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

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

So effectively we cannot judge Eru - whatever he does is 'good' simply because he does it - or in other words there is no objective standard of good & evil, 'Good' is whatever Eru says it is, & evil is whatever Eru says it is. Slaughtering tens of thousands of Numenoreans is 'good' (it cannot simply be 'necessary', let alone 'the lesser of two evils' - because if Eru commited the 'lesser of two evils he would still be committing evil. The slaughter of the Numenoreans is a morally 'good' act because Eru commits it, & Eru is the source of Good. Note, you can't argue that the destruction of Numenor (or Gollum) was intended to bring about a good result - you have to argue that the act itself was good, otherwise you are arguing that Eru will commit 'not-good' (ie 'evil') acts)

I believe that there are much more issues at play; for one, the morality of an act of God cannot be judged, unless we have his knowledge, which we don't. Then, if one is to judge the fact itself that he killed one or many persons, then I believe one is actually questioning his very right to end life at all. Then death itself would appear as a curse (be it "natural" or not, I might add); but this specifically stated to be a distortion of truth, a lie perpetrated by the Enemy.

You seem to be arguing that Tolkien 'reinterpreted' TH, & imposed a new meaning on it.
...
You seem here to be arguing for the 'purposed domination of the author' (not to mention the Author), which is something Tolkien himself rejected.

That Tolkien changed TH has well within his right, and we couldn't reasonably expect those who read only the early edition to have the same information. I am not sure what you mean by the purposed domination of the author in this case, but the author is certainly expected to structure the story to whatever level of information he considers it necessary; this is what it is transmitted to us and what we further want to make of it is down to personal level.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I believe that there are much more issues at play; for one, the morality of an act of God cannot be judged, unless we have his knowledge, which we don't. Then, if one is to judge the fact itself that he killed one or many persons, then I believe one is actually questioning his very right to end life at all. Then death itself would appear as a curse (be it "natural" or not, I might add); but this specifically stated to be a distortion of truth, a lie perpetrated by the Enemy.

Then you're arguing that there is no objective standard of right & wrong in M-e & we simply have to judge whatever Eru does as being right (& therefore 'Good') simply because he does it. By extension we also have to accept that Eru himself is 'Good' simply because he says he is. 'Good' & 'Evil' then become meaningless terms & we end up with a situation where 'A' is good because Eru does it & 'B' is bad because Morgoth does it - ie 'A' is judged to be a good act & 'B' an evil act because of who does it, not because they comply with or go against an objective standard of good & evil by which all acts are judged.

That Tolkien changed TH has well within his right, and we couldn't reasonably expect those who read only the early edition to have the same information.

But he didn't 'change' TH - he simply imposed a new interpretation on the existing text. And, strictly speaking, Bilbo did not 'find' the Ring - he stole it (& it doesn't matter that Smeagol also stole it - two wrongs don't make a right - Bilbo didn't know the Ring didn't belong to Gollum at that point, & when he realised the ring was Gollum's he still kept it.

The point being. Tolkien didn't write TH as part of the Legendarium. He wrote it as a stand alone story & Eru played no part in it in Tolkien's original intention, & he certainly did not 'intend' Bilbo to find it (particularly as at that time it wasn't The Ring). Early readers did not 'have that information' because neither did Tolkien. Even if they had had access to the Silmarillion as it then was they still wouldn't have known that Eru 'meant' Bilbo to find the ring, because Tolkien had not begun the sequel to TH which would eventually require Eru to 'mean' that. And even in LotR Tolkien (via Gandalf) is very careful to leave the nature & source of such 'meaning' ambiguous. One can, in the light of the Sil, read it as Eru. One could also read it in the light of Wyrd:

In its wider sense, wyrd refers to how past actions continually affect and condition the future. It also stresses the interconnected nature of all actions, and how they influence each other. The concept has some relation to the ideal of predestination. Unlike predestination, however, the concept of wyrd allows for human agency, constrained by past events, but nevertheless capable of shaping reality, an idea that is also prominent in the Dharmic concept of karma. Wyrd is "inexorable"[1] and "goes as she shall"[2], the fate (Norse ørlǫg) woven by the Norns. Indeed, the term's Norse cognate urðr, besides meaning "fate", is the name of one of the Norns, closely related to the concept of necessity (skuld). The name of the younger sister, Verðandi, is strictly the present participle of the verb cognate to weorþan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyrd

& leave Eru & the Valar out of the picture altogether......

