Turin the Hopeless?

[Aiwendil]

Another thing CoH does not tell the reader (therefore yet another fault in the work as published) is that Turin will be at the Arda version of Ragnarok, and will slay (shoot I forget who) either Morgoth or some great evil wyrm or monster of some sort.

Up to at least the 1937 Quenta Silmarillion, Turin was to slay Morgoth at the Dagor Dagorath. In the post-LotR revision (which, however, was very cursory in the later chapters) Tolkien made a note that Beren was to accompany Turin in this endeavour.

But it's worth noting that Tolkien made a late decision to change this; in a note on 'The Problem of Ros' he refers to a prophecy of Andreth: Turin would return at the Great Battle (i.e. the War of Wrath, not the Dagor Dagorath) and slay Ancalagon.

Both Saul and Turin labor vainly against curses; Turin's initiated by Morgoth; Saul's initiated by Yahweh as punishment for Saul's disobedience. Saul's life after the punishment begins is every bit as "downhill" as is Turin's.

Interesting that this makes Yahweh the analogue of Morgoth!

As long as we're finding parallels for Turin, let's not forget his intra-Legendarium doppleganger: Tuor. There are too many obvious parallels between their stories to list, but one slightly more subtle one is that between Morgoth's influence over Turin's fate and Ulmo's influence over Tuor's - the obvious difference being that Ulmo is good and Morgoth evil.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Another thing CoH does not tell the reader (therefore yet another fault in the work as published) is that Turin will be at the Arda version of Ragnarok, and will slay (shoot I forget who) either Morgoth or some great evil wyrm or monster of some sort. So Turin's "eucatastrophe" is assured.

Its not so much a fault in the book, as a fault in Tolkien. Tolkien wrote the Narn & the Narn ends with the death of Turin & Nienor. There is no eucatastrophe in this story & Tolkien clearly intended there to be no eucatastrophe. CT hasn't edited a eucatastrophe out.

And, unfortunately, I fear that this work will never be fully appreciated as a work of literature in its own right. It will always be read in the light of the other writings, & have a eucatastrophe forced on it, in order (imo) to make it 'safe' & 'palatable'. Read as a part of the Legendarium, in the light of the other writings, this is a supremely unncessary exercise - Bad guy triumphs temporarily, but its always darkest before the dawn, & just when you think all's lost, the sun comes out & everyone lives happily ever after. Pointless excercise & a waste of time & money for all concerned. We got that from LotR.

Its only when we read CoH as a stand alone work, divorced from the rest of the writings, entirely absent of any hope or eucaastrophe, that it becomes important & significant - & more importantly says something new
.

[littlemanpoet]

Regardless of what a reader may want from this particular author, I think it has been demonstrated that Tolkien never intended this story to be published on its own, in its current condition. He intended it to be accompanied by Beren & Luthien, the Fall of Gondolin, and the journey of Eärendil. So regardless of whether one wants eucatastrophes, Tolkien intended there to be one, for that is precisely what Eärendil's journey accomplishes, it's what the story of Tuor leads up to.

Saying something new would be nice, if that were what was really going on in CoH. It would be more accurate to say that this particular CoH says some things that some readers like. A lot.

But it is best to take the whole story rather than pick just the parts that most appeal if one is going to make sweeping declarations about it.

As has been demonstrated by other posters as well, as a stand alone, CoH is a stunted work. Plain and simple.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bad guy triumphs temporarily, but its always darkest before the dawn, & just when you think all's lost, the sun comes out & everyone lives happily ever after. Pointless excercise & a waste of time & money for all concerned. We got that from LotR.

Ouch! I think this is an overstatement of what LotR is. My own perception is different.

Rather than everyone living happily ever after, I saw a woman who gave up immortality and embraced death, however unwillingly, for a lifetime with someone she loved. I saw a "hero" who was not a hero, one who paid an unknown price....unknown because the reader can not even sail West to find out what happened to him. I saw a good man like Boromir corrupted because he, like many, could not withstand the evil that infects every corner of Arda because of a train of events originally initiated by Morgoth and now carried on by many others. This list of examples could be extended.

For every glimmer of hope in LotR, and there are many, I also saw a burden of sorrow and evil. We are given a short glimpse of one victory but at a heavy price and no indication that there was a "happily ever after".

I do wonder how JRRT would feel about one of his stories (and this story in particular) being separated out from the Legendarium and examined in isolation, without reference to the rest of the structure, beliefs, powers etc. of Middle-earth that he so carefully defined and crafted. I am extremely grateful to CT for editing this story and making it available. I think Davem makes some excellent points about the tone of this tale and to what extent modern readers will have an easier time identifying with it. But in the end, for me at least, this story fails to capture my heart or attention to the same degree as LotR or Silm, which present a much broader picture.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Regardless of what a reader may want from this particular author, I think it has been demonstrated that Tolkien never intended this story to be published on its own, in its current condition. He intended it to be accompanied by Beren & Luthien, the Fall of Gondolin, and the journey of Eärendil. So regardless of whether one wants eucatastrophes, Tolkien intended there to be one, for that is precisely what Eärendil's journey accomplishes, it's what the story of Tuor leads up to.

But it stands as it is - a separate story, with a beginning, middle & end. Just as TH stands as a separate story, without needing LotR to give it meaning (or LotR without needing The Sil).

CoH is not 'stunted' as far as I'm concerned. I find it one of the greatest, most profoundly interesting & challenging works Tolkien produced - as it is. Its only going to seem 'stunted' or 'incomplete' to those who want it to be something other than it is, to have a different 'message'. In itself it is as full & complete as LotR - it simply says something different.

My fear is that it will be judged & critiqued not as a work in its own right, but as an episode in a 'greater' story & that it will never be seen for what it is - because too many readers don't want it to be what it is, or say what it does.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

And, unfortunately, I fear that this work will never be fully appreciated as a work of literature in its own right. Read as a part of the Legendarium, in the light of the other writings, this is a supremely unncessary exercise - Bad guy triumphs temporarily, but its always darkest before the dawn, & just when you think all's lost, the sun comes out & everyone lives happily ever after. Pointless excercise & a waste of time & money for all concerned. We got that from LotR.

Are you really claiming that :

1. LotR has a simple "everyone lives happily ever after" ending
2. The Silmarillion has a simple "everyone lives happily ever after" ending
3. Once there exists one story with a happy ending, it's pointless for there to be any more
4. Tolkien, contrary to all evidence, would have published the 'Narn' on its own, deliberately suppressing the tale of Earendil
5. The eucatastrophe of the War of Wrath erases all the suffering of Turin and his family; tragedy is so weak a thing that subsequent joy robs it of its potency?

I think that each one of those points is clearly false.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Davem wrote:


Are you really claiming that :

1. LotR has a simple "everyone lives happily ever after" ending
2. The Silmarillion has a simple "everyone lives happily ever after" ending
3. Once there exists one story with a happy ending, it's pointless for there to be any more
4. Tolkien, contrary to all evidence, would have published the 'Narn' on its own, deliberately suppressing the tale of Earendil
5. The eucatastrophe of the War of Wrath erases all the suffering of Turin and his family; tragedy is so weak a thing that subsequent joy robs it of its potency?

