, humorous title than something generic like "I have a question" (which says absolutely nothing helpful) or "What about Tom Bombadil?" (how many TB threads are there?!).

However, the topic is the basis for subsequent posts, not the title. I therefore suggest that discussion here gets back to the topic at hand. Only moderators and administrators can change the title, and I see absolutely no reason to do so.

[alatar]

Not sure that this thread matches well with my thoughts, and not sure I will express my thoughts well, but hope that however it goes that it will lead to some civil discourse...

In the beginning, in the Christian Bible, Adam and Eve were created in the image of God. These two subsequently were tempted by Satan, fell into sin and were made to leave Paradise. After which, though long-lived, Adam and Eve were afflicted by time, disease, toil and all of the fun that goes along with living outside of Paradise. In the end, like us all, they returned to the dust from which they came.

In the beginning, with the rising of the sun, the first men (humans) awoke in Arda. At first they toddled around a bit, but some, learning from the Firstborn, grew wise and great. After a huge battle, the humans were given their own island, but they fell into sin (not for the first time) and were mostly drowned. Since then their days have been shortened and they too enjoy all of the fun of time, disease and toil.

---

We have what Tolkien may have believed, and what he wrote about. How are these two comparable, and how are they discordant? But first, let me explain what I'm really asking:

As I understand the Christian religion, Adam and Eve were made perfect, or nearly so. This perfect or near perfection, it is argued, is why they lived long and were not adversely affected by inbreeding as deleterious mutations were not present until many many generations later. Regardless, these two fell when tempted by Satan. Were Adam and Eve like you and me, easily swayed (assuming you're easily swayed)? Or was Satan more powerful then, able to tempt even the First Two? Has Satan become more or less powerful since the beginning, or has his power stayed about the same?

Not that we're discussing Christianity, but we need to consider what Tolkien may have been considering when he wrote about men in his secondary world.

Seems to me that, in the beginning, Melkor was the one-stop-shop for evil. Sure, he had his crew, but, in the First Age, if you were looking for evil's source, you drove northward. In later ages, as Morgoth sold franchises and subfranchises ad nauseam, you needn't drive for more than a few miles to get some evil. Sure, this evil wasn't as pure (or powerful) as stuff from that one store way up north that existed long ago, but it still did the job, especially as you didn't need the same amount like in the past when those pesky elves and Edain were around.

With Hurin, you had to drive north, but with Ted the drive wasn't so long.

So my question is, in both Tolkien's view of Christianity and in his created world, were Men more apt to resist evil in the beginning (or not), and was evil itself more powerful in the past?

As I see it, if we graphed the trends, in one view you would see the following (see graph, and note that the lines are just to show trends and do not relate to each other...much):

Thoughts?

[obloquy]

My thoughts in answer to your main questions:

Were Adam and Eve like you and me, easily swayed (assuming you're easily swayed)? Or was Satan more powerful then, able to tempt even the First Two? Has Satan become more or less powerful since the beginning, or has his power stayed about the same?

Adam and Eve's fall from perfection brought sin into Man's makeup. To paraphrase a scripture: "through Adam sin entered the world, and death through sin." Adam and Eve's nature was thus different from all their offspring in that they chose to sin, while all mankind after them were predisposed to sin. With the obvious exception of Christ, of course. Christ's nature provides evidence of this fundamental flaw in humanity: the only way for him to remain sinless on Earth (which was a necessary component of his mission) was for him to be conceived by holy spirit rather than being anointed from among (relatively) faithful "natural" humans.

Was Satan more powerful then? I don't think so. According to scripture, it was after Adam's sin that Satan was joined in his rebellion by other angels--an event that must have made him a much more effectual power, though he was not personally enhanced. There's also no evidence in the scriptures to suggest the kind of power dynamic that exists in Tolkien whereby Satan would be able to deplete his natural potency by malicious deeds. We can only assume that Satan himself has remained the same as he always was, but has become more powerful through his constantly tightening hold on the world and, as scriptures indicate, his increased focus on Earth as his last day gets nearer.

So why were Adam and Eve so easily tempted? When Satan deceived Eve, he told her that if she ate, her eyes would be opened and she would know good and bad. Therefore, before eating from the tree, Adam and Eve were unaware of any course of action contrary to the wishes of God. When they listened to Satan and chose to sin, their eyes were opened because now they knew that they could ignore the commands of God--they were, after all, created with free will, just as the angels were. Furthermore, the existence of the tree in Eden seems to indicate that God may have intended for them to be confronted with their free will at some point. Maybe Satan just put it in front of them before they were "mature" enough to face the test, or maybe they were ready and simply failed. In either case, that original question that Satan raised--Can Man "guide his own step?"--is the same one that was transferred into Christianity as a central theme. Christian teachings thus urge disciples to put faith in God's eventual correction of this world rather than in Man's efforts.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Therefore, before eating from the tree, Adam and Eve were unaware of any course of action contrary to the wishes of God. When they listened to Satan and chose to sin, their eyes were opened because now they knew that they could ignore the commands of God--they were, after all, created with free will, just as the angels were.