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Then you're arguing that there is no objective standard of right & wrong in M-e

I don't see what alternative there could be. A standard doesn't come into existence by itself, it comes within a system, and that system is created by someone. There could be no higher authority than Eru to set forth a moral system. At most, one can argue that what he does is contrary to his own system, but this would require complete knowledge - which only Eru has. Whatever judgment one would make of Eru would be based on incomplete knowledge.

Tolkien didn't write TH as part of the Legendarium.

Well, it already contained references to Elrond and the Necromancer. And later he did change TH to make it fit better (initially, Gollum actually intended to give Bilbo the ring, was apologetic for not having it, offered to catch some fish and was persuaded to lead Bilbo out). You are also correct that the mention of being meant to find the ring is found in LotR. However, this is the work now, and Tolkien specifically stated that LotR required the Silm. for proper understanding, and that it was a continuation of it (more so than of TH).

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I don't see what alternative there could be. A standard doesn't come into existence by itself, it comes within a system, and that system is created by someone. There could be no higher authority than Eru to set forth a moral system. At most, one can argue that what he does is contrary to his own system, but this would require complete knowledge - which only Eru has. Whatever judgment one would make of Eru would be based on incomplete knowledge.

But the standard has to be logical if it is to be understandable (& therefore followable). If 'Good' & 'Evil' are simply what Eru states they are then how could one judge one's own, & other's actions? 'Thou shalt not steal', 'Thou shalt do no murder', etc, are clear statements that theft & murder are wrong (& they do not require 'divine' authority to make sense to us - any society that tolerates theft & murder won't survive very long). To declare the destruction of Numenor a 'Good' act (& as I stated it must be 'Good' according to your criteria, not simply the 'least worst option' or the lesser of two evils - a Good god cannot commit 'lesser evils', & an omnipotent deity cannot be 'forced by circumstance' into acting. Hence, the destruction of Numenor must be a Good act indeed, a Perfect act, which Eru freely chose to commit, otherwise Eru is not a Good, omnipotent, deity, but a victim of circumstance for whom the end justifies the means) requires us to show that it conforms with some objective standard of right. Yet, can one argue that it is either?

Well, it already contained references to Elrond and the Necromancer. And later he did change TH to make it fit better (initially, Gollum actually intended to give Bilbo the ring, was apologetic for not having it, offered to catch some fish and was persuaded to lead Bilbo out). You are also correct that the mention of being meant to find the ring is found in LotR. However, this is the work now, and Tolkien specifically stated that LotR required the Silm. for proper understanding, and that it was a continuation of it (more so than of TH).

Well, that was Tolkien's view, but the reader does not have to share it - & up till 1977 most readers of LotR felt they understood it perfectly well.I think its clear (despite Rateliff's arguments) that TH was never intended to be part of the Legendarium, & there was never any thought on Tolkien's part that it should (or could) be. The real point is that most readers of TH over the last 70 years have not even considered Eru, & most fans of TH & LotR don't get even part way through The Sil, or even the Letters, so however Tolkien understood his work, & to whatever extent he felt a knowledge of The Sil to be necessary, for most readers it simply isn't - one can't take into account what one doesn't know & one won't take into account what doesn't interest one.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

To declare the destruction of Numenor a 'Good' act ... requires us to show that it conforms with some objective standard of right.

I believe I have already showed that even to human eyes, the destruction of Numenor was necessary and good, even for its inhabitants. And, as I said previously, "if one is to judge the fact itself that he killed one or many persons, then I believe one is actually questioning his very right to end life at all. Then death itself would appear as a curse (be it "natural" or not, I might add); but this specifically stated to be a distortion of truth, a lie perpetrated by the Enemy".