I think that each one of those points is clearly false.

Well, I think my posts on the LotR read through more or less confirm that as my position, yes.

However, CoH has been published as it is, as a stand alone work, & I think it stands as one of the most important & significant works of fiction in recent years. I also think that if it had been published as part of a wider story much of that significance would have been mitigated. If JRRT would not have published it alone & CT has, then I think CT is the wiser of the two.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

CoH is not 'stunted' as far as I'm concerned. I find it one of the greatest, most profoundly interesting & challenging works Tolkien produced - as it is. Its only going to seem 'stunted' or 'incomplete' to those who want it to be something other than it is, to have a different 'message'. In itself it is as full & complete as LotR - it simply says something different..

Then please outline what LotR says, and what CoH says that is different. I'd like to see your comparisons, point for point. In other words, please prove what you're saying.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Then please outline what LotR says, and what CoH says that is different. I'd like to see your comparisons, point for point. In other words, please prove what you're saying.

I already did. I 'outlined' what I think LotR is saying in the CbC thread - I think, (apart from Esty's intros for each chapter) that I was the only one who contributed to every chapter. I've outlined what I think CoH is saying on this thread. As you know, I'm not someone who goes in for needless repetition.....

EDIT

Just linked to this article on the 'Christopher Tolkien' thread, but I think it contains some support for my position that CoH is essentially different in mood, tone, & 'message' to LotR.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle1742663.ece

[littlemanpoet]

Not being a student of other members here, I'll pass on the invitation to research.

Obviously, the mood and tone are different. As to message, it is a mistake to glory in Turin's Nordic zeal, which leads him lockstep into all of his tragedies. Turin is to be pitied. One pities fools who cannot learn from past mistakes. Turin may be a heroic fool, but he brings his tragedy upon himself. Morgoth brought his curse to bear upon him, but the story reveals that Turin could have overcome it. No, Turin was responsible for his own downfall. Morgoth is of course responsible for all the evil he brought to bear upon Turin and his family. But that does not excuse Turin his murders, his wasting of many others' lives, his rejection of all beneficence that requires a shred of humility. Turin is not someone to be admired, except perhaps for his courage; but even that is flawed since he flees from his own name and thereby causes his own doom. What one sows, so he reaps.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Obviously, the mood and tone are different. As to message, it is a mistake to glory in Turin's Nordic zeal, which leads him lockstep into all of his tragedies. Turin is to be pitied. One pities fools who cannot learn from past mistakes. Turin may be a heroic fool, but he brings his tragedy upon himself. Morgoth brought his curse to bear upon him, but the story reveals that Turin could have overcome it. No, Turin was responsible for his own downfall. Morgoth is of course responsible for all the evil he brought to bear upon Turin and his family. But that does not excuse Turin his murders, his wasting of many others' lives, his rejection of all beneficence that requires a shred of humility. Turin is not someone to be admired, except perhaps for his courage; but even that is flawed since he flees from his own name and thereby causes his own doom. What one sows, so he reaps.

Yes, & he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone. It is, as I argued, Turin's flaws that makes it possible for us to relate to him as we do. Its his defiance, & refusal to be broken - the fact that he always comes back fighting - that endears him to us, for all the wrong he does. We root for Turin all through, because we want him to win, & that's why we're so affected by his death. We also know that Turin is a victim. He's a victim of his own pride & bloody mindedness as much as he's a victim of Morgoth, but a victim nonetheless.

This is what is so powerful about the work. Yes, Turin murders innocent people (directly & indirectly), & wrecks the lives & hopes of those around him. He also brings peace & stability to the land, thwarts Morgoth's plans, & kills, through an act of supreme courage, his most devastating 'weapon'.

And thoughout it all, in Turin the thug, the murderer, the walking disaster, the hero, we see Turin the boy, asking Labadal 'What is Fate?', & being sent away from the mother he loves, the mother he will never see again.

Turin is of his time (& as I argue, of our time too). He lives in a world which has lost hope in itself, a world in which no-one has any simple answers to the essential questions. Its not a world in which some kindly counsellor is going to sit him down & tell him 'Your father was meant to have the Helm of Hador, & so you, too, were meant to have it, & that may be an encouraging thought' - because in the world of CoH things don't work that way. There is no Shire. There are isolated, embattled islands of temporary safety. People exist on the edge of death - their own & that of those they love, & there's no Gandalf or Aragorn to teach & guide them. In place of a wise counsellor like Gandalf, who can tell Frodo what's happening, why its happening, what he should do, & be there to help him do it, Turin has Labadal, a broken old man, who can tell him precisely nothing, answer none of his questions, & offer him no protection at all.

And here's a good statement of the Catholic position http://anamchara.blogs.com/

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Yes, & he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.

One cannot cast stones at a fictional character.

Turin is of his time (& as I argue, of our time too).

What you describe says that Turin is a universal figure rather than particularly of our time.

[davem]

I see you picked up on the salient points of my post & rightly ignored the irrelevancies.

[Aiwendil]

Well, I think my posts on the LotR read through more or less confirm that as my position, yes.

Well you've signed off on some rather strange claims.

Numbers 1 and 2 are the sort of literary snobbery I'd expect from Edmund Wilson. Number 3 implies that there should be no such thing as literature. Number 4 is demonstrably false. There seems little point, then, in arguing against them.

But number 5 sounds reasonable enough that someone might fall for it. Yet it's also false, and I think that is nowhere clearer than in Tolkien's writings. To paraphrase Turin, tragedy is tragedy, however small, nor is its worth only in what follows from it. But the tragedy of the 'Narn' is not small; it is deep and potent. The ultimate defeat of Morgoth no more wipes away the suffering of the 'Narn' than the defeat of the Nazis wipes away the holocaust.

In my opinion (as I think I've harped on elsewhere) the synthesis of antitheses is one of Tolkien's chief strengths. In LotR two very different concepts of evil are synthesized (as Shippey discusses in Author of the Century). In the tale of Turin, fate and free will are synthesized. And in the Silmarillion as a whole, Norse hopelessness and Christian hope are synthesized. Now it is the special power of Tolkien's synthesis that neither of the apparently contradictory elements is mitigated. Contradictory though it may seem, in the Silmarillion as in life, the deepest sorrow and the highest joy co-exist, and neither invalidates the other.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

I see you picked up on the salient points of my post & rightly ignored the irrelevancies.

Whether this comment is meant at face value or as ironic, I don't know. I was pressed for time.

Originally Posted by davem

...he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.

The analogy invoked implies a desire to condemn to death. This cannot be accomplished, even were the character not fictional, as he has already killed himself.

Originally Posted by davem

It is, as I argued, Turin's flaws that makes it possible for us to relate to him as we do. Its his defiance, & refusal to be broken - the fact that he always comes back fighting - that endears him to us, for all the wrong he does.

