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

[CSteefel]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Sauron vs. Your Mama -----> this sounds so awful for a thread name, typical lower class american slang.

Not exactly "lower class", more like black ghetto slang.

I took it as a joke...

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Somehow I think, davem, given the varieties of style and languages Tolkien uses in his work, that he will get the joke without having his patriotism or philological pride too bruised. It's such a precioussss line, after all.

I think such slang should be punished with a slap of cold water from the Mirrormere!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

This is the second time you've objected to the thread title, Mansun, so perhaps a reply is in order.

Frankly, I find the title very funny, and I'm not even American. That humour arises from the very outrageous juxtaposition between the great villain and the American slang and to me is a reminder not to take the debate too seriously. "Power" seems to be a favourite topic among the guys here and bringing in "your Mama" tweaks that, to my way of thinking. (Of course, I could be wrong and oblo had no intention of providing a laugh at his own topic.)

If you search some of the long ago threads you will find that Downers often came up with outrageous or silly thread titles. Maril of the Long Nick was especially noted for this, as were Underhill and Sharkey, although in a more dry mode, even in the Books forum.

The rancor on the thread I don't find funny, though. Too much of the macho power tripping and not enough of the thread title humour.

We all have different tastes, you see.

Bêthberry's comments on the reason for the thread title are excellent - its main purpose is to enable a topic to distinguish itself from others and make it easy for readers to find a specific discussion. It is much better to have an unusual, humorous title than something generic like "I have a question" (which says absolutely nothing helpful) or "What about Tom Bombadil?" (how many TB threads are there?!).

However, the topic is the basis for subsequent posts, not the title. I therefore suggest that discussion here gets back to the topic at hand. Only moderators and administrators can change the title, and I see absolutely no reason to do so.

[alatar]

Not sure that this thread matches well with my thoughts, and not sure I will express my thoughts well, but hope that however it goes that it will lead to some civil discourse...

In the beginning, in the Christian Bible, Adam and Eve were created in the image of God. These two subsequently were tempted by Satan, fell into sin and were made to leave Paradise. After which, though long-lived, Adam and Eve were afflicted by time, disease, toil and all of the fun that goes along with living outside of Paradise. In the end, like us all, they returned to the dust from which they came.

In the beginning, with the rising of the sun, the first men (humans) awoke in Arda. At first they toddled around a bit, but some, learning from the Firstborn, grew wise and great. After a huge battle, the humans were given their own island, but they fell into sin (not for the first time) and were mostly drowned. Since then their days have been shortened and they too enjoy all of the fun of time, disease and toil.

---

We have what Tolkien may have believed, and what he wrote about. How are these two comparable, and how are they discordant? But first, let me explain what I'm really asking:

As I understand the Christian religion, Adam and Eve were made perfect, or nearly so. This perfect or near perfection, it is argued, is why they lived long and were not adversely affected by inbreeding as deleterious mutations were not present until many many generations later. Regardless, these two fell when tempted by Satan. Were Adam and Eve like you and me, easily swayed (assuming you're easily swayed)? Or was Satan more powerful then, able to tempt even the First Two? Has Satan become more or less powerful since the beginning, or has his power stayed about the same?

Not that we're discussing Christianity, but we need to consider what Tolkien may have been considering when he wrote about men in his secondary world.

Seems to me that, in the beginning, Melkor was the one-stop-shop for evil. Sure, he had his crew, but, in the First Age, if you were looking for evil's source, you drove northward. In later ages, as Morgoth sold franchises and subfranchises ad nauseam, you needn't drive for more than a few miles to get some evil. Sure, this evil wasn't as pure (or powerful) as stuff from that one store way up north that existed long ago, but it still did the job, especially as you didn't need the same amount like in the past when those pesky elves and Edain were around.

With Hurin, you had to drive north, but with Ted the drive wasn't so long.

So my question is, in both Tolkien's view of Christianity and in his created world, were Men more apt to resist evil in the beginning (or not), and was evil itself more powerful in the past?

