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

[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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

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.

But deaths inflicted by Morgoth are always & unambiguously seen as 'evil'. So when Eru kills its good, but when anyone else kills its bad - hence we're back to the 'whatever Eru does is good because Eru does it' argument.

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.

Any reading which does not contradict the text is valid. But again this is not the point I was making. I was challenging Tolkien's assertion that LotR could not be understood without a knowledge of The Sil & making the point that it can, has, & probably will continue to be.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

But deaths inflicted by Morgoth are always & unambiguously seen as 'evil'. So when Eru kills its good, but when anyone else kills its bad - hence we're back to the 'whatever Eru does is good because Eru does it' argument.

But Melkor had no right to interfere with Men, to begin with, let alone deal death to them. Their introduction belongs strictly to Eru, their role is known only to him and He has supreme, and exclusive, authority over them. Melkor is a finite creature and his precedents leave no shadow of doubt about his motives when killing, while everything we know or can surmise of Eru depict Him as the source of good. And to reiterate my argument, how can we judge if we have less information than he has? What basis would our argument have?

Any reading which does not contradict the text is valid.

I disagree; Tolkien's reading of the text was conducive to moral and religious truth, but you imply that others do not see this, which nullifies your above statement, since it warrants two contradictory conclusions. And as far as some readers understanding LotR without the Silmarillion, I can accept that, due to the fact that each individual defines for himself what he considers understandable or not; but this does not, or cannot, nullify the religious element that he put in the work.

[Boromir88]

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.~davem

In the 'world of Middle-earth' I would say so.

Tolkien wrote one creator in his story, that is the one universally accepted creator. Therefor what that one creator does/declared (Eru) I think we do have to accept as 'good.' And anything that is against Eru as 'evil.'

In the 'real world' there is not one universally accepted creator, therefor there is an objective look of what is actually good and what is actually evil. And whether the actions of one of the creator's is good or not.

Tolkien wrote us a little different story where there is one creator and only one creator. So the actions of that one creator I think we have to say that creator knows what's best for his world. Just my opinion though.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

But Melkor had no right to interfere with Men, to begin with, let alone deal death to them. Their introduction belongs strictly to Eru, their role is known only to him and He has supreme, and exclusive, authority over them. Melkor is a finite creature and his precedents leave no shadow of doubt about his motives when killing, while everything we know or can surmise of Eru depict Him as the source of good. And to reiterate my argument, how can we judge if we have less information than he has? What basis would our argument have?

Well, my oft-stated position is that Eru is a character as much as Frodo, Gollum or Morgoth, & we can judge any character according to the standards of the created world.
Even within a religion like Christianity Jesus instructs his followers to 'be like your Father in Heaven', implying that in the primary world a religious person should emulate God as far as they can. Eru slays his children. Eru is not beyond analysis as a character. To say we cannot judge Eru because we cannot know his nature in full is no different to saying we cannot judge Morgoth or Gollum or Frodo. Tolkien lays down a standard of morality & we surely have a right to ask whether Eru lives up to that standard or not.

I disagree; Tolkien's reading of the text was conducive to moral and religious truth, but you imply that others do not see this, which nullifies your above statement, since it warrants two contradictory conclusions.

I'm merely asking questions. I could argue that Eru is beyond the limits & rules which he sets, or that he sets different rules for himself. I could also argue that merely because Tolkien read the text in one way doesn't mean I or anyone else has to. I could argue that Wyrd is a 'religious' (or at least 'spiritual') concept & reading Wyrd into the story as a driving force is as valid as reading Eru into it - one doesn't need Eru to make the story 'spiritual', moral or 'religious'.

And as far as some readers understanding LotR without the Silmarillion, I can accept that, due to the fact that each individual defines for himself what he considers understandable or not; but this does not, or cannot, nullify the religious element that he put in the work.

One only has to accept a 'supernatural' dimension. LotR was published, & is usually read, as a stand-alone work & an author has no right to attempt to dictate how the work is read or interpreted - as long as the interpretation doesn't directly contradict what the text says. A reader cannot deny that there is a 'force' driving events in LotR, but a reader of LotR only cannot bring Eru into their interpretation. A reading of LotR alone which places the onus on Wyrd is equally valid, & may be the only one the reader can come up with. That doesn't invalidate their reading, or make it meaningless.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, my oft-stated position is that Eru is a character as much as Frodo, Gollum or Morgoth, & we can judge any character according to the standards of the created world.