This is an interesting point. I was sympathising and relating to Túrin right up until, having joined the outlaws, he did nothing to stop them from their crimes. This showed either cowardice or extreme self-centeredness, narcissism. From then on I wanted Túrin to make virtuous, or at least right, choices, fully aware that he would not, and made note of not only the incidences of his continued failed opportunities as well as the motivations behind them. Not a pretty story.

One particular incident comes to mind. Túrin was spelled by Glaurung (as was Nienor later), and therefore it could be argued that his failure to save Finduilas was not his fault but Glaurung's. Such would be a mistaken view. Túrin was so full of wrath and revenge, not to mention guilt at having brought Nargothrond directly to its destruction, and so filled with reckless courage (which is to say foolish - "where angels fear to tread") that it doesn't occur to him not to look in Glaurung's eyes.

Compare this:

Bilbo was now beginning to feel really uncomfortable. Whenever Smaug's roving eye, seeking him in the shadows, flashed across him, he trembled, and an unaccountable desire seized hold of him to rush out and reveal himself and tell all the truth to Smaug. In fact he was in grievous danger of coming under the dragon-spell. But plucking up courage he spoke again.

Obviously, a comparison of Bilbo and Túrin requires plenty of qualification. Bilbo was not known for courage, but had just enough to "pluck up". One thing is certain, though: Bilbo was not given to rashness. Nor did he have a Morgoth-sized Curse upon his family. That notwithstanding, he hung on and did not come under the dragon-spell. One might object that Tolkien's purpose was entirely different in the two stories. To that I answer that, as Aiwendil has suggested, Tolkien has here yet another contrast, and both fall within his creative ouvre, and are thus worth comparing. They shed light on each other.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

This is an interesting point. I was sympathising and relating to Túrin right up until, having joined the outlaws, he did nothing to stop them from their crimes. This showed either cowardice or extreme self-centeredness, narcissism. From then on I wanted Túrin to make virtuous, or at least right, choices, fully aware that he would not, and made note of not only the incidences of his continued failed opportunities as well as the motivations behind them. Not a pretty story.

It shows neither - it shows that he had lost faith, felt betrayed & disrespected. Later he does stop them behaving in that way, & actually leads them in the 'right' path.

One particular incident comes to mind. Túrin was spelled by Glaurung (as was Nienor later), and therefore it could be argued that his failure to save Finduilas was not his fault but Glaurung's. Such would be a mistaken view. Túrin was so full of wrath and revenge, not to mention guilt at having brought Nargothrond directly to its destruction, and so filled with reckless courage (which is to say foolish - "where angels fear to tread") that it doesn't occur to him not to look in Glaurung's eyes.

Of course, one could argue that, Glaurung being the father of Dragons, Turin did not know what the effect of looking into his eyes would be. Bilbo had the benefit of knowing - possibly as a result of what had happened to Turin. Of course Turin looked his foe in the eye - that's what a warrior would do, & that's precisely why Bilbo didn't look Smaug in the eye. His 'betrayal' of Finduilas was a direct consequence of his over-riding desire not to betray his mother & sister. As far as he knew he had to choose between them.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

It shows neither - it shows that he had lost faith, felt betrayed & disrespected. Later he does stop them behaving in that way, & actually leads them in the 'right' path.

In other words, if someone has lost faith, feels betrayed and disrespected, he is excused from looking the other way, full well knowing that his "colleagues" are raping and pillaging? This is rather horrific reasoning, don't you think?

Of course, one could argue that, Glaurung being the father of Dragons, Turin did not know what the effect of looking into his eyes would be. Bilbo had the benefit of knowing - possibly as a result of what had happened to Turin. Of course Turin looked his foe in the eye - that's what a warrior would do, & that's precisely why Bilbo didn't look Smaug in the eye.

Not all warriors would do that. Then again, it is possible that Aragorn, for example, might have been able to look the dragon in the eye and not been bespelled because of his no doubt greater store of wiscome, character, and nobility. But that's speculation.

His 'betrayal' of Finduilas was a direct consequence of his over-riding desire not to betray his mother & sister. As far as he knew he had to choose between them.

And this in spite of clear warning ignored, to at all costs seek Finduilas.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

In other words, if someone has lost faith, feels betrayed and disrespected, he is excused from looking the other way, full well knowing that his "colleagues" are raping and pillaging? This is rather horrific reasoning, don't you think?

No, it doesn't excuse it, it merely explains it. And as I pointed out, when he is forced to confront the reality of their behaviour he puts a stop to it.

Not all warriors would do that. Then again, it is possible that Aragorn, for example, might have been able to look the dragon in the eye and not been bespelled because of his no doubt greater store of wiscome, character, and nobility. But that's speculation.

But the point is Turin would not have known the full consequences of looking into the Dragon's eye. And maybe not all warriors would have done it - but the type of warrior Turin was would have.

Are you saying that if you had been in Turin's place, experienced what he had, had no faith (because of everything you'd been through), had been, from childhood up, living in a war zone, never knowing when you or those you loved might be killed or enslaved, given your life over to defending your adopted people - mostly living rough too - having lost your parents & sisters through their imprisonment, death or your being sent away in childhood to a strange land ... that having been through all that & more you would never have made one mistake, one bad judgement in the heat of the moment, or done some really stupid things - even wrong things? The most I can say is that I hope I wouldn't have behaved in the way Turin did, but to be frank I can't say I wouldn't.

As I stated earlier, Frodo, Sam, Aragorn - these are characters we like to identify with, because they do what we hope we'd do in a similar situation. But if we're honest, we're all much more like Turin. I think that's why some readers are made so uncomfortable by him.

Of course, I would have to ask, given that you consider him such a selfish, narcissistic jerk, you want the reference to his killing of Morgoth to be included?

To broaden the discussion: Just come across CS Lewis review of LotR

"The book is like lightning from a clear sky... To say that in it heroic romance, gorgeous, eloquent, and unashamed, has suddenly returned at a period almost pathological in its anti-romanticism, is inadequate... It marks not a return but an advance or revolution: the conquest of new territory. Nothing quite like it was ever done before."

What about that? Lewis praises LotR for its 'romanticism', & sees it as a reaction against, almost an antidote to, the pathological anti-romanticism prevalent at the time. It strikes me that CoH, by contrast, could be described as pathologically anti-romantic.

Yet, it was in the idealistic 60's that LotR really took off in popularity, not in the 50's. LotR wasn't taken up by those 'anti-romantics' of the 50's, but by the romantics of the 60's. And now, in the anti-romantic, cynical, frightened & fanatical world of the early 21st century, we have CoH topping the bestseller lists across the world.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Are you saying that if you had been in Turin's place, experienced what he had, had no faith (because of everything you'd been through), had been, from childhood up, living in a war zone, never knowing when you or those you loved might be killed or enslaved, given your life over to defending your adopted people - mostly living rough too - having lost your parents & sisters through their imprisonment, death or your being sent away in childhood to a strange land ... that having been through all that & more you would never have made one mistake, one bad judgement in the heat of the moment, or done some really stupid things - even wrong things?

