Turin the Hopeless?

[davem]

From fantasy novelist Wayne Thomas Batson's blog:
http://enterthedoorwithin.blogspot.c...-of-hurin.html

I said above that I was glad that I read CoH, but I don’t think I’ll ever read it again. That must sound strange. But you have to understand, I’m a sucker for a happy ending. No, I’m not a sap who unrealistically wants everything to turn out rosy. I absolutely love how in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien presents heroic victories, but they all come at tremendous cost. Sacrifice, death and suffering—okay, but I still want the victory. CoH is a tragedy and an intimate, penetrating tragedy at that. Anyone and everyone you will come to love in this story will die and usually in the most gut-wrenching ways. You will be yelling at Morwen, Turin, and Nienor in your mind, saying, “No, don’t do that! Don’t say that! Don’t fall for that!” And of course, they’ll do just what you feared they would. Time after time, characters will ignore the sage advice of friends who love them, and peril will result.

And after reading Children of Hurin, I am convinced there are things far worse than death. Watching every tragedy known to humankind befall your offspring—being chief among them. Morgoth’s curse so utterly devastated Hurin’s kin that it makes me wonder why he didn’t just throw a curse on ALL of his enemies and then, sit back and watch the mayhem unfold. And about Morgoth: there’s nothing better than having a really bad villain get what’s coming to him. But not in CoH. Morgoth escapes virtually unscathed. I guess I knew that going in, as Earendil and the Valar take care of Morgoth much later in the history of Middle Earth. Still, I wanted to smack Morgoth with a big war hammer, but it never happens. CoH struck me much like Mystic River, Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan, and The Departed. These are all extremely well-told stories. Well designed, well-directed, well-cast, well-acted, and well-shot—but dreadfully depressing. The Children of Hurin ended and left me with a vacant sense of dread, but no hope.

So, anyone else feel the same way - is CoH a book that you're glad you read but one that you won't want to read again?

I was very struck by Batson's comments because he's someone who knows the larger story, that Earendel will make it to the West & rouse the Valar, that Morgoth will fall & the eucatastrophe will occur.

Yet, he is left 'with a vacant sense of dread, but no hope.' This is what I meant about the effect of publishing CoH as a stand alone work - even those who know the greater context will be affected by the story's darkness & lack of hope. In effect we have two CoH's - one which is part of the Legendarium, & is the darkness that comes before the dawn. The other is the novel as a stand alone work, one that some may not want to read twice....

[tumhalad2]

This is (or was) an interesting thread, and three years later I'd like to respond to the question Davem was exploring - shall I read CoH again? Absolutely!

It is, by far, my favourite work by Tolkien, I think exactly for the reasons that have been discussed in this topic: its apparent applicability, the sense of a distinct non-, or anti-providence, the immanence of menace incarnated in Morgoth, and, I think, the unanswered questions.

It is tempting to answer Turin's question: What is fate?, or his agnosticism regarding the Valar, and his apparent ignorance (indeed, everyone's apparent ignorache) concerning an all powerful creator God, with recourse to The Lord of the Rings, of "Quendi and Eldar", or "Ainulindale" or some other extraneous text. But I think this is a mistake. I have no evidence to support my claim, but I'm not entirely certain that Tolkien wouldh've recommended such a reading either. Just remember, in the chapter "The Words of Hurin and Morgoth", the last words a given to Morgoth, not to Hurin's hopefully "estel" like pronouncements. Morgoth rebukes Hurin's "Elvish lore" by stating emphatically that "you shall see and you shall confess that I do not lie". I wouldn't go so far as to say that Morgoth is actually speaking truthfully; clearly the Valar do intervene eventually, and yet; their actions, and the actions (or non actions) of a supposedly good and benevolent God (Eru) leave something to be desired. I think CoH is cheapened if it is merely perceived as a part of a greater story; no, it is so powerful, so forceful, too grandiosely tragic, that it accumulates meaning that does not, even tangentially, support the "thesis" of ultimate eucatastrophe in the world. The cost is so stunning, and the ignorance of the "gods" so complete, that we are left with little choice but to embrace the story on its own terms.

[Nerwen]

I'm going to take issue with the claim (made earlier in the thread) that CoH is only popular because everyone's all world-weary and disillusioned these days, whereas in the past they were naive romantics, the poor fools, etc, etc. For a start, I don't think that actually is the case– that view of the world seems more of a media fantasy to me, and not a new one. It has not been my experience that most people these days live lives of bitter, endless despair, at all. Yes, journalists and such seem to assume they do, but that hardly makes it true. It's all just another kind of romanticism, really, anyway.

