Curse of Túrin

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

To begin, Narn i-Chîn Húrin is my favorite story that Tolkien wrote.

Mine too. Well, kind of. I can't pick one absolute favourite, but if I really had to COH/Narn would be the one.

Originally Posted by Arvegil

To begin again, I think that Morgoth had no power over Húrin, Túrin, Morwen or Niënor. I think that all their woe stems from their pride - only Ilúvatar had any power over his Children - Elves and Men - their origin comes from Eru Himself - and none other than Eru can change or alter their fate.

In this I beg to differ. There are other instances of curses "coming true". You might say some are coincidental (e.g. Mim's arrow curse), but some just can't be denied (e.g. Isildur's curse). Some are half-prophetic half-curses (e.g. Frodo's exclamation to Gollum on the slopes of Orodruin). You could say, I suppose, that Eru "sanctions" the righteous curses and discards Morgoth's, but I don't think that's the case. For one thing, Eru is not a bureaucratic Human Resources office. For another, there are words that have power beyond the ordinary; Tolkien showed it better than many in the legendarium. Curses have power - real curses, that it. I am not referring to an old Lobelia Sackville-Baggins thinking in her rocking chair, "When will that Bilbo die, curse him!". I mean real curses, curses that require a great deal of willpower and almost feel like the speaker leaves part of himself behind with that curse. If curses really originate from Eru, well, it just cheapens them and their casters. It turns them into empty words.

Specifically in this story, however, I cannot say that Morgoth's curse had no effect whatsoever. He wanted Hurin to suffer by watching his family suffer. Let's suppose he has ultimate power over their fates/lives/actions and over Arda - just let's suppose that for argument's sake. He could cause them anguish by making it rain lava on them one drop at a time. He could put on a Tantalus play and starve them into wraith-hood. He could apply a whole range of exquisite tortures. But what torture could equal the family's downfall at its own hands? Anything that Morgoth would force on this family just makes them more heroic and him more horrifying, but also weaker and less keen at the same time. So, taking my original assumption aside, it's true we can't see Morgoth's direct involvement in the Narn, but that does not necessarily disprove its existence, as Morgoth is too clever and sadistic to use more direct means (even if he had the ability to do so). It's much better to have Hurin take the audience's perspective, see all the dramatic irony, and be unable to even warn his loved ones - especially if they are the ones who choose to make these choices that Hurin knows won't bode them well.

I don't deny, and never have denied, that there is a fair bit of pride and stubbornness involved. However, if you look at each instance from the point of view of Morwen/Turin/Nienor, without the extra background you know as the audience - most of their choices are not meant wrongly, and are definitely made with good intentions. Put yourself in their place and their limited knowledge. Would you be able to choose any better? Some things just genuinely seem to be right. Heck, the last Kings of Arnor chose wrong in the end, and yet they missed their chance that seemed like the worse option at that time, but people can understand that and relate to it. They were even told a prophecy that they should choose the option that seemed less sound! It happens to people, and it's not their fault, because players are not readers and have limited knowledge. It happens to Hin Hurin a bit too often, though. Almost like there is a guiding hand behind each success-that-turns-into-failure. Somehow, we tend to believe that if only Turin stayed in Doriath, or if only Nienor didn't follow Morwen, or if only half the choices in the book were made differently, then their fate would be better. But here's the thing: we don't know that. These if onlies exist to torment the reader just as they are tormenting Hurin. They don't mean that it would necessarily turn out otherwise.

Thus, my conclusion on that point is that we can't prove Morgoth's curse, but neither can we disprove it. No one knows the exact extent of it. I think even Morgoth doesn't know, since he doubts himself several times along the way and fears Turin. I definitely don't think Morgoth's curse was empty words, intended to scare Hurin, but neither does it wholly dominate the story. I think I prefer not to know just how much influence it actually had. I think some things can't be known, and shouldn't be know, and this is one of them.

Originally Posted by Arvegil

HOWEVER - I think that Glaurung WAS MORGOTH HIMSELF - in other words, Morgoth dispersed himself, as in the matter of Arda, to Glaurung himself - and in his irrational malice he used his "avatar" Glaurung, so to speak, to get revenge on Húrin and his offspring.

I'll be honest with you. When I first read that, I thought this belongs more in a sci-fi movie than a Tolkien book. But after thinking it over for a bit, it doesn't seem that out of place. It's not like Morgoth possessed Glaurung or something, but people leave traces of themselves in their work - like in their curses. Perhaps, consciously or by chance, Morgoth put a little more personalized malice into this particular creation (or distortion?). Glaurung does seem more sadistic and horrifying than most other evildoers - but maybe it's just because he's the only one with more than a couple lines of dialogue. I don't know, but I also don't think it's implausible. And Glaurung definitely represents Morgoth's malice, even if he isn't actually physically carrying it in him. So in the end the curse gets Turin - but he gets Morgoth too.