Of course not. And of course the situation here posed is yet another extreme; you've made my response to easy to make.

Originally Posted by davem

The most I can say is that I hope I wouldn't have behaved in the way Turin did, but to be frank I can't say I wouldn't.

Not being a warrior myself, I really couldn't say. But this is not about you, nor about me, but about the character Túrin as described by Tolkien.

Originally Posted by davem

As I stated earlier, Frodo, Sam, Aragorn - these are characters we like to identify with, because they do what we hope we'd do in a similar situation. But if we're honest, we're all much more like Turin. I think that's why some readers are made so uncomfortable by him.

Funny thing is that I did identify rather strongly with Túrin until he turned a conveniently blind eye to the evils of the group he was with. His refusal to defend himself to Mablung by saying what really happened, is the kind of thing I have done repeatedly; and I've paid for it ... but that's about me which means I digress. It's not a matter of uncomfortability but disappointment.

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, I would have to ask, given that you consider him such a selfish, narcissistic jerk, you want the reference to his killing of Morgoth to be included?

I said self-centered, not selfish. I did say narcissistic because his behavior fits the definition. I never described him as a jerk. Seeing that the given supplied is so fraught with misappropriations, I'm afraid I must ask for a restatement of the question, should its author wish to seriously re-pose it.

Originally Posted by davem

And now, in the anti-romantic, cynical, frightened & fanatical world of the early 21st century, we have CoH topping the bestseller lists across the world.

Thou dost protest too much, methinks. CoH's bestselling most likely has more to do with it having been authored by Tolkien, and it being a brimming good yarn. These facts do not make Túrin a more noble character.

I suppose one might relate so strongly to Túrin if one had lost faith.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Yet, it was in the idealistic 60's that LotR really took off in popularity, not in the 50's. LotR wasn't taken up by those 'anti-romantics' of the 50's, but by the romantics of the 60's. And now, in the anti-romantic, cynical, frightened & fanatical world of the early 21st century, we have CoH topping the bestseller lists across the world.

Interesting....

But isn't the important question this. Just why are all those people buying C of H? Is it because the "anti-romantic, cynical" aspects of the book draw readers into the story, and then they urge their friends to give it a try? Or is it because most of these readers had already read LotR and, based on their attraction to that bittersweet tale (a word which I prefer to davem's adjective "romantic") they would invariably search out any new Tolkien title? Perhaps, that searching would take place no matter what the tone of the new book was. Admitedly, people must like the story enough to pass on positive words to their friends. But does it really go beyond that to an attraction to the work because of its distinctive tone is somehow better suited to the 21st century?

On a personal level, I read and was moved by C of H. Yet it hasn't drastically altered my perception of the author, since there were certainly stories in Silm/HoMe with a similar grim tone. Stand alone novel or no, it is one small piece of a much larger story, and it is that larger story that holds the greater attraction for me.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

Thou dost protest too much, methinks. CoH's bestselling most likely has more to do with it having been authored by Tolkien, and it being a brimming good yarn. These facts do not make Túrin a more noble character.

Originally Posted by Child

But does it really go beyond that to an attraction to the work because of its distinctive tone is somehow better suited to the 21st century?

Possibly. Yet many, I think, who didn't care for Tolkien's other work will try the book because of the many reviewers in the 'serious' press who have said that while they didn't get on with Tolkien's other work they found the darker, bleaker vision of CoH a revelation. Also, something else I've noted in quite a few of the reviews (& I think this is due in no small part to John Garth's work)- references to Tolkien's wartime experiences & the way they have influenced his work. CoH will be for many readers a return to Tolkien after many years away.

Another point re the Lewis review is that while it applies perfectly to LotR:

"The book is like lightning from a clear sky... To say that in it heroic romance, gorgeous, eloquent, and unashamed, has suddenly returned at a period almost pathological in its anti-romanticism, is inadequate."

It could not be applied to CoH. As I said, CoH is 'pathologically anti-romantic'. And I wonder if that is due to the presence of 'God' in LotR & his absence in CoH? It seems as if (in Tolkien's case at least) the 'gorgeous, eloquent, unashamed & principally 'romantic' dimension required the presence of 'God'. When he comes to write a story without 'God' he swings to the opposite ('pathological') extreme - whatever can go wrong will go wrong & go as badly wrong as it possibly can. The one is the inverse of the other, & I can't help feeling that they reflect the two aspects of Tolkien's personality.

[Aiwendil]

As I said, CoH is 'pathologically anti-romantic'.

I think one ought to be careful about how one defines 'romantic'. If you ask me, the 'Narn' is rather romantic. Tragedy and Romanticism are not opposites.

[littlemanpoet]

CoH is of a piece with LotR and all of Tolkien's other writings. To emphasize the differences will get one only so far.

Perhaps it would be best to say "I like CoH because ..... ", rather than making claims about it as if the 21st century, or paganism, or Christianity, could own it. It is its own work.

That does not mean that the characters may not be evaluated.

Well, that's enough from me on this thread. Signing off.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I think one ought to be careful about how one defines 'romantic'. If you ask me, the 'Narn' is rather romantic. Tragedy and Romanticism are not opposites.

Of course. One can use it in the precisely defined literary sense, or one can use it in the colloquial sense. CoH, as Garth & James Parker in the Boston.com review make clear, CoH is a post WWI, specifically a post Somme, novel. The 'romantic' idealism of the Victorian/Edwardian world died on the battlefields of France. Parker states

Late in "The Children of Hurin" the warrior Dorlas suffers a failure of courage ("He sits shivering on the shore") that Tolkien's contemporaries would have recognized immediately as shell shock. To his admirer W.H. Auden, Tolkien confided that he was a writer "whose instinct is to cloak such self-knowledge as he has, and such criticisms of life as he knows it, under mythical and legendary dress." John Garth, in his 2003 book "Tolkien and the Great War," imagines the convalescent Tolkien in 1917, sitting up in bed with pen and paper, poised at the creation of a work that will either be called "Tuor and the Exiles of Gondolin" or "A Subaltern on the Somme." He did not, of course, write a trench memoir: The path he took went inward, and down, and it would require the faithful excavations of another Tolkien generation to see exactly how far he went.

[Sir Kohran]

I have to say I feel kind of annoyed that almost everyone I've talked to or read about regards The Children Of Hurin as merely something to do with LOTR - like a DVD add-on or an extended edition. All the reviews from casual readers say that Tolkien fans will like it but it will be impossible for anyone else - only the people familiar with LOTR will read it. Like davem said, this will probably never be seen as a standalone work - the 'Tolkien' on the front cover will immediately lead it to be forever associated with the story of LOTR. The tragic ending, the hopeless frustration and the dark atmosphere will be either regarded as 'anachronistic' or simply be forgotten about, and the work will be shoved into the world of LOTR to 'make it fit in'; to make sure we maintain the idea of Tolkien writing generic, simple, good-beating-evil fantasy stories. Tolkien as an author and his latest story will never be able to break out of this 'mould', it seems.