Hence, the destruction of Numenor must be a Good act indeed, a Perfect act, which Eru freely chose to commit, otherwise Eru is not a Good, omnipotent, deity, but a victim of circumstance for whom the end justifies the means

But we do see a coherent manifestation of Eru's free will in this case; it was his own choice to guarantee free will to his creations ("operative within provided circumstances"), and therefore he "reacts" to others' actions, in accordance with the very rules he sets. The issue of omnipotence is not relevant here, since power is subject to will, and it was his will to endow Ainur and Eruhini with free will.

TH was never intended to be part of the Legendarium, & there was never any thought on Tolkien's part that it should (or could) be.

I wouldn't agree; there are differences in tone, but they are explainable

Originally Posted by Letter #131, ~ late 1951

The generally different tone and style of The Hobbit is due, in point of genesis, to it being taken by me as a matter from the great cycle susceptible of treatment as a 'fairy-story', for children.

Moreover:

Originally Posted by Letter #25, published in the Observer, 20.02.1938

My tale is not consciously based on any other book — save one, and that is unpublished: the 'Silmarillion', a history of the Elves, to which frequent allusion is made.

Originally Posted by Letter #124, 1950

...though shelved (until a year ago), the Silmarillion and all that has refused to be suppressed it has bubbled up, infiltrated, and probably spoiled everything (that even remotely approached 'Faery') which I have tried to write since. It was kept out of Farmer Giles with an effort, but stopped the continuation. Its shadow was deep on the later pans of The Hobbit.

one can't take into account what one doesn't know & one won't take into account what doesn't interest one.

True, but the mere popularity of a certain interpretation has no relevance in an informed discussion, especially when said interpretation is based on an incomplete knowledge of the intended whole work.

[obloquy]

I am not going to try to catch up right now, but I heartily disagree with davem's perspective. I mention this lest anyone confuse his argument with mine based on their mutual opposition to Raynor's.

Well fought, Raynor.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I believe I have already showed that even to human eyes, the destruction of Numenor was necessary and good, even for its inhabitants. And, as I said previously, "if one is to judge the fact itself that he killed one or many persons, then I believe one is actually questioning his very right to end life at all. Then death itself would appear as a curse (be it "natural" or not, I might add); but this specifically stated to be a distortion of truth, a lie perpetrated by the Enemy".

And this is a real problem - which Tolkien himself acknowledged - death does not feel like a 'gift' - & I'm not sure Tolkien believed that himself. In the BBC documentary Tolkien in Oxford he is shown reading a passage from Simone de Beauvoir:

'When it comes down to any large story, that interests people and holds their interest for any considerable length of time, they're all human stories and are only about one thing, aren't they? Death! (pauses for effect) the ineventability of death. There was a quotation from Simonne de Beauvoir in the paper the other day - about the death in 1939 of a musical composer whom I am very fond of; Carl Maria Weber. The biographer quoted this by Simonne Beauvoir; I'll read it if I may: "There is no such thing as a natural death. Nothing that happens to Man is natural, since his presence calls the whole world into question. All men must die; but for each man, his death is an accident, and and even if he knows it, an unjustifiable violation". Now, you may agree with those words or not: but they are the keyspring of The Lord of the Rings'.

Tolkien contradicts himself - Death, in the mythology is a 'gift'. Yet the 'keyspring to LotR' is that it is 'an accident', 'an unjustifiable violation'. I'd suggest in light of this that death at the hand of God is the least justifiable kind of death imaginable.

What you have to show is that the destruction of Numenor was a morally perfect act within the ethical code by which M-e is supposed to operate. One cannot argue, it seems to me, that every casualty of the destruction was deserving of death, & one undeserved death makes the destruction a morally imperfect act. And this is the whole problem for me. The Valar are not morally perfect. They made mistakes. Hence, if the Valar had been responsible for the destruction we would not expect a morally perfect act. When Eru acts we require it to be so - Eru as the putative source of the Moral Value System of M-e must act in accordance with it - but if he is doing so in this instance then this MVS is not one based in absolute good - not in the sense that we would understand it.