Originally Posted by Arvegil

To my mind, Túrin represents the best and the worst of the humanity - and I think it would be fitting to have Túrin destroy the Evil of humanity once and for all - it would bring a new era of humanity in which Túrin (representation of ALL humanity in one person) would become Tuor or Eärendil (representation of humanity as it SHOULD have been).

Perhaps he stands for all humanity, especially in the final struggle with Glaurung. During his life, though, I think he does not. He seems to want to get away from humanity, to distance himself from it, to run away from people and from himself. He's certainly a contrasting character. I believe Melian even told him once to "beware both the heat and the coldness of your heart" (paraphrased from the Narn). One thing that can be said for him, though, is that he knows what the true evil is. He has a conscience, which is more than can be said about certain others, but he is also driven by his fight against Morgoth. It's possible that this passion, being so great to match such a great foe, in part blinded him to the importance of smaller acts. He was so caught up in the grandiose that he missed many a chance of goodness. But that doesn't make his cause less noble just his sight too focused on his goal to see wider.



I had another thought, in response to Inzil's last sentence, but I wrote way more than I intended to and it's getting late. Basically, I was gonna say that Turin is a person, or maybe character, of a certain mold of tragic heroes. They are people who are hard to love personally, but hard not to follow. They are charismatic but impersonal, or cold, or like Turin with whatever social/ethical flaws you choose to name. I just finished reading Les Mis, so I had the urge to write another several paragraphs comparing Turin to Enjolras, but looking at the clock I will refrain from doing so and limit myself to noting that these two are of the same mold or prototype, just Enjolras's "mischoices" are shown in a much less negative light than Turin's while his charisma is more emphasized. If there is enough interest in this, I might start a thread of character comparisons.

Good night, and aure entuluva!

[Arvegil145]

I think that Morgoth purposed through Glaurung to bring to naught the children of Húrin - but that was not his only intent - remember: through the workings of Húrin and his children and wife - he brought the destruction of Doriath, Nargothrond, Brethil and Gondolin - indirectly.

And I still stand firm to my point - ONLY Ilúvatar can "curse" or change the course of the destiny of a certain individual - remember that the Eruhíni were conceived by Eru ALONE - therefore, anyone, even Morgoth, could curse someone, but it would be in vain (at least in my opinion).

[William Cloud Hicklin]

But Turin and Hurin were Men, and Men have no "destiny:' they aren't bound by the Music.

Morgoth's curse was effective, but it worked by destroying his victims from within, turning them into agents who would work his will even while consciously opposing him. The Hurin who was released was a twisted, bitter, merciless old man whose brooding lust for vengeance destroyed one realm (Brethil) and contributed to the fall of another (Doriath). (Note in this context that Melian "healed" him, in other words ameliorated the Melkorian poisons at work in his heart).

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

(Note in this context that Melian "healed" him, in other words ameliorated the Melkorian poisons at work in his heart).

This, as far as I know, was an addition by CT (not J.R.R.) in his revision Of the Ruin of Doriath in the published "Silmarillion".

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

But Turin and Hurin were Men, and Men have no "destiny:' they aren't bound by the Music.

I know that - and that is precisely why I am of opinion that Morgoth had no inherent power to alter the will of Ilúvatar - Morgoth, of course, could, and did, make the lives of Elves and Men miserable - but the fact is: Morgoth could NOT affect the free will of neither Elves nor Men (or at least their fëar) - he could only achieve his "curse" by indirect means - through Túrin's and Morwen's pride - and through Glaurung.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

No, he couldn't destroy their free will- but he could induce them to choose evil (compare Sauron's cozening of Gorlim). Morgoth of course could work at a far more elemental level than mere deceit.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

I think that Morgoth purposed through Glaurung to bring to naught the children of Húrin - but that was not his only intent - remember: through the workings of Húrin and his children and wife - he brought the destruction of Doriath, Nargothrond, Brethil and Gondolin - indirectly.

But here's the thing: he couldn't have counted on it. The only way he would be sure that Hin Hurin would seriously undermine any of his important enemies would be if he felt confident that his curse was in effect (and a tiny note here - he didn't feel confident at that, at least not all the time; there were times when he thought Turin would overpower him and his fate).

So either that could not have been Morgoth's intent but rather an added bonus, or then you might have to revise your stance on Morgoth's involvement with the fate of Hin Hurin. Otherwise there is a contradiction in your logic. If you meant something different, please elaborate on it as I am interested to hear the theory (even if I might respectfully disagree).

But speaking of the fall of all these kingdoms, I remember this point cropping up in a previous Turin discussion. If these kingdoms did not fall, Earendil would not have sailed West with a guiding Silmaril. Every time I think about it, I can't help but think of this beautiful passage:

'So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been.'

But Mandos said: 'And yet remain evil

I think this sums up Turin's life moderately well, actually.