[davem]

From fantasy novelist Wayne Thomas Batson's blog:
http://enterthedoorwithin.blogspot.c...-of-hurin.html

I said above that I was glad that I read CoH, but I don’t think I’ll ever read it again. That must sound strange. But you have to understand, I’m a sucker for a happy ending. No, I’m not a sap who unrealistically wants everything to turn out rosy. I absolutely love how in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien presents heroic victories, but they all come at tremendous cost. Sacrifice, death and suffering—okay, but I still want the victory. CoH is a tragedy and an intimate, penetrating tragedy at that. Anyone and everyone you will come to love in this story will die and usually in the most gut-wrenching ways. You will be yelling at Morwen, Turin, and Nienor in your mind, saying, “No, don’t do that! Don’t say that! Don’t fall for that!” And of course, they’ll do just what you feared they would. Time after time, characters will ignore the sage advice of friends who love them, and peril will result.

And after reading Children of Hurin, I am convinced there are things far worse than death. Watching every tragedy known to humankind befall your offspring—being chief among them. Morgoth’s curse so utterly devastated Hurin’s kin that it makes me wonder why he didn’t just throw a curse on ALL of his enemies and then, sit back and watch the mayhem unfold. And about Morgoth: there’s nothing better than having a really bad villain get what’s coming to him. But not in CoH. Morgoth escapes virtually unscathed. I guess I knew that going in, as Earendil and the Valar take care of Morgoth much later in the history of Middle Earth. Still, I wanted to smack Morgoth with a big war hammer, but it never happens. CoH struck me much like Mystic River, Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan, and The Departed. These are all extremely well-told stories. Well designed, well-directed, well-cast, well-acted, and well-shot—but dreadfully depressing. The Children of Hurin ended and left me with a vacant sense of dread, but no hope.

So, anyone else feel the same way - is CoH a book that you're glad you read but one that you won't want to read again?

I was very struck by Batson's comments because he's someone who knows the larger story, that Earendel will make it to the West & rouse the Valar, that Morgoth will fall & the eucatastrophe will occur.

Yet, he is left 'with a vacant sense of dread, but no hope.' This is what I meant about the effect of publishing CoH as a stand alone work - even those who know the greater context will be affected by the story's darkness & lack of hope. In effect we have two CoH's - one which is part of the Legendarium, & is the darkness that comes before the dawn. The other is the novel as a stand alone work, one that some may not want to read twice....

[tumhalad2]

This is (or was) an interesting thread, and three years later I'd like to respond to the question Davem was exploring - shall I read CoH again? Absolutely!

It is, by far, my favourite work by Tolkien, I think exactly for the reasons that have been discussed in this topic: its apparent applicability, the sense of a distinct non-, or anti-providence, the immanence of menace incarnated in Morgoth, and, I think, the unanswered questions.

It is tempting to answer Turin's question: What is fate?, or his agnosticism regarding the Valar, and his apparent ignorance (indeed, everyone's apparent ignorache) concerning an all powerful creator God, with recourse to The Lord of the Rings, of "Quendi and Eldar", or "Ainulindale" or some other extraneous text. But I think this is a mistake. I have no evidence to support my claim, but I'm not entirely certain that Tolkien wouldh've recommended such a reading either. Just remember, in the chapter "The Words of Hurin and Morgoth", the last words a given to Morgoth, not to Hurin's hopefully "estel" like pronouncements. Morgoth rebukes Hurin's "Elvish lore" by stating emphatically that "you shall see and you shall confess that I do not lie". I wouldn't go so far as to say that Morgoth is actually speaking truthfully; clearly the Valar do intervene eventually, and yet; their actions, and the actions (or non actions) of a supposedly good and benevolent God (Eru) leave something to be desired. I think CoH is cheapened if it is merely perceived as a part of a greater story; no, it is so powerful, so forceful, too grandiosely tragic, that it accumulates meaning that does not, even tangentially, support the "thesis" of ultimate eucatastrophe in the world. The cost is so stunning, and the ignorance of the "gods" so complete, that we are left with little choice but to embrace the story on its own terms.

[Formendacil]

I'm really glad this thread got revivified--I seem to have missed it, the first time around.

Originally Posted by davem

So, anyone else feel the same way - is CoH a book that you're glad you read but one that you won't want to read again?

I was very struck by Batson's comments because he's someone who knows the larger story, that Earendel will make it to the West & rouse the Valar, that Morgoth will fall & the eucatastrophe will occur.

Yet, he is left 'with a vacant sense of dread, but no hope.' This is what I meant about the effect of publishing CoH as a stand alone work - even those who know the greater context will be affected by the story's darkness & lack of hope. In effect we have two CoH's - one which is part of the Legendarium, & is the darkness that comes before the dawn. The other is the novel as a stand alone work, one that some may not want to read twice....

Speaking for myself, CoH is one of my favourite parts of the Silmarillion
legendarium, and I like the Silmarillion as a complete work. However, when I read the Silmarillion, I invariably skim through the Túrin chapter. Perhaps this is simply because it's the condensed version, and being familiar with the fuller tale, I naturally prefer that.

From that alone, it's understandable that I would prefer the fuller account, CoH, and naturally I'm grateful to have an unabridged account that doesn't have me reading Unfinished Tales, and having to skip back to the Notes and the Silmarillion account to fill the gap. However, I think it's more than that: when I read CoH, I don't want to finish the Silmarillion. At most, I wish that Tolkien had gone on with The Last Wanderings of Húrin, and that the tale of woe and doom had proceeded thence, more fully, to the mournful last days of Húrin and the woe wraught with the Nauglamir.

But I don't particularly want to come to the eucatastrophe and the War of Wrath. CoH makes one hate Morgoth as much or more than the whole fall of the Noldor and the rape of the Silmarils, but it casts a whole different air on him--or, perhaps, on those fighting him. In the Silmarillion broadly, the Noldor are doomed, but heroic figures facing an unbeatable enemy, holding him back at all costs, and then winning at last through the heroism of one who sought the West and won their (deserved?) pardon. In CoH, however, Morgoth is never portrayed as unbeatable--rather, he is portrayed as winning time and time again because his enemies are fallible, and foolish, and frail, and prone in the end to do as HE wants. Túrin, Nargothrond, and Doriath--the world of "good" portrayed in CoH--always seem to have the chance of more victory within their human grasp... but they fail to achieve it, whereas the "good" of the Silmarillion--perhaps to be characterised as Beren and Lúthien, Tuor and Idril,and Gondolin--not only seem to deserve victory, they win victories beyond what they SHOULD win.

As I come up with this, it is occurring to me that perhaps this is why CoH needs to have these two versions: one set contextually in the broader tale, and one set alone. The tale set alone shows the full consequences of the Fall, both Elven and Mannish, and just how doomed we are alone. In a sense, I think, it is an atheist's tale, whereas the Silmarillion is the tale of a Believer, and in Túrin's part of the broader tale, you can see how the convincing despair of "there is no hope, no God" might fit into the grander scheme of hope in eucatastrophe....

