Why Does Good Suck So Much?

[Nikkolas]

I understand your points. ^^

I suppose you could look at them having "traitors" executing as the first step to sacrifices.

As for the rest, the Valar's actions are a bit erratic. Sometimes they don't want to interfere, and sometimes they do. If they had a single uniform policy of non-interference, I could respect that. But think of it from the perspective of a Numenorian.

"You helped the Elves and Men and everyone else! Why won't you help us?!"

i could not even begin to blame them for being bitter. The inaction of the Valar, and the completely monstrous act of sinking Numenor, make the controllers of the fates of Arda look quite malevolent or at least not benevolent.

As for Sauron, he at least had noble intentions. His design was to rule the world because only through dictatorship could order and peace be achieved. It's understandable that he would think this way given the chaos he's seen. Unfortunately for him he overestimated his own ability to right all the wrongs of the world.

[Galadriel55]

NOTE: the Valar didn't sink Numenor. Eru did.

The Valar (and Eru) didn't act until Pharazon completely decided that he wants to wage war against Valinor. There were warnings for him while he still was in Numenor. He didn't heed. He was given a last chance, and he almost took it - just before he stepped onto Aman - but pride was stronger. It's his pride that killed him.

I have to agree that the Valar are fairly inconsistent, with other issues as well. For example, they give Tuor immortality when they can't give it to Beren.

I guess that they think they are too uninvolved, so they stick their noses in, decide that they are messing around too much, go back into seclusion...

[Nikkolas]

Well I've quite enjoyed our little discussion. But I have a throbbing headache and can't really stare at my computer screen. I'll respond tomorrow I guess.

Been nice chatting with you.

[tumhalad2]

Nikkolas - a fascinating and thought provoking response to The Silmarillion - perhaps my favourite of Tolkien's works.

I think there is a great deal of truth in what you say about the Valar. The question is, is there the interprative space within the text itself to allow for a reading of them that emphasises their negative qualities, as opposed to their positive ones. Given that the metafictional conceit of The Silmarillion is that it was written by Elves (or Numenoreans through Elvish traditions) we must be cautious when answering this question: naturally the Elves (or the High Elves, at any rate) are predisposed to think highly of the Valar. Nonetheless, I think it is certainly reasonable to assign some degree of blame to the Valar, say, for allowing Sauron to continue inhabiting Middle-earth, or to Melian for abandoning Doriath.

One aspect of The Silmarillion that has really grown on me is the sheer selfishness of the motivations of the characters who oppose Morgoth. Unlike Gandalf, characters like Feanor or even Hurin don't oppose him because he is "evil": they oppose him because he is either a threat to their status (Morwen and Hurin are very concerned for Turin partly because he is the "heir" destined to inheret wide lands) or because he commited a crime against property (stole the Silmarilli). Unlike the War of the Ring in the Third Age, the Wars of Beleriand, pitting the Noldor and the Sindar against Morgoth, are offensive in their design; their goal is not merely to overthrow Morgoth because he is an existential threat, like Sauron.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

And why was it unsuccessful? Why did the Valar and Eru Himself slaughter helpless women and children?

Amandil's voyage was in vain because the Valar had already accepted such an embassy once before. Every time Men and Elves got in a bind, should they have had the fallback of running to the West for protection? No. That, ultimately, was not the purpose of the Valar.
It can be argued that the "gifts" given to the Edain by the Valar, their proximity to the Undying Lands and their extended lifespan, contributed to the fall of Númenor. However, you can't reasonably accuse the Valar and the One of murder because of it. What Ilúvatar did in destroying the island had to be done, as Ar-Pharazôn and his army could well have wrought death and ruin in Valinor.

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

This is not simply a case of "And Man Grew Proud." It's a case of "And Man...were Men and then were used by a being with powers and abilities far beyond their own. A being who is only at large because the gods were inept."

The Númenóreans made choices, some to follow the King's Men (and ultimately, Sauron), and some to hold fast to reverence for the Elves, the Valar, and Ilúvatar. That Sauron was not strong enough to sway all the people of Númenor is obvious. The King's Men followed him of their own free will. If the Faithful were capable of resisting, so were the others.

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

Speaking of which, I need to get to The Children of Hurin. it goes into greater detail of his life and character, right?

CoH is basically a melding of the Silmarillion generalisation of Túrin's tale and the much more detailed Narn in UT.

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

As for Melkor, he was born of Eru's mind. Eru Himself made Melkor to be willfull, fearful and proud. There's also the theological paradox present of whether free will can even exist if we are created by an omnipotent and omniscient being. Because even as we type these posts, this was foretold and destined to happen at the beginning of existence. Therefore free will cannot really exist.

But that really tangles up Tolkien's ideas with Christianity and that is a really heated debate I don't want to get into.

If you haven't already done so, check out this thread, which delves into that subject.

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

As for Sauron, he at least had noble intentions. His design was to rule the world because only through dictatorship could order and peace be achieved. It's understandable that he would think this way given the chaos he's seen. Unfortunately for him he overestimated his own ability to right all the wrongs of the world.

You're joking, right? That's why he sacrificed innocent people in Númenor, then? And why he made the Rings of Power? With them Sauron enslaved Nine Men, basically overwriting their innate humanity, turning them into undead slaves who had absolutely no will of their own. And let's not forget his impaling Celebrimbor's body on a pole and using it for a banner. If that isn't a sign of noble intentions, what is?

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Unlike the War of the Ring in the Third Age, the Wars of Beleriand, pitting the Noldor and the Sindar against Morgoth, are offensive in their design; their goal is not merely to overthrow Morgoth because he is an existential threat, like Sauron.