As I see it, if we graphed the trends, in one view you would see the following (see graph, and note that the lines are just to show trends and do not relate to each other...much):

Thoughts?

[obloquy]

My thoughts in answer to your main questions:

Were Adam and Eve like you and me, easily swayed (assuming you're easily swayed)? Or was Satan more powerful then, able to tempt even the First Two? Has Satan become more or less powerful since the beginning, or has his power stayed about the same?

Adam and Eve's fall from perfection brought sin into Man's makeup. To paraphrase a scripture: "through Adam sin entered the world, and death through sin." Adam and Eve's nature was thus different from all their offspring in that they chose to sin, while all mankind after them were predisposed to sin. With the obvious exception of Christ, of course. Christ's nature provides evidence of this fundamental flaw in humanity: the only way for him to remain sinless on Earth (which was a necessary component of his mission) was for him to be conceived by holy spirit rather than being anointed from among (relatively) faithful "natural" humans.

Was Satan more powerful then? I don't think so. According to scripture, it was after Adam's sin that Satan was joined in his rebellion by other angels--an event that must have made him a much more effectual power, though he was not personally enhanced. There's also no evidence in the scriptures to suggest the kind of power dynamic that exists in Tolkien whereby Satan would be able to deplete his natural potency by malicious deeds. We can only assume that Satan himself has remained the same as he always was, but has become more powerful through his constantly tightening hold on the world and, as scriptures indicate, his increased focus on Earth as his last day gets nearer.

So why were Adam and Eve so easily tempted? When Satan deceived Eve, he told her that if she ate, her eyes would be opened and she would know good and bad. Therefore, before eating from the tree, Adam and Eve were unaware of any course of action contrary to the wishes of God. When they listened to Satan and chose to sin, their eyes were opened because now they knew that they could ignore the commands of God--they were, after all, created with free will, just as the angels were. Furthermore, the existence of the tree in Eden seems to indicate that God may have intended for them to be confronted with their free will at some point. Maybe Satan just put it in front of them before they were "mature" enough to face the test, or maybe they were ready and simply failed. In either case, that original question that Satan raised--Can Man "guide his own step?"--is the same one that was transferred into Christianity as a central theme. Christian teachings thus urge disciples to put faith in God's eventual correction of this world rather than in Man's efforts.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

Seems to me that, in the beginning, Melkor was the one-stop-shop for evil. Sure, he had his crew, but, in the First Age, if you were looking for evil's source, you drove northward. In later ages, as Morgoth sold franchises and subfranchises ad nauseam, you needn't drive for more than a few miles to get some evil. Sure, this evil wasn't as pure (or powerful) as stuff from that one store way up north that existed long ago, but it still did the job, especially as you didn't need the same amount like in the past when those pesky elves and Edain were around.

With Hurin, you had to drive north, but with Ted the drive wasn't so long.

So my question is, in both Tolkien's view of Christianity and in his created world, were Men more apt to resist evil in the beginning (or not), and was evil itself more powerful in the past?

As I see it, if we graphed the trends, in one view you would see the following (see graph, and note that the lines are just to show trends and do not relate to each other...much):

Thoughts?

Gives me the willies thinking of poor Santa up North there all alone, resisting Melkor.

What if you look at this question a slightly different way, in terms of the conservation of energy. Is Evil a perfect machine, capable of transforming 100% of energy to its output? or does it simply transform into different kinds of evil? If Evil = Energy, then the Law of Conservation of Evil would state that Evil cannot be created or destroyed. Assuming Middle-earth is a closed system without anything leaking in from the Void, which is probably an incorrect assumption as Ungoliant did leak in.