I tend to get a little annoyed by those kind of sweeping sociological explanations of why anything sells. Sometimes they're valid, of course, but it does seem like somebody will always come up with one every single time. I mean, can't anything get popular because it's, you know, good, rather than because Society Did It?

Also, it is fashionable to praise things primarily for being supposedly particularly relevant to "these times", for somehow tapping into the Zeitgeist (if a Zeitgeist is in fact something capable of being tapped into). I call this faint praise indeed, because if you really believe that's the secret of something's appeal, it follows that it's liable to get stale very fast. (In fact, the angst–is–all attitude was really more of a 90s thing, as far as I can recall. So on that measure of "worth" CoH would have been dated before it was ever in print!)

I think CoH is cheapened if it is merely perceived as a part of a greater story; no, it is so powerful, so forceful, too grandiosely tragic, that it accumulates meaning that does not, even tangentially, support the "thesis" of ultimate eucatastrophe in the world. The cost is so stunning, and the ignorance of the "gods" so complete, that we are left with little choice but to embrace the story on its own terms.

But tumhalad, it is part of a greater story. You can't really ignore that, just because otherwise you feel it doesn't quite mean what you'd like it to. It takes place in an incredibly complex fictional world with a long past and future history. Doesn't dismissing all that cheapen it?

EDIT:X'd with Morth and Form; typo.
EDIT2: revision.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I think CoH is what one gets when writing about a certain subject for one's entire adult life -- in this case 40 some years. The literary style changes as the author's opinions and tastes change, and we are left with a piecemeal history with various points of view, as if different hands added to the chronicles. Actually, I think this variegation adds to the appeal of Middle-earth, giving it that 'authenticity' that sets the story, or series of stories, apart from more mundane fantasies.

CoH may appear unrelentingly cruel and without hope, but this mirrors the principal influences Tolkien was under at the time he formulated the story.

Good point.

I don't anyway think Turin's story is such a "misfit" in the broader context of Tolkien's work as some have suggested. (The Silmarillion as a whole isn't exactly a laugh-a-minute, and even LotR gets pretty darned grim.)* It seems to me that those getting upset at the prospect that "the work will be shoved into the world of LOTR to 'make it fit in'; to make sure we maintain the idea of Tolkien writing generic, simple, good-beating-evil fantasy stories" are offering a false dichotomy.

Of course, I just don't think that a story's quality necessarily increases as its message approaches utter hopelessness. It just depends. The story of Children of Hurin is meant to be a very bleak tragedy. If all his stuff was like that, it would likely have got downright tedious.



*Yes, I'm aware davem does apparently see the rest of the Silm (to say nothing of LotR!) as pretty much the work of Pollyanna on happy pills, but I don't believe that's a very common complaint.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Good point.

I don't anyway think Turin's story is such a "misfit" in the broader context of Tolkien's work as some have suggested. (The Silmarillion as a whole isn't exactly a laugh-a-minute, and even LotR gets pretty darned grim.)* It seems to me that those getting upset at the prospect that "the work will be shoved into the world of LOTR to 'make it fit in'; to make sure we maintain the idea of Tolkien writing generic, simple, good-beating-evil fantasy stories" are offering a false dichotomy.

CoH is not a misfit because it is a tragedy; I agree there are many a small or large tragedy dotted around Tolkien's fiction, including in some respects the end of the Lord of the Rings. What is unique in CoH is the treatment of the tragedy. Unlike the players in LOTR, Turin, as has been noted (and also Nienor, his heroic sister) do not feel, nor are led to feel, that they are acting under the influence of divine guidance or providential "estel". It is not merely that they are cursed by a demonic and demiurgic god (who may as well be the only one that actually exists, in this story. Sure, Ulmo brings messages to Nargothrond, but they are many times removed from their source: Morgoth is not distant but at all times immanently present), it is also that the characters under the curse have no other guidance, no other will or power to turn to at all. This sets up a fundemental difference between CoH and LOTR, even the Sil. Sure, LOTR is at times bleak, or glum, or grim, but it is shot through with a hope not only that things will turn out well (there are no invocations to Elbereth in CoH, nor are our characters spurned on by the sight of the stars. Instead, these seem oppressive and distant) but that the characters are doing the right (in a moral sense) thing.