And for that reason the Valar turned their backs on the Noldor: their war wasn't just.

[Nikkolas]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Amandil's voyage was in vain because the Valar had already accepted such an embassy once before. Every time Men and Elves got in a bind, should they have had the fallback of running to the West for protection? No. That, ultimately, was not the purpose of the Valar.
It can be argued that the "gifts" given to the Edain by the Valar, their proximity to the Undying Lands and their extended lifespan, contributed to the fall of Númenor. However, you can't reasonably accuse the Valar and the One of murder because of it. What Ilúvatar did in destroying the island had to be done, as Ar-Pharazôn and his army could well have wrought death and ruin in Valinor.

If he is so powerful (and certainly if he is omnipotent), Eru could have easily defeated the King's Men and not destroyed Numenor. Their entire fighting force vanquished, what threat were the poor women and children on the island to the Valar?

No, Eru set out with genocide in mind.

You're joking, right? That's why he sacrificed innocent people in Númenor, then? And why he made the Rings of Power? With them Sauron enslaved Nine Men, basically overwriting their innate humanity, turning them into undead slaves who had absolutely no will of their own. And let's not forget his impaling Celebrimbor's body on a pole and using it for a banner. If that isn't a sign of noble intentions, what is?

I was thinking of this quote when it comes to Sauron's motivations:

"[Sauron] still had the relics of positive purposes, that descended from the good of the nature in which he began: it had been his virtue (and therefore also the cause of his fall, and of his relapse) that he loved order and co- ordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction. (It was the apparent will and power of Melkor to effect his designs quickly and masterfully that had first attracted Sauron to him.)"
Myths Transformed

There are also other quotes about how Sauron's tyranny started out with noble intentions.

Was what Sauron did evil? Certainly. That doesn't mean Sauron believed it was wrong. To him, enslaving the world was the only way to help it.

Free will breeds selfishness and evil. If you could min control the human race to only think and act for the whole and not for themselves, you could very readily eradicate evil. It's just a price too great for some to fathom.

And thanks for the link to the Morality thread. Great read so far.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

There are also other quotes about how Sauron's tyranny started out with noble intentions.

Was what Sauron did evil? Certainly. That doesn't mean Sauron believed it was wrong. To him, enslaving the world was the only way to help it.

Free will breeds selfishness and evil. If you could min control the human race to only think and act for the whole and not for themselves, you could very readily eradicate evil. It's just a price too great for some to fathom.

But some might argue such an act would be, in itself, evil. Are "mind-controlled" people, with no will of their own, even people at all?

I don't think Tolkien meant that Sauron's initial good intentions included enslaving everyone. That was surely a product of Sauron's later corruption– though no doubt he still presented it to himself in the same terms you do. But then, I rather suspect real-world dictators are often pretty good at kidding themselves, too.

As for your contention that Morgoth had no choice but to be evil– well, your argument there rests on a belief in absolute determinism (which you apparently later reject– see the above). Unfortunately for you, that would apply equally to every other character– including the "good" who "suck so much"– making the entire discussion null and void.

In general: Nikkolas, what you seem to be getting worked up about, basically, is that the characters aren't completely black-and-white. Is that really a problem?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

If he is so powerful (and certainly if he is omnipotent), Eru could have easily defeated the King's Men and not destroyed Numenor. Their entire fighting force vanquished, what threat were the poor women and children on the island to the Valar?

No, Eru set out with genocide in mind.

I know I'm going into the "what ifs", but let's pretend that it happened. Eru killd Pharazon's army, but leaves Numenor. The result? A few generations later they bring a bigger army to avenge Pharazon.

He allowed the Faithful to escape. He didn't kill everyone.

As for Sauron's noble intentions, everyone thinks they are good and noble and all that stuff! If you'd ask him "are you evil?", he'd say "of course not!" What else would you expect him to say? Not that he would waste time talking about that subject...

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

If he is so powerful (and certainly if he is omnipotent), Eru could have easily defeated the King's Men and not destroyed Numenor. Their entire fighting force vanquished, what threat were the poor women and children on the island to the Valar?

No, Eru set out with genocide in mind.

Tolkien said the supremely bad evil in his tale was the domination of free will. This is what Morgoth and Sauron represent in their rebellion against Eru.

If Eru were to take away free will and stamp out all rebellion, he would be no different from Melkor or Sauron. Eru allowed free will into all his creations, and this means all of Eru's creations were capable of varying degrees of what Tolkien called the "Fall." The guarantee of free will is the only thing that separates Eru from Melkor.

As far as the genocide, not seeing it. Elendil was instructed to gather all the Faithful and their family on to the ships. And The Silmarillion, from what I recall, is explicit in, the Faithful, including women and children, were on the ships leaving Numenor.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

No, Eru set out with genocide in mind.

In context, the Akallabêth is a retelling of an admixture of the biblical flood story and the Greek Atlantis (or as Tolkien called it Atalantë -- Quenyan for "Downfallen"); therefore, it contains Plato's reverence for the advanced culture of the Atlanteans, and the biblical references to the antediluvian world with its wickedness and blood sacrifice, as well as Noah and the faithful's redemption, and the destruction of the Gibborim and Nephilim, giants, warriors and conquering heroes of great renown (great descriptors of Numenoreans at the time).

Tolkien was a masterful synthesizer of world myth, so you have to take the events in context to an overall synthesized cosmology of Middle-earth. Some posters want to take bits and pieces of the mythos and blow them out of proportion, rather than looking at the tale macrocosmically, or even in a historiographical sense, dragging post-modernistic literary and psychological views that are frankly not germane to the manner in which the story was written.