I don't think the question of genetic imperfection would have pertained in Eden, because, if Adam and Eve had not 'fallen', would they still have reproduced? Was Paradise an endlessly expanding concept or would it have gotten really crowded? On the other hand, if Adam and Eve were made in the image of the Great Creator, wouldn't that have meant they would naturally want to sub-create? Friction of course changes energy.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but I found al's post a fascinating conundrum. And, oblo, God was just an inexperienced Parent. As any parent has learnt, the quickest way to get your child to do something is to forbid it.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Gives me the willies thinking of poor Santa up North there all alone, resisting Melkor.

But he's a tough ole Nick, and he lords over the last remaining kingdom of elves, and so he has that going for him. Note that Santa scooped up those that 'fell along the way' during the crossing of the Helcaraxë...kinda throws a different light on the jolly one. Hmmm.

What if you look at this question a slightly different way, in terms of the conservation of energy. Is Evil a perfect machine, capable of transforming 100% of energy to its output? or does it simply transform into different kinds of evil? If Evil = Energy, then the Law of Conservation of Evil would state that Evil cannot be created or destroyed. Assuming Middle-earth is a closed system without anything leaking in from the Void, which is probably an incorrect assumption as Ungoliant did leak in.

Most excellent - the LoCoE. I would agree; note that my graph with a negative slope for Arda Evil just takes into account friction and entropy, as a little evil is lost due to Thermodynamics (those evil notes in the 'Music' dissipate into space to bounce off Varda Elentári's stars). But what about Tolkien's perception of our world? Why are these different, if indeed they are?

I don't think the question of genetic imperfection would have pertained in Eden, because, if Adam and Eve had not 'fallen', would they still have reproduced?

Not sure what you mean. As I understand it, Adam and Eve would have reproduced in Paradise, but the birthing process would have been less unpleasant. Plus nappies wouldn't have been needed (I can't reconcile Paradise and even one overfull diaper ).

Was Paradise an endlessly expanding concept or would it have gotten really crowded?

Depends on your definition. Some persons enjoy the 'Christmas rush' at the Malls in December while I'd rather make my selection, walk to the cashier, pay and be on my way. Surely there was a plan for the additions to Paradise. Tolkien's humans awake to a world already somewhat crowded whereas Adam initially is alone in all the world (save the Lord, who spoke with him).

On the other hand, if Adam and Eve were made in the image of the Great Creator, wouldn't that have meant they would naturally want to sub-create? Friction of course changes energy.

Aulë's Sin? "I but mimic the work of my father? But must I follow in my father's footsteps? And while living in my father's house, I must abide by those rules that he set forth." Note that Aulë and Melkor were initially equal in abilities (in some sense) and one child turns to the father whereas the other turns away. In Tolkien's view of Christianity, did he see Adam as the one who turned away, and so wanted to have an example in his world where one does the right thing?

I'm not sure where I'm going with this,

Never stopped me from posting...

but I found al's post a fascinating conundrum. And, oblo, God was just an inexperienced Parent. As any parent has learnt, the quickest way to get your child to do something is to forbid it.

Most definitely. Rules without some explanation only whets their curiosity. And there's that burned hand thing as well.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Therefore, before eating from the tree, Adam and Eve were unaware of any course of action contrary to the wishes of God. When they listened to Satan and chose to sin, their eyes were opened because now they knew that they could ignore the commands of God--they were, after all, created with free will, just as the angels were.

Hm, isn't there a contradiction between saying that they didn't have free will previously to eating the fruit, yet they chose to listen to the snake?

Originally Posted by alatar

So my question is, in both Tolkien's view of Christianity and in his created world, were Men more apt to resist evil in the beginning (or not), and was evil itself more powerful in the past?

I would say that evil was more powerful in the past - because: there were Melkor and Sauron, and all the other lads; evil was more concentrated, and thus harder to resist; the foundations of the world are good and able to heal the evil from "within" (cf Myths Transformed & Athrabeth).

I wouldn't know what to say about resistance to evil. In the New Shadow, and its comments, Tolkien expands on his idea that Men turn to evil due to their quick satiety with good (even if in the fourth age there is no mythological incarnation of evil anymore, cf Myths Transformed). I would say that Men, left to their own devices, would develop, as a race, a decreased resistance to evil. However, we know that Eru intervenes continuously in the world, and that such a probable outcome will be in fact avoided.