As Davem has noted, the moral and existential dimensions are almost completely absent from CoH, and it is this more than anything else that sets it apart. Unlike the Elves and Gondorians in LOTR, who are apparently not only sure of but aware of the existance of and alliance with the Valar (see Mablung's invocation to the Valar in Ithilien: he has total faith), Turin is critical of their capacities and their choices; indeed he rebukes them. Moreover, it seems to me that CoH, as a stand alone work, goes some way toward critiquing Tolkien's LOTR worldview. I can't say whether this was intentional or not (Although I suspect so), but the timbre of the story is so unforgiving that it almost seems gratuitous to merely point to the War of Wrath and say, it will be alright in the end. Well, it wasn't alright for Turin, Nienor or thousands of others whose lives they effected in direct or indirect ways.

And I was not, by the way, advocating that we should dismiss the rest of Tolkien's writings; I was agreeing with Davem that to only experience CoH through the prism of his other works not only cheapens the story as it is, but misunderstands its importance. The story demands to be read on its own terms without constant chant like invocations toward the eventual "eucatastrophe" of the Valar, which is something that CoH calls into question, on a moral level. Can there be eucatastrophe in such a world, or will it always be, as I said, "gratuitous" in some sense? If he had wanted to, Tolkien couldh've written in little hints pointing toward a hopeful future as we often read in LOTR (the invocations to Elbereth, the gradual dawning relevance of Aragorn etc). Indeed, it is a theme of LOTR that the greatest evils are always defeated in the end, essentially because the world is fundementally good, benign and therefore cannot tolerate evil. CoH is not set in this world at all; it is a world wherein hope itself is futile because there is no God; indeed, one is almost tempted to agree with Morgoth and say that there is "Nothing" beyond the void. For all the characters in the story know, this is perfectly true. We think we know better because we have the Silmarillion, which says that Eru created the world, etc, but once again I'm not certain CoH should be read through that prism.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by davem

It certainly makes it easier for the reader - like with the little girl in the red coat in Schindler's list (etc...)

But that's not the question I asked, Davem.

Originally Posted by davem

Its also why a determination to see it as simply part of a greater tale where good wins out & everyone lives happily ever after is wrong

But I never said that; I don't think that is a fair characterisation of the "greater tale", anyway. I said it was part of that tale, and was intended as such by the author.

Originally Posted by tumhalad

And I was not, by the way, advocating that we should dismiss the rest of Tolkien's writings; I was agreeing with Davem that to only experience CoH through the prism of his other works not only cheapens the story as it is, but misunderstands its importance

If you'll review the thread, tumhalad, you'll see Davem's previously said rather a lot more than that– and I was actually referring back to some of these earlier claims as well.

Originally Posted by tumhalad

CoH is not set in this world at all; it is a world wherein hope itself is futile because there is no God; indeed, one is almost tempted to agree with Morgoth and say that there is "Nothing" beyond the void. indeed, one is almost tempted to agree with Morgoth and say that there is "Nothing" beyond the void. For all the characters in the story know, this is perfectly true. We think we know better because we have the Silmarillion, which says that Eru created the world, etc, but once again I'm not certain CoH should be read through that prism.

Which neatly settles the question of whether the author ever meant it to be a stand-alone work, doesn't it? Obviously, he didn't.

My personal view is that Turin's story, though it may stand up by itself, also works perfectly fine in the general Middle-earth context. I'm not arguing that it's invalid to prefer the stand-alone version, but to claim that that's somehow the "true" way to read it seems to me to rest on some pretty shaky arguments.

One's reaction does depend on temperament, of course: I admit freely I am basically an optimist, and so stories of total, absolute despair don't give me the sense of "Ah, yes! The truth!" that I suppose they do some people. Thus, for me, the story actually has more impact if taken as part of the greater Legendarium, because I'm not subconsciously rejecting it on some level. Does that make sense? This is not a weak preference for "happy endings", in case you think it is. It's about what feels truer to a particular person. Or, if you prefer the expression, it's about whether it "resonates" with me. Okay?

Finally, I don't see that the analogies people are giving to this story are the right ones. Turin isn't simply a passive, innocent victim of circumstance: he may have a malevolent power personally gunning for him, but nonetheless much of what befalls him can be also attributed to his own character flaws and lapses of judgement. (Unlike lmp, this does not remove my sympathy from the character– rather, I think it makes him more of a classic tragic hero.)

[Nerwen]

Now that I think about it, the question of which reading is "better" is probably not a resolvable one anyway, because clearly so much of the reader's opinion in the case depends on his or belief-system and overall world-view. So, we're going to have agree to disagree on that point.

What can be argued is whether the author intended it to be a stand-alone work, existing in a different world to the rest of the Legendarium. I just don't think he did.

