Valar / Greek and Roman gods

[wispeight]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

I have a suggestion - instead of questioning someone on a post which is not only obscure, but also off-topic, why don't we just get back to the subject of this thread?! Thanks!

~~~~~~~~~

Middle-Earth can be discerned as integral to the Valars. Not realizing this can thus give one the opportunity to make assertions that I am off topic and obtuse. But a lot can also be said about assertions.

[Nerwen]

I give up.

[Gwathagor]

Let's see...

Manwe - Jupiter
-lightning, winds, storms, eagles, etc.

Varda - Juno
-queen, associated with light

Tulkas - Mars
-fighting

Mandos - Pluto
-dead people

Ulmo - Neptune
-water

Aule - Vulcan
-smith, craftsman

I think those are all the really close comparisons, and they're all pretty obvious. The other Valar only resemble Greco-Roman deities in one or two characteristics. Vaire, for example, weaves, like Minerva/Athena, but that's as far as the similarity goes.

[Lindale]

I seem to remember having read Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell around two years ago, but unfortunately all copies from the library are on loan now... can anyone remind me what Campbell's idea of the gods were? I'm pretty sure he did comparative religion--from Hindu traditions to Christian to Greco-Roman, even a bit of African. When I read that book, I was reminded of the structures of Tolkien's Valar, but unfortunately I can't remember how anymore.

Anyway one of the main points of that book (or maybe I'm confusing it with another book, called Ishtar Rising) is "there's nothing new under the sun"; in Mesopotamian and Indo-European traditions, there is a theological family tree (if I may use that term), and that is why we see similarities like Astarte/Ishtar - Aphrodite/Venus - Freya. Usually goddesses of fertility are associated with crops, as with Freya's and Ishtar's case, but the Greeks have a different crop goddess, called Demeter, who we may associate with Yavanna. Now because of Roman Catholic tradition that devilized the goddess of love and sexuality, there emerged a new goddess-figure--the Virgin Mary and other virgin martyrs like Santa Ursula--and I think this is one of the most influential in Tolkien's myth-making. We don't see Aphrodites in Middle-Earth running after cute little mortals, or Freyas bedding Dwarves so she can have pretty jewels. But we can still see the older myths' influence in it, like Yavanna as fertility goddess and Varda as the Juno-figure, and the stuff Gwathagor has mentioned.

I admire Tolkien for this, that he is able to put up a myth but not sound too stereotypical or archetypal. Maybe because, in a matter of speaking, he got there first? Well, not really first, but comparatively earlier than other books that also has its own set of gods.

[wispeight]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I give up.

~~~

I'm done. I also apologize. I didn't want to volunteer my understanding of how Middle Earth might be interpreted. I was fishing to see if someone else would have a similar understanding to mine, without submitting mine first.

I'll stick to the surface of things when I post here.

[Gwathagor]

It sounds interesting, wispeight. You should start a new topic.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by wispeight

~~~

I'm done. I also apologize. I didn't want to volunteer my understanding of how Middle Earth might be interpreted. I was fishing to see if someone else would have a similar understanding to mine, without submitting mine first.

I'll stick to the surface of things when I post here.

No, you don't have to do that. Just remember the following:

1. New topic = new thread.

2. The main purpose of language is to communicate. You cannot rely on others divining your meaning psychically.

(I mean, you're not like this in real life, are you?)

[wispeight]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

No, you don't have to do that. Just remember the following:

1. New topic = new thread.

2. The main purpose of language is to communicate. You cannot rely on others divining your meaning psychically.

(I mean, you're not like this in real life, are you?)

~~~

I decided that I was not going to throw my Theosophical point of view onto this forum. This is the conclusion I've come to after reviewing my posts. All the communication I submitted in such an obscure manner, indicated to me that I did not want to, after all is said.

That mention toward only sticking to the surface of things was impulsive and probably hurt me more than anyone on the forum.

Morthoron, you should mind your knee-jerk replies, and the 'cannon to kill a mosquito' methodology. Actually, I don't mind one bit, it was quite impressive. Was it good for you too?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by wispeight

I didn't want to volunteer my understanding of how Middle Earth might be interpreted..

*blinks*

Why? Is it so bizarre as to mark you forever as a schismatic and heretical abomination?

Originally Posted by wispeight

I was fishing to see if someone else would have a similar understanding to mine, without submitting mine first.

Why? Clairvoyance is not a hallmark of this site. I think that's ovewr on Harry Potter.

Originally Posted by wispeight

I'll stick to the surface of things when I post here.

Why? Some of us might be almost capable of thinking deep thoughts. Not as deeply as you, of course, but in the words of Oscar Wilde: "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking up at the stars" (or something to that effect).