I wouldn't agree; there are differences in tone, but they are explainable

Yes, & he also stated:

“I don’t much approve of The Hobbit myself, preferring my own mythology (which is just touched on) with its consistent nomenclature – Elrond, Gondolin and Esgaroth have escaped out of it – and organized history, to this rabble of Eddaic-named dwarves out of Volüspá, newfangled hobbits and gollums (invented in an idle hour) and Anglo-Saxon runes.”

Tolkien clearly states here that he 'prefers his own mythology' to TH, & hence see TH as a thing apart. Of course, Tolkien seems to contradict himself in these statements, but I note that the earliest letter you quote :Letter #25, published in the Observer, 20.02.1938

My tale is not consciously based on any other book — save one, and that is unpublished: the 'Silmarillion', a history of the Elves, to which frequent allusion is made.

was written after he had been at the sequel for a good while, & had already decided that Gollum's ring was The Ring, & had belonged to 'the Dark Master'. Hence, following his usual practice, he was 'writing back' (in his own imagination at least) & beginning to link The New Hobbit (& by extention) TH itself with the Legendarium. It wasn't so in the beginning.

True, but the mere popularity of a certain interpretation has no relevance in an informed discussion, especially when said interpretation is based on an incomplete knowledge of the intended whole work.

This is not a question of 'relevance', but of perception & 'understandability'. Despite what Tolkien said LotR is, & has been since it was published, perfectly understandable by a general readership with no knowledge of Eru. A reading of TH & LotR (particularly the 1st ed text) leaves the reader open to infer something like Wyrd operating in M-e rather than Eru, a single, omnipotent loving deity. In fact Wyrd seems to me to fit much better with the 'northern' mood & spirit of the two books than the more 'Jaweh-an' figure of Eru (which I had a real struggle to incorporate into my mental M-e on my first reading of The Sil).

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien contradicts himself - Death, in the mythology is a 'gift'.

I don't see that; although I don't completely understand that passage, it seems to me that it refers to how the Men of M-E, tainted by the lies of the Enemy, perceive Death.

As far as Tolkien is concerned he stated that Death is not the Enemy, and that through the taste of it alone can "what you seek in your earthly relationships (love, faithfulness, joy) be maintained, or take on that complexion of reality, of eternal endurance, which every man's heart desires".

Originally Posted by Letter #208

But certainly Death is not an Enemy! I said, or meant to say, that the 'message' was the hideous peril of confusing true 'immortality' with limitless serial longevity. Freedom from Time, and clinging to Time. The confusion is the work of the Enemy, and one of the chief causes of human disaster.

When Eru acts we require it to be so - Eru as the putative source of the Moral Value System of M-e must act in accordance with it - but if he is doing so in this instance then this MVS is not one based in absolute good - not in the sense that we would understand it.

I already argued that the inhabitants of Numenor, who were not part of the Faithfuls, were corrupted by Sauron beyond healing within Arda, and that death for them was a gift. However, I can happily do even without that argument, as I don't see why such deaths should be justified anymore than any other death, regardless they way it occurs. As far as I know, any religion unequivocally depicts God as holding the right to deal death. The same happens here; why should one need to justify one or more deaths, if the very fact that 100% of all Men will have the same fate is accepted a priori? At most, I could see this case structured around how or when one would die, but any such criticism would require complete knowledge of that person's doom, merits or lack thereof, and what further compensations await after death, or in Arda Healed - and no such information is available to us.

Of course, Tolkien seems to contradict himself in these statements

I don't see it as a contradiction per se; there were simply two impulses at play, his desire to make a story for children and his fascination with the Silmarillion, which intertwined in the writing of TH.

This is not a question of 'relevance', but of perception & 'understandability'.

But this is exactly the point. I see nothing worthwhile in enumerating what various interpretations some readers would give (and the number / percentage of said readers is a complete mystery), especially if said readers don't have the author's last intended work, and if, in either case, they fail to notice Tolkien's implicit references to moral and religious truth.