[tumhalad2]

[QUOTE=Nerwen]


Which neatly settles the question of whether the author ever meant it to be a stand-alone work, doesn't it? Obviously, he didn't.

[QUOTE=Nerwen]

Obviously? I'm not entirely convinced about that. It is clear that he put most of his effort into finishing this story, as opposed to the other more hopeful ones, toward the end of his life. And he didn't write it happily, or with a sense of hope, as I said. Although he could have done so if he had felt so inclined.

As to the LOTR being a "happy ending" where everything is "happily ever after"; I don't think anyone, including Davem, is rejecting the sadness, the clear sense of loss, and the brokenness felt toward the end. Nonetheless, as I explained before, everything works out with reference to a kind of divine plan, or at least providentially. There is a big qualitative difference here, whether Tolkien intended it or not, and whether or not he intended us to read it as part of a larger trilogy. Point is, the story itself exhibits these characteristics. Now, I think there are better readings and worse readings, by no means are all "equal". In this case, to completely diss the novel's major thematic, emotive energy in favour of a kind of reading that at best seeks to mitigate or at worst ignore the utter defeat and nihilism of it is, I think, fatuous. Clearly we should read it as a "part" of a greater tale, but only to a degree; not insofar as, say, our interpretation of Beren and Luthien clouds our sense of sorrow in this story. It is clear that we are positioned not to feel hope of happiness. Just sorrow.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

But tumhalad, it is part of a greater story. You can't really ignore that, just because otherwise you feel it doesn't quite mean what you'd like it to. It takes place in an incredibly complex fictional world with a long past and future history. Doesn't dismissing all that cheapen it?

It certainly makes it easier for the reader - like with the little girl in the red coat in Schindler's list - of course, we can view her story in the context of the whole film/Second World War (defeat of the Nazis, victory of the Allies), but that's to ignore the essential tragedy of her own tale: a little girl who should have spent her time playing with dolls, going on holidays with her family, making friends, growing up & having children of her own, ends up a corpse on a pile of corpses - and that story is just as true (if only in a symbolic way) as the big story of the Allied victory & the destruction of the Third Reich. All such victims, throughout history, have their own tales, & whether or not good ultimately triumphs does not invalidate their suffering & the fact that their tales end in despair & tragedy. There is no great victory, no Eucatastrophe, in Turin's story - & that's why its important.

Its also why a determination to see it as simply part of a greater tale where good wins out & everyone lives happily ever after is wrong - because in the (earthly - which is all they know) lives of the characters there is no Eucatastrophe. There is just despair, hopelessness & a futile death - whether they bring it on themselves or not. That is also true - just as true as the story of the defeat of the bad guys & triumph of the good. The big story may give context to the suffering of individuals like Turin - but only for the survivors, those looking on (or back) from a distance. For Turin his story is the 'big story', & that story doesn't end with the victory of the good guys.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

Its also why a determination to see it as simply part of a greater tale where good wins out & everyone lives happily ever after is wrong - because in the (earthly - which is all they know) lives of the characters there is no Eucatastrophe. There is just despair, hopelessness & a futile death - whether they bring it on themselves or not. That is also true - just as true as the story of the defeat of the bad guys & triumph of the good. The big story may give context to the suffering of individuals like Turin - but only for the survivors, those looking on (or back) from a distance. For Turin his story is the 'big story', & that story doesn't end with the victory of the good guys.

I definitely agree and, again, I think this point is germane to my earlier thought that the piecemeal quality of the telling of the entire history of Middle-earth, from the Ainulindalë to the dawning of the 4th Age, complete with various points of view and different literary treatments from highly formal to colloquially whimsical, gives Tolkien's compendium a rarified feeling of an authentic chronicle.

And with every great victory or any monumental endeavor, there are hundreds, sometimes thousands of proportionately smaller losses, sacrifices and untold stories that make a tragic mosaic of the greater picture, and that are worthy of a tale in and of themselves. That a great wartime poet like Wilfred Owen should die within a week of the signing of the armistice that ended WWI is just such a tragedy, or the equally senseless death of another poet, Isaac Rosenberg in April, 1918. Their deaths added really nothing to the overall war effort; on the contrary, they were just two of thousands of men who fell needlessly while the generals continued the slaughter and political leaders wrangled over war and peace.

But the vindictive nature of Morgoth's endless torment of Hurin and his family is not that different than the plight of other families in the real world who face such horror and sadness brought on by the powers that be or powers beyond their control.