Well, that you may do on a personal level; but you cannot claim general validity of your conclusion, since your judgment is based on a self-contradictory premise, that Eru can be a finite being. As far as I know, any system that posits a God, "describes" him as infinite, unknowable. Also, such analysis is bound to reach only one conclusion in order to be coherent with Tolkien's larger work, where it is stated that Eru is to be seen as good, and thinking otherwise is the root of evil - thus rather excluding your right to question whether Eru is good or not. Even Aragorn's words from the Appendices imply, at least to me, a benevolent God. I don't need to play a fictitious hide-and-seek with the quotes outside LotR, where Tolkien clarifies what is implicit in the text; and if others choose to ignore the in-text implicit part, and the out-of-text clarification, then fine by me also.

As far as the quote from the Bible, it refers to emulating love for everyone; God in the Bible also provokes a similar events, but it can hardly be construed that those who try to emulate God, by the words of Jesus, should try to deal divine-like punishments too, since that is not a person's prerogative.

I could argue that Wyrd is a 'religious' (or at least 'spiritual') concept & reading Wyrd into the story as a driving force is as valid as reading Eru into it - one doesn't need Eru to make the story 'spiritual', moral or 'religious'.

I don't see how "Wyrd" can be "the One" or any other less explicit reference to Eru. As I said, different persons have different standards of understandability; I could even some as reading the first chapter and putting the book down, saying "I can completely see where this story is going, I need no more of it". Or at the other end, some would still hunger for more, even after reading everything possible. So I don't see the value of arguing over an interpretation that is lacking in information - one which neither you nor I share. We both have read the work in its entirety, LotR and Silmarillion, and I believe it is safe to say that Eru as part of the entire picture, and the same can be expected of the average reader who has access to the books.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

. Also, such analysis is bound to reach only one conclusion in order to be coherent with Tolkien's larger work, where it is stated that Eru is to be seen as good, and thinking otherwise is the root of evil - thus rather excluding your right to question whether Eru is good or not.

So you're still arguing that whatever Eru does is 'Good' simply because Eru does it, & therefore 'Good' means 'Whatever Eru does'. There's no actual objective standard of Good which can be defined & which beings, from Eru down, can be judged by?

Even Aragorn's words from the Appendices imply, at least to me, a benevolent God. I don't need to play a fictitious hide-and-seek with the quotes outside LotR, where Tolkien clarifies what is implicit in the text; and if others choose to ignore the in-text implicit part, and the out-of-text clarification, then fine by me also.

All they 'imply' to me is that Aragorn believes in a benevolent God. LotR as a stand alone work speaks to 20th/21st century world. The M-e of LotR is full of folk who believe in 'something else', something beyond themselves, as 'ordering principle' or driving force behind events. Yet the reader is never told what that is - or even whether that 'perception' is correct. The reader of TH & LotR is in the same position as a 20th/21st century person - they can choose to believe in something 'else' ir they can believe that there is nothing 'beyond' the world & put references to it down to the characters' faith. Its only the Silmarillion that changes that. The Silmarillion 'forces' the reader to accept Eru - and, significantly to my mind, changes our perception of the characters & our understanding of their nature - Aragorn, Galadriel, et al go from being characters with 'faith' in something else to characters who know something other characters don't. In other words we move from a world where some folk have faith & others don't to a world where some characters are right & some are wrong.

So I don't see the value of arguing over an interpretation that is lacking in information - one which neither you nor I share. We both have read the work in its entirety, LotR and Silmarillion, and I believe it is safe to say that Eru as part of the entire picture, and the same can be expected of the average reader who has access to the books.

Again, I'm not 'arguing over an interpretation'. All I've been arguing is that Tolkien was wrong when he claimed LotR can't be understood without a knowledge of The Sil. Maybe it can't be understood in the way he wanted it to be understood, but its simply nonsense to say LotR can't be understood (ie is nonsensical or meaningless) by a reader unfamiliar with The Sil.

Edit

It seems to me that there has to be an objective standard of Good by which Eru can be judged. If, for example, Eru suddenly released Morgoth at the end of the Third Age to take over from Sauron, or at the other extreme, if he made an extra arm grow out of everyone's head - ie if he did something which supported evil or something irrational - we would have to question his goodness or his sanity. In other words, we can accept an 'unknowable' dimension to Eru, but his behaviour & acts must remain within certain bounds. We wouldn't (if only from an an artistic, if not a 'theological' viewpoint) accept any behaviour on Eru's part (we may accept the idea of Eru incarnating into Arda but we wouldn't accept an account that depicted Eru incarnating as a talking rhinoceros). Therefore its perfectly valid to ask whether Eru's behaviour at any point takes him beyond those bounds.