Nonetheless, I do prefer reading CoH alone. It's stands alone splendidly.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

As I come up with this, it is occurring to me that perhaps this is why CoH needs to have these two versions: one set contextually in the broader tale, and one set alone. The tale set alone shows the full consequences of the Fall, both Elven and Mannish, and just how doomed we are alone. In a sense, I think, it is an atheist's tale, whereas the Silmarillion is the tale of a Believer, and in Túrin's part of the broader tale, you can see how the convincing despair of "there is no hope, no God" might fit into the grander scheme of hope in eucatastrophe....

I think CoH is what one gets when writing about a certain subject for one's entire adult life -- in this case 40 some years. The literary style changes as the author's opinions and tastes change, and we are left with a piecemeal history with various points of view, as if different hands added to the chronicles. Actually, I think this variegation adds to the appeal of Middle-earth, giving it that 'authenticity' that sets the story, or series of stories, apart from more mundane fantasies.

CoH may appear unrelentingly cruel and without hope, but this mirrors the principal influences Tolkien was under at the time he formulated the story. What we have is integral aspects of the Finnish Kalevala told as a Greek tragedy. CoH fits in quite well with any number of Greek classics: with Oedipus, Agamemnon, Prometheus Bound, and even elements of The Iliad and The Odyssey, particularly with a vengeful deity following the ill-fated heroes and the very idea of 'doom' or 'fate' itself. Faithfully following the classic Greek form, Tolkien must end CoH on a despairing note. It is the difference between pagan pessimism and Christian hope, where even in death a martyr triumphs.

[Nerwen]

I'm going to take issue with the claim (made earlier in the thread) that CoH is only popular because everyone's all world-weary and disillusioned these days, whereas in the past they were naive romantics, the poor fools, etc, etc. For a start, I don't think that actually is the case– that view of the world seems more of a media fantasy to me, and not a new one. It has not been my experience that most people these days live lives of bitter, endless despair, at all. Yes, journalists and such seem to assume they do, but that hardly makes it true. It's all just another kind of romanticism, really, anyway.

I tend to get a little annoyed by those kind of sweeping sociological explanations of why anything sells. Sometimes they're valid, of course, but it does seem like somebody will always come up with one every single time. I mean, can't anything get popular because it's, you know, good, rather than because Society Did It?

Also, it is fashionable to praise things primarily for being supposedly particularly relevant to "these times", for somehow tapping into the Zeitgeist (if a Zeitgeist is in fact something capable of being tapped into). I call this faint praise indeed, because if you really believe that's the secret of something's appeal, it follows that it's liable to get stale very fast. (In fact, the angst–is–all attitude was really more of a 90s thing, as far as I can recall. So on that measure of "worth" CoH would have been dated before it was ever in print!)

I think CoH is cheapened if it is merely perceived as a part of a greater story; no, it is so powerful, so forceful, too grandiosely tragic, that it accumulates meaning that does not, even tangentially, support the "thesis" of ultimate eucatastrophe in the world. The cost is so stunning, and the ignorance of the "gods" so complete, that we are left with little choice but to embrace the story on its own terms.

But tumhalad, it is part of a greater story. You can't really ignore that, just because otherwise you feel it doesn't quite mean what you'd like it to. It takes place in an incredibly complex fictional world with a long past and future history. Doesn't dismissing all that cheapen it?

EDIT:X'd with Morth and Form; typo.
EDIT2: revision.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I think CoH is what one gets when writing about a certain subject for one's entire adult life -- in this case 40 some years. The literary style changes as the author's opinions and tastes change, and we are left with a piecemeal history with various points of view, as if different hands added to the chronicles. Actually, I think this variegation adds to the appeal of Middle-earth, giving it that 'authenticity' that sets the story, or series of stories, apart from more mundane fantasies.

CoH may appear unrelentingly cruel and without hope, but this mirrors the principal influences Tolkien was under at the time he formulated the story.

Good point.

I don't anyway think Turin's story is such a "misfit" in the broader context of Tolkien's work as some have suggested. (The Silmarillion as a whole isn't exactly a laugh-a-minute, and even LotR gets pretty darned grim.)* It seems to me that those getting upset at the prospect that "the work will be shoved into the world of LOTR to 'make it fit in'; to make sure we maintain the idea of Tolkien writing generic, simple, good-beating-evil fantasy stories" are offering a false dichotomy.

Of course, I just don't think that a story's quality necessarily increases as its message approaches utter hopelessness. It just depends. The story of Children of Hurin is meant to be a very bleak tragedy. If all his stuff was like that, it would likely have got downright tedious.



*Yes, I'm aware davem does apparently see the rest of the Silm (to say nothing of LotR!) as pretty much the work of Pollyanna on happy pills, but I don't believe that's a very common complaint.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

But tumhalad, it is part of a greater story. You can't really ignore that, just because otherwise you feel it doesn't quite mean what you'd like it to. It takes place in an incredibly complex fictional world with a long past and future history. Doesn't dismissing all that cheapen it?

It certainly makes it easier for the reader - like with the little girl in the red coat in Schindler's list - of course, we can view her story in the context of the whole film/Second World War (defeat of the Nazis, victory of the Allies), but that's to ignore the essential tragedy of her own tale: a little girl who should have spent her time playing with dolls, going on holidays with her family, making friends, growing up & having children of her own, ends up a corpse on a pile of corpses - and that story is just as true (if only in a symbolic way) as the big story of the Allied victory & the destruction of the Third Reich. All such victims, throughout history, have their own tales, & whether or not good ultimately triumphs does not invalidate their suffering & the fact that their tales end in despair & tragedy. There is no great victory, no Eucatastrophe, in Turin's story - & that's why its important.

Its also why a determination to see it as simply part of a greater tale where good wins out & everyone lives happily ever after is wrong - because in the (earthly - which is all they know) lives of the characters there is no Eucatastrophe. There is just despair, hopelessness & a futile death - whether they bring it on themselves or not. That is also true - just as true as the story of the defeat of the bad guys & triumph of the good. The big story may give context to the suffering of individuals like Turin - but only for the survivors, those looking on (or back) from a distance. For Turin his story is the 'big story', & that story doesn't end with the victory of the good guys.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

Its also why a determination to see it as simply part of a greater tale where good wins out & everyone lives happily ever after is wrong - because in the (earthly - which is all they know) lives of the characters there is no Eucatastrophe. There is just despair, hopelessness & a futile death - whether they bring it on themselves or not. That is also true - just as true as the story of the defeat of the bad guys & triumph of the good. The big story may give context to the suffering of individuals like Turin - but only for the survivors, those looking on (or back) from a distance. For Turin his story is the 'big story', & that story doesn't end with the victory of the good guys.