Hm, isn't there a contradiction between saying that they didn't have free will previously to eating the fruit, yet they chose to listen to the snake?

Originally Posted by alatar

So my question is, in both Tolkien's view of Christianity and in his created world, were Men more apt to resist evil in the beginning (or not), and was evil itself more powerful in the past?

I would say that evil was more powerful in the past - because: there were Melkor and Sauron, and all the other lads; evil was more concentrated, and thus harder to resist; the foundations of the world are good and able to heal the evil from "within" (cf Myths Transformed & Athrabeth).

I wouldn't know what to say about resistance to evil. In the New Shadow, and its comments, Tolkien expands on his idea that Men turn to evil due to their quick satiety with good (even if in the fourth age there is no mythological incarnation of evil anymore, cf Myths Transformed). I would say that Men, left to their own devices, would develop, as a race, a decreased resistance to evil. However, we know that Eru intervenes continuously in the world, and that such a probable outcome will be in fact avoided.

Originally Posted by Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth, HoME X

If we are indeed the Eruhin, the Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Assuming Middle-earth is a closed system without anything leaking in from the Void, which is probably an incorrect assumption as Ungoliant did leak in

Well, M-E isn't a closed system, in relation to the Void, since Eru continuously intervenes in every age (Ungoliant didn't come from the Void, but from the darkness around Arda; upon the difference between them, Tolkien comments in his commentaries on the Silm. in Myths Transformed).

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I don't think the question of genetic imperfection would have pertained in Eden, because, if Adam and Eve had not 'fallen', would they still have reproduced?

I believe so (emphasis added:

Originally Posted by Genesis, Bible, King James version

26 And God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And, oblo, God was just an inexperienced Parent. As any parent has learnt, the quickest way to get your child to do something is to forbid it.

Is that what actually happened? Was He really inexperienced? Dostoievski envisioned Jesus as saying that:

Originally Posted by Brothers Karamazov

- Why you do not perform a miracle? the Great Inquisitor asks, why you do not prove people that you are Jesus? You are only returning, but you do not rescue the world.

- People must trust in me, Jesus answers, the real trust is that trust, which is not buttressed by the facts. If I will do a miracle everyone will trust me, but the real believer trusts me without miracles.

In MT, Tolkien says that

Nonetheless this gift of Iluvatar to the Valar (the Imperishable Flame) has its own peril, as have all his free gifts: which is in the end no more than to say that they play a part in the Great Tale so that it may be complete; for without peril they would be without power, and the giving would be void.

With the free will, another aspect is introduced in the nature of Men, that is, their quick satiety with good. However, to paraphrase Tolkien on the issue of carnal temptation,

Originally Posted by Letter #43

Faithfulness in Christian marriage entails that: great mortification. For a Christian man there is no escape. Marriage may help to sanctify & direct to its proper object his sexual desires; its grace may help him in the struggle; but the struggle remains.

Or, from an "in-story" perspective, being attached to anything less than Eru is bound to lead to sorrow:

Originally Posted by Author's note #7 on the Commentary, Athrabeth

By the holiness of good men - their direct attachment to Eru, before and above all Eru's works - the Elves may be delivered from the last of their griefs: sadness; the sadness that must come even from the unselfish love of anything less than Eru.

Therefore, this is what it is expected of us (well, Eruhini):

Originally Posted by Author's note #2 on the Commentary, Athrabeth

More probably, [the elves] were not informed by the will or design of Eru, who appears in the Elvish tradition to demand two things from His Children (of either Kindred): belief in Him, and proceeding from that, hope or trust in Him (called by the Eldar estel).

[obloquy]

I said Adam and Eve were created with free will. Prior to Satan's interference, they were merely unaware of sinfulness--innocent like children. The only rule they were given is that they were not to eat of a certain tree, which implies that all else that might occur to them was permissible. They had free will and could do whatever they wished; the one thing that God required of them was to recognize his authority in setting limits.

Is Evil a perfect machine, capable of transforming 100% of energy to its output? or does it simply transform into different kinds of evil?

It seems silly to apply a physical law to what is fundamentally metaphysical. Maybe you're joking.

I don't think the question of genetic imperfection would have pertained in Eden, because, if Adam and Eve had not 'fallen', would they still have reproduced?

Of course they would have.

And, oblo, God was just an inexperienced Parent. As any parent has learnt, the quickest way to get your child to do something is to forbid it.