Originally Posted by Arvegil

And I still stand firm to my point - ONLY Ilúvatar can "curse" or change the course of the destiny of a certain individual - remember that the Eruhíni were conceived by Eru ALONE - therefore, anyone, even Morgoth, could curse someone, but it would be in vain (at least in my opinion).

Well, we don't have to agree on this point (and we probably won't, which - hey! - is part of the point of this forum), but I just see a few problems with this standpoint. First of all, you assume that people have a pre-designated destiny which, nonetheless, can be altered by someone (ie Eru). I might be a bit overly Spinozean, but this doesn't seem like a legitimate functional model. If your destiny is overwritten by Eru and your fate therefore changes, isn't it then just your true destiny that your supposed destiny was changed? If that was confusing, let me give an example. One of my teachers was very fond of a legend about Rabbi Akiva's daughter. The stars foretold that she would die her wedding night, but during the celebration she gave a platter of food to a beggar whom no one else noticed. Before going to bed she pinned her hair pin into the wall, and in the morning she discovered that with that pin she killed a snake that would have otherwise killed her during the night. The moral of the story was that destiny isn't fixed; humans can change their own fate, like the girl lived through the night because of her kindness the day before. But my argument to the story is that if their really is destiny, then it is what happens. The girl's destiny was never to die that night, but to give food to the poor man and accidentally kill the snake. She was never "supposed" to die that night in the first place, and the astronomers were just wrong on this one - which was part of her destiny and their destiny too. It just doesn't seem right to me that destiny, especially specific destiny, can be decided on by an entity, even a Godly entity. I prefer the perspective that destiny is, well, predestined and you can't change it (because attempts to change it are still part of your fate). I can accept the perspective that there is no destiny and humans write their own fates. I can also accept the view that humans can alter each other's fates. But I just don't understand the point of view where a God-like figure gets to handpick people's fates. If him, why not others? If not others, then why him? Why at all? And he is an entity too - don't you think he has his own destiny? Like the destiny to create puny little Eruhini? (I realize I'm getting into theology and philosophy more than Tolkien, and it's my desire to argue with everything showing through, but I think it would help if you explained why you think this way. Sometimes you think a certain way just because it feels right to you, and I can relate to that - that's how I feel about curses. But I think these are all points worth discussing).

The other major problem (and probably the bigger of the two) I see with this line of reasoning is that we see curses come to fulfillment on several occasions. Curses, blessings, legit prophecies and prophetic lines all exist and all have power throughout the legendarium. So if you dismiss curses as empty words, you have to address those cases as well.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

I know that - and that is precisely why I am of opinion that Morgoth had no inherent power to alter the will of Ilúvatar - Morgoth, of course, could, and did, make the lives of Elves and Men miserable - but the fact is: Morgoth could NOT affect the free will of neither Elves nor Men (or at least their fëar) - he could only achieve his "curse" by indirect means - through Túrin's and Morwen's pride - and through Glaurung.

Ah, but free will and destiny are not necessarily contradictory. At the point of making a choice, a person has no idea what he will choose. But based on factors of his past and present (personality, mood, inclinations, current and previous influences, etc) he is predestined to choose a certain way. He's predestined to, say, choose vanilla over chocolate flavour in the ice cream booth because of events already in the past (which were shaped by yet older events in turn), but he doesn't know that until he actually orders the ice cream. So he does shape his future in the present, but, from the perspective of the future, he couldn't have done anything else.

However, philosophy aside, I think that in the world of Middle-Earth people can affect each others futures with words, and the more innately powerful the speaker, the more powerful the words. This does not affect the free choice at any point, just the final outcome. Like Mim's curse on Androg - free will is just marginally involved if you pedantically insist on every instance Androg could have left Turin's gang and avoided the battle - just the outcome is influenced. And what makes this curse more believable is that Androg was mortally wounded twice by an arrow, since with Beleg's help the first time did not come to fruition. Where Turin is concerned, He chose to act as he did, but his choices are not evil or bad - in fact they are remarkably good. It's the outcomes that are disappointing. Raise an army to fight Morgoth? Great! Destruction of Nargothrond? Well crap. Is it Turin's fault? In part, maybe, but certainly not in its entirely. You know what I mean?

[Arvegil145]

I will start with this - Morgoth (meseems) at the end of the First Age was a glorified troll: all his inherent power was, and still is, in the matter of Arda.

And I don't think that the curses are really "curses" - to me they seem more of a foresight, or a conclusion drawn from the current circumstances.

Concerning Ilúvatar - I have always imagined him/her/it not as a person, an individual, but as an ultimate compilation of everything, both in an outside this world, compressed in one form.

If Ilúvatar is omniscient, than he HAS to know what he would do next, for example, and in that he is powerless.

Of Men and their "free will" - I consider this free will as nothing more than an ignorance of what was, was is, and what will to come to pass - the mightier a being is, the more is it bound to the ultimate thread of time - in the sense of knowing what will happen next.