I definitely agree and, again, I think this point is germane to my earlier thought that the piecemeal quality of the telling of the entire history of Middle-earth, from the Ainulindalë to the dawning of the 4th Age, complete with various points of view and different literary treatments from highly formal to colloquially whimsical, gives Tolkien's compendium a rarified feeling of an authentic chronicle.

And with every great victory or any monumental endeavor, there are hundreds, sometimes thousands of proportionately smaller losses, sacrifices and untold stories that make a tragic mosaic of the greater picture, and that are worthy of a tale in and of themselves. That a great wartime poet like Wilfred Owen should die within a week of the signing of the armistice that ended WWI is just such a tragedy, or the equally senseless death of another poet, Isaac Rosenberg in April, 1918. Their deaths added really nothing to the overall war effort; on the contrary, they were just two of thousands of men who fell needlessly while the generals continued the slaughter and political leaders wrangled over war and peace.

But the vindictive nature of Morgoth's endless torment of Hurin and his family is not that different than the plight of other families in the real world who face such horror and sadness brought on by the powers that be or powers beyond their control.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Good point.

I don't anyway think Turin's story is such a "misfit" in the broader context of Tolkien's work as some have suggested. (The Silmarillion as a whole isn't exactly a laugh-a-minute, and even LotR gets pretty darned grim.)* It seems to me that those getting upset at the prospect that "the work will be shoved into the world of LOTR to 'make it fit in'; to make sure we maintain the idea of Tolkien writing generic, simple, good-beating-evil fantasy stories" are offering a false dichotomy.

CoH is not a misfit because it is a tragedy; I agree there are many a small or large tragedy dotted around Tolkien's fiction, including in some respects the end of the Lord of the Rings. What is unique in CoH is the treatment of the tragedy. Unlike the players in LOTR, Turin, as has been noted (and also Nienor, his heroic sister) do not feel, nor are led to feel, that they are acting under the influence of divine guidance or providential "estel". It is not merely that they are cursed by a demonic and demiurgic god (who may as well be the only one that actually exists, in this story. Sure, Ulmo brings messages to Nargothrond, but they are many times removed from their source: Morgoth is not distant but at all times immanently present), it is also that the characters under the curse have no other guidance, no other will or power to turn to at all. This sets up a fundemental difference between CoH and LOTR, even the Sil. Sure, LOTR is at times bleak, or glum, or grim, but it is shot through with a hope not only that things will turn out well (there are no invocations to Elbereth in CoH, nor are our characters spurned on by the sight of the stars. Instead, these seem oppressive and distant) but that the characters are doing the right (in a moral sense) thing.

As Davem has noted, the moral and existential dimensions are almost completely absent from CoH, and it is this more than anything else that sets it apart. Unlike the Elves and Gondorians in LOTR, who are apparently not only sure of but aware of the existance of and alliance with the Valar (see Mablung's invocation to the Valar in Ithilien: he has total faith), Turin is critical of their capacities and their choices; indeed he rebukes them. Moreover, it seems to me that CoH, as a stand alone work, goes some way toward critiquing Tolkien's LOTR worldview. I can't say whether this was intentional or not (Although I suspect so), but the timbre of the story is so unforgiving that it almost seems gratuitous to merely point to the War of Wrath and say, it will be alright in the end. Well, it wasn't alright for Turin, Nienor or thousands of others whose lives they effected in direct or indirect ways.

And I was not, by the way, advocating that we should dismiss the rest of Tolkien's writings; I was agreeing with Davem that to only experience CoH through the prism of his other works not only cheapens the story as it is, but misunderstands its importance. The story demands to be read on its own terms without constant chant like invocations toward the eventual "eucatastrophe" of the Valar, which is something that CoH calls into question, on a moral level. Can there be eucatastrophe in such a world, or will it always be, as I said, "gratuitous" in some sense? If he had wanted to, Tolkien couldh've written in little hints pointing toward a hopeful future as we often read in LOTR (the invocations to Elbereth, the gradual dawning relevance of Aragorn etc). Indeed, it is a theme of LOTR that the greatest evils are always defeated in the end, essentially because the world is fundementally good, benign and therefore cannot tolerate evil. CoH is not set in this world at all; it is a world wherein hope itself is futile because there is no God; indeed, one is almost tempted to agree with Morgoth and say that there is "Nothing" beyond the void. For all the characters in the story know, this is perfectly true. We think we know better because we have the Silmarillion, which says that Eru created the world, etc, but once again I'm not certain CoH should be read through that prism.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by davem

It certainly makes it easier for the reader - like with the little girl in the red coat in Schindler's list (etc...)

But that's not the question I asked, Davem.

Originally Posted by davem

Its also why a determination to see it as simply part of a greater tale where good wins out & everyone lives happily ever after is wrong

But I never said that; I don't think that is a fair characterisation of the "greater tale", anyway. I said it was part of that tale, and was intended as such by the author.

Originally Posted by tumhalad

And I was not, by the way, advocating that we should dismiss the rest of Tolkien's writings; I was agreeing with Davem that to only experience CoH through the prism of his other works not only cheapens the story as it is, but misunderstands its importance

If you'll review the thread, tumhalad, you'll see Davem's previously said rather a lot more than that– and I was actually referring back to some of these earlier claims as well.

Originally Posted by tumhalad

CoH is not set in this world at all; it is a world wherein hope itself is futile because there is no God; indeed, one is almost tempted to agree with Morgoth and say that there is "Nothing" beyond the void. indeed, one is almost tempted to agree with Morgoth and say that there is "Nothing" beyond the void. For all the characters in the story know, this is perfectly true. We think we know better because we have the Silmarillion, which says that Eru created the world, etc, but once again I'm not certain CoH should be read through that prism.

Which neatly settles the question of whether the author ever meant it to be a stand-alone work, doesn't it? Obviously, he didn't.

My personal view is that Turin's story, though it may stand up by itself, also works perfectly fine in the general Middle-earth context. I'm not arguing that it's invalid to prefer the stand-alone version, but to claim that that's somehow the "true" way to read it seems to me to rest on some pretty shaky arguments.

One's reaction does depend on temperament, of course: I admit freely I am basically an optimist, and so stories of total, absolute despair don't give me the sense of "Ah, yes! The truth!" that I suppose they do some people. Thus, for me, the story actually has more impact if taken as part of the greater Legendarium, because I'm not subconsciously rejecting it on some level. Does that make sense? This is not a weak preference for "happy endings", in case you think it is. It's about what feels truer to a particular person. Or, if you prefer the expression, it's about whether it "resonates" with me. Okay?

Finally, I don't see that the analogies people are giving to this story are the right ones. Turin isn't simply a passive, innocent victim of circumstance: he may have a malevolent power personally gunning for him, but nonetheless much of what befalls him can be also attributed to his own character flaws and lapses of judgement. (Unlike lmp, this does not remove my sympathy from the character– rather, I think it makes him more of a classic tragic hero.)

[Nerwen]

Now that I think about it, the question of which reading is "better" is probably not a resolvable one anyway, because clearly so much of the reader's opinion in the case depends on his or belief-system and overall world-view. So, we're going to have agree to disagree on that point.