I disagree with that. Were they simply tempted by something that was witheld from them, or were they deceived by the Devil? Had Satan not lied to them about God's warning ("you positively will not die"), would they have still disobeyed?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

Seems to me that, in the beginning, Melkor was the one-stop-shop for evil. Sure, he had his crew, but, in the First Age, if you were looking for evil's source, you drove northward. In later ages, as Morgoth sold franchises and subfranchises ad nauseam, you needn't drive for more than a few miles to get some evil. Sure, this evil wasn't as pure (or powerful) as stuff from that one store way up north that existed long ago, but it still did the job, especially as you didn't need the same amount like in the past when those pesky elves and Edain were around.

With Hurin, you had to drive north, but with Ted the drive wasn't so long.

So my question is, in both Tolkien's view of Christianity and in his created world, were Men more apt to resist evil in the beginning (or not), and was evil itself more powerful in the past?

As I see it, if we graphed the trends, in one view you would see the following (see graph, and note that the lines are just to show trends and do not relate to each other...much):

Thoughts?

Gives me the willies thinking of poor Santa up North there all alone, resisting Melkor.

What if you look at this question a slightly different way, in terms of the conservation of energy. Is Evil a perfect machine, capable of transforming 100% of energy to its output? or does it simply transform into different kinds of evil? If Evil = Energy, then the Law of Conservation of Evil would state that Evil cannot be created or destroyed. Assuming Middle-earth is a closed system without anything leaking in from the Void, which is probably an incorrect assumption as Ungoliant did leak in.

I don't think the question of genetic imperfection would have pertained in Eden, because, if Adam and Eve had not 'fallen', would they still have reproduced? Was Paradise an endlessly expanding concept or would it have gotten really crowded? On the other hand, if Adam and Eve were made in the image of the Great Creator, wouldn't that have meant they would naturally want to sub-create? Friction of course changes energy.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but I found al's post a fascinating conundrum. And, oblo, God was just an inexperienced Parent. As any parent has learnt, the quickest way to get your child to do something is to forbid it.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Gives me the willies thinking of poor Santa up North there all alone, resisting Melkor.

But he's a tough ole Nick, and he lords over the last remaining kingdom of elves, and so he has that going for him. Note that Santa scooped up those that 'fell along the way' during the crossing of the Helcaraxë...kinda throws a different light on the jolly one. Hmmm.

What if you look at this question a slightly different way, in terms of the conservation of energy. Is Evil a perfect machine, capable of transforming 100% of energy to its output? or does it simply transform into different kinds of evil? If Evil = Energy, then the Law of Conservation of Evil would state that Evil cannot be created or destroyed. Assuming Middle-earth is a closed system without anything leaking in from the Void, which is probably an incorrect assumption as Ungoliant did leak in.

Most excellent - the LoCoE. I would agree; note that my graph with a negative slope for Arda Evil just takes into account friction and entropy, as a little evil is lost due to Thermodynamics (those evil notes in the 'Music' dissipate into space to bounce off Varda Elentári's stars). But what about Tolkien's perception of our world? Why are these different, if indeed they are?

I don't think the question of genetic imperfection would have pertained in Eden, because, if Adam and Eve had not 'fallen', would they still have reproduced?

Not sure what you mean. As I understand it, Adam and Eve would have reproduced in Paradise, but the birthing process would have been less unpleasant. Plus nappies wouldn't have been needed (I can't reconcile Paradise and even one overfull diaper ).

Was Paradise an endlessly expanding concept or would it have gotten really crowded?

Depends on your definition. Some persons enjoy the 'Christmas rush' at the Malls in December while I'd rather make my selection, walk to the cashier, pay and be on my way. Surely there was a plan for the additions to Paradise. Tolkien's humans awake to a world already somewhat crowded whereas Adam initially is alone in all the world (save the Lord, who spoke with him).

On the other hand, if Adam and Eve were made in the image of the Great Creator, wouldn't that have meant they would naturally want to sub-create? Friction of course changes energy.

Aulë's Sin? "I but mimic the work of my father? But must I follow in my father's footsteps? And while living in my father's house, I must abide by those rules that he set forth." Note that Aulë and Melkor were initially equal in abilities (in some sense) and one child turns to the father whereas the other turns away. In Tolkien's view of Christianity, did he see Adam as the one who turned away, and so wanted to have an example in his world where one does the right thing?

I'm not sure where I'm going with this,

Never stopped me from posting...

but I found al's post a fascinating conundrum. And, oblo, God was just an inexperienced Parent. As any parent has learnt, the quickest way to get your child to do something is to forbid it.

Most definitely. Rules without some explanation only whets their curiosity. And there's that burned hand thing as well.

[CSteefel]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Sauron vs. Your Mama -----> this sounds so awful for a thread name, typical lower class american slang.

Not exactly "lower class", more like black ghetto slang.

I took it as a joke...