[Formendacil]

I'm really glad this thread got revivified--I seem to have missed it, the first time around.

Originally Posted by davem

So, anyone else feel the same way - is CoH a book that you're glad you read but one that you won't want to read again?

I was very struck by Batson's comments because he's someone who knows the larger story, that Earendel will make it to the West & rouse the Valar, that Morgoth will fall & the eucatastrophe will occur.

Yet, he is left 'with a vacant sense of dread, but no hope.' This is what I meant about the effect of publishing CoH as a stand alone work - even those who know the greater context will be affected by the story's darkness & lack of hope. In effect we have two CoH's - one which is part of the Legendarium, & is the darkness that comes before the dawn. The other is the novel as a stand alone work, one that some may not want to read twice....

Speaking for myself, CoH is one of my favourite parts of the Silmarillion
legendarium, and I like the Silmarillion as a complete work. However, when I read the Silmarillion, I invariably skim through the Túrin chapter. Perhaps this is simply because it's the condensed version, and being familiar with the fuller tale, I naturally prefer that.

From that alone, it's understandable that I would prefer the fuller account, CoH, and naturally I'm grateful to have an unabridged account that doesn't have me reading Unfinished Tales, and having to skip back to the Notes and the Silmarillion account to fill the gap. However, I think it's more than that: when I read CoH, I don't want to finish the Silmarillion. At most, I wish that Tolkien had gone on with The Last Wanderings of Húrin, and that the tale of woe and doom had proceeded thence, more fully, to the mournful last days of Húrin and the woe wraught with the Nauglamir.

But I don't particularly want to come to the eucatastrophe and the War of Wrath. CoH makes one hate Morgoth as much or more than the whole fall of the Noldor and the rape of the Silmarils, but it casts a whole different air on him--or, perhaps, on those fighting him. In the Silmarillion broadly, the Noldor are doomed, but heroic figures facing an unbeatable enemy, holding him back at all costs, and then winning at last through the heroism of one who sought the West and won their (deserved?) pardon. In CoH, however, Morgoth is never portrayed as unbeatable--rather, he is portrayed as winning time and time again because his enemies are fallible, and foolish, and frail, and prone in the end to do as HE wants. Túrin, Nargothrond, and Doriath--the world of "good" portrayed in CoH--always seem to have the chance of more victory within their human grasp... but they fail to achieve it, whereas the "good" of the Silmarillion--perhaps to be characterised as Beren and Lúthien, Tuor and Idril,and Gondolin--not only seem to deserve victory, they win victories beyond what they SHOULD win.

As I come up with this, it is occurring to me that perhaps this is why CoH needs to have these two versions: one set contextually in the broader tale, and one set alone. The tale set alone shows the full consequences of the Fall, both Elven and Mannish, and just how doomed we are alone. In a sense, I think, it is an atheist's tale, whereas the Silmarillion is the tale of a Believer, and in Túrin's part of the broader tale, you can see how the convincing despair of "there is no hope, no God" might fit into the grander scheme of hope in eucatastrophe....

Nonetheless, I do prefer reading CoH alone. It's stands alone splendidly.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

As I come up with this, it is occurring to me that perhaps this is why CoH needs to have these two versions: one set contextually in the broader tale, and one set alone. The tale set alone shows the full consequences of the Fall, both Elven and Mannish, and just how doomed we are alone. In a sense, I think, it is an atheist's tale, whereas the Silmarillion is the tale of a Believer, and in Túrin's part of the broader tale, you can see how the convincing despair of "there is no hope, no God" might fit into the grander scheme of hope in eucatastrophe....

I think CoH is what one gets when writing about a certain subject for one's entire adult life -- in this case 40 some years. The literary style changes as the author's opinions and tastes change, and we are left with a piecemeal history with various points of view, as if different hands added to the chronicles. Actually, I think this variegation adds to the appeal of Middle-earth, giving it that 'authenticity' that sets the story, or series of stories, apart from more mundane fantasies.

CoH may appear unrelentingly cruel and without hope, but this mirrors the principal influences Tolkien was under at the time he formulated the story. What we have is integral aspects of the Finnish Kalevala told as a Greek tragedy. CoH fits in quite well with any number of Greek classics: with Oedipus, Agamemnon, Prometheus Bound, and even elements of The Iliad and The Odyssey, particularly with a vengeful deity following the ill-fated heroes and the very idea of 'doom' or 'fate' itself. Faithfully following the classic Greek form, Tolkien must end CoH on a despairing note. It is the difference between pagan pessimism and Christian hope, where even in death a martyr triumphs.