What can be argued is whether the author intended it to be a stand-alone work, existing in a different world to the rest of the Legendarium. I just don't think he did.

[tumhalad2]

[QUOTE=Nerwen]


Which neatly settles the question of whether the author ever meant it to be a stand-alone work, doesn't it? Obviously, he didn't.

[QUOTE=Nerwen]

Obviously? I'm not entirely convinced about that. It is clear that he put most of his effort into finishing this story, as opposed to the other more hopeful ones, toward the end of his life. And he didn't write it happily, or with a sense of hope, as I said. Although he could have done so if he had felt so inclined.

As to the LOTR being a "happy ending" where everything is "happily ever after"; I don't think anyone, including Davem, is rejecting the sadness, the clear sense of loss, and the brokenness felt toward the end. Nonetheless, as I explained before, everything works out with reference to a kind of divine plan, or at least providentially. There is a big qualitative difference here, whether Tolkien intended it or not, and whether or not he intended us to read it as part of a larger trilogy. Point is, the story itself exhibits these characteristics. Now, I think there are better readings and worse readings, by no means are all "equal". In this case, to completely diss the novel's major thematic, emotive energy in favour of a kind of reading that at best seeks to mitigate or at worst ignore the utter defeat and nihilism of it is, I think, fatuous. Clearly we should read it as a "part" of a greater tale, but only to a degree; not insofar as, say, our interpretation of Beren and Luthien clouds our sense of sorrow in this story. It is clear that we are positioned not to feel hope of happiness. Just sorrow.

[davem]

Well, I haven't re-read this whole thread (As a dog returneth to its vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly - & there is no real going back: the thread may be the same, but I am not the same, ect, ect...) so I may or may not be repeating earlier points here...

I do think its possible to view CoH as a counterbalance to LotR/The Sil as a whole. Tolkien wrote it as it is - & unless we want to accuse him of 'lying', or at least of attempting to mislead, it is equally as 'true' in & of itself, as the more 'hopeful' works. LotR & CoH are both tales set in an invented world, but that's no reason to reduce one of them to being merely a 'part' of the other. They are both equal, but in a moral sense, opposites.

Many people do live desperate, pointless lives, devoid of hope & purpose - & see Tolkien's own comments on Simone de Beauvoir in this documentary http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/writers/12237.shtml

“There is no such thing as a natural death. Nothing that happens to [a] man is ever natural, since his presence calls the whole world into question. All men must die, but for every man his death is an accident. And even if he knows it and consents to it, an unjustifiable violation.”

Well, you may agree with the words or not, but those are the keyspring of The Lord of the Rings.

"All men must die, but for every man his death is an accident. And even if he knows it and consents to it, an unjustifiable violation.”

I'd argue that they are not the keyspring to LotR (well, maybe a bit), but they are the keyspring to CoH - & they are definitely essential to an understanding of Tollkien's worldview.

Both LotR & CoH are true reflections of the vision of Tolkien, & ultimately true of the world we inhabit. I think to only read CoH in the light of LotR/The Sil is as wrong as to only read LotR/The Sil in the light of CoH. Just because the stories are set in the same world doesn't make one of them less true - or even dependent on each other. And it certainly doesn't mean we should see one of them as untrue if read alone.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by davem

I do think its possible to view CoH as a counterbalance to LotR/The Sil as a whole. Tolkien wrote it as it is - & unless we want to accuse him of 'lying', or at least of attempting to mislead, it is equally as 'true' in & of itself, as the more 'hopeful' works. LotR & CoH are both tales set in an invented world, but that's no reason to reduce one of them to being merely a 'part' of the other. They are both equal, but in a moral sense, opposites.

In a moral sense, opposites. This is the crucial distinction between the two works, I think. As Andrew O'Hehir wrote in his review on Salon.com, "I came away from "The Children of Húrin" with a renewed appreciation for the fact that Tolkien's overarching narrative is much more ambiguous in tone than is generally noticed" However, O'Hehir grants that this change in tone is a result of Tolkien's "imperfect success" trying to "harmonize the swirling pagan cosmology behind his imaginative universe with a belief in Christian salvation". This begs the question, is Tolkien trying, in CoH, to "harmonize" these two worldviews, which are morally and eschatalogically at variance?

O'Hehir continues: "Salvation feels a long way off in "The Children of Húrin." What sits in the foreground is that persistent Tolkienian sense that good and evil are locked in an unresolved Manichaean struggle with amorphous boundaries, and that the world is a place of sadness and loss, whose human inhabitants are most often the agents of their own destruction." We've certainly identified here that "salvation feels a long way off". Yet it's interesting here that O'Hehir assigns the epithet 'persistent' to the idea that good and evil are "locked in an unresolvable...struggle" This seems to be quite at odds with the usual critical stance, which (half rightly) suggests that good will triumph over evil eventually. Usually, this is a kind of boxing bag for some critics, who perceive this as a kind of existential flaw in Tolkien's mythos. All the same, does CoH afford a sense of "unresolvability"? As I wrote in my last post, I'm drawn to the idea that CoH is in some ways not merely a backdown from but a moral repudiation of the doctrine of "eucatastrophe". When the story ends, Hurin knows that his wife "had died" in his arms. No more is said, and no more need be said.

[Puddleglum]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

[I]
I'm drawn to the idea that CoH is in some ways ... a moral repudiation of the doctrine of "eucatastrophe". When the story ends, Hurin knows that his wife "had died" in his arms. No more is said, and no more need be said.

While CoH has (posthumously) been published as a separate book and can, to some extent, be enjoyed in its own right, I think its purpose and meaning can really only be interpreted or understood in the context of the world and mythos in which it is set.

Tolkien's concept of eucatastrophe relies on an appreciation of how bad and hopeless things are before the eucatastrophe occurs. Eucatastrophe refers to the sudden, joyous, turn which cannot be anticipated from what has gone before.

Thus, if good is gradually winning over evil and finally achieves victory, that is not a eucatastrophe. The war of wrath *was* a eucatastrophe because, while the elves and men might wish for divine intervention, they had no basis for expecting it based on anything that had gone before. The Valar had turned a deaf ear to all the destruction and killing of elves and, even, of Men (who had not been involved in rebellion).

Similarly, if there had been no death and destruction (if the Elvish kingdoms had simply managed to continue the siege of Angband indefinitely) the divine intervention and defeat of Morgoth would not be that special. Most Elves might just feel "we had things sorted just fine, thank you. We had our realms and here you come sinking our realms under water - destroying all we built. why didn't you just let us handle it."

In this context, the value of the eucatastrophe is proportional to the defeat and destruction and failure that preceded it. CoH (the Narn i hin Hurin) is one (the longest and most poignant) story of that evil - played out very personally in the lives of (in the mythos) real men and women with real egos, and loves, and strengths and faults.

The more we grieve at the evil of Morgoth (felt personally in CoH more than in any other tales of those days), the more we cheer or weep with joy at his eucatastrophic defeat.