Originally Posted by Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth, HoME X

If we are indeed the Eruhin, the Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Assuming Middle-earth is a closed system without anything leaking in from the Void, which is probably an incorrect assumption as Ungoliant did leak in

Well, M-E isn't a closed system, in relation to the Void, since Eru continuously intervenes in every age (Ungoliant didn't come from the Void, but from the darkness around Arda; upon the difference between them, Tolkien comments in his commentaries on the Silm. in Myths Transformed).

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I don't think the question of genetic imperfection would have pertained in Eden, because, if Adam and Eve had not 'fallen', would they still have reproduced?

I believe so (emphasis added:

Originally Posted by Genesis, Bible, King James version

26 And God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And, oblo, God was just an inexperienced Parent. As any parent has learnt, the quickest way to get your child to do something is to forbid it.

Is that what actually happened? Was He really inexperienced? Dostoievski envisioned Jesus as saying that:

Originally Posted by Brothers Karamazov

- Why you do not perform a miracle? the Great Inquisitor asks, why you do not prove people that you are Jesus? You are only returning, but you do not rescue the world.

- People must trust in me, Jesus answers, the real trust is that trust, which is not buttressed by the facts. If I will do a miracle everyone will trust me, but the real believer trusts me without miracles.

In MT, Tolkien says that

Nonetheless this gift of Iluvatar to the Valar (the Imperishable Flame) has its own peril, as have all his free gifts: which is in the end no more than to say that they play a part in the Great Tale so that it may be complete; for without peril they would be without power, and the giving would be void.

With the free will, another aspect is introduced in the nature of Men, that is, their quick satiety with good. However, to paraphrase Tolkien on the issue of carnal temptation,

Originally Posted by Letter #43

Faithfulness in Christian marriage entails that: great mortification. For a Christian man there is no escape. Marriage may help to sanctify & direct to its proper object his sexual desires; its grace may help him in the struggle; but the struggle remains.

Or, from an "in-story" perspective, being attached to anything less than Eru is bound to lead to sorrow:

Originally Posted by Author's note #7 on the Commentary, Athrabeth

By the holiness of good men - their direct attachment to Eru, before and above all Eru's works - the Elves may be delivered from the last of their griefs: sadness; the sadness that must come even from the unselfish love of anything less than Eru.

Therefore, this is what it is expected of us (well, Eruhini):

Originally Posted by Author's note #2 on the Commentary, Athrabeth

More probably, [the elves] were not informed by the will or design of Eru, who appears in the Elvish tradition to demand two things from His Children (of either Kindred): belief in Him, and proceeding from that, hope or trust in Him (called by the Eldar estel).

[obloquy]

I said Adam and Eve were created with free will. Prior to Satan's interference, they were merely unaware of sinfulness--innocent like children. The only rule they were given is that they were not to eat of a certain tree, which implies that all else that might occur to them was permissible. They had free will and could do whatever they wished; the one thing that God required of them was to recognize his authority in setting limits.

Is Evil a perfect machine, capable of transforming 100% of energy to its output? or does it simply transform into different kinds of evil?

It seems silly to apply a physical law to what is fundamentally metaphysical. Maybe you're joking.

I don't think the question of genetic imperfection would have pertained in Eden, because, if Adam and Eve had not 'fallen', would they still have reproduced?

Of course they would have.

And, oblo, God was just an inexperienced Parent. As any parent has learnt, the quickest way to get your child to do something is to forbid it.

I disagree with that. Were they simply tempted by something that was witheld from them, or were they deceived by the Devil? Had Satan not lied to them about God's warning ("you positively will not die"), would they have still disobeyed?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Is that what actually happened? Was He really inexperienced? Dostoievski envisioned Jesus as saying that:

"People must trust in me, Jesus answers, the real trust is that trust, which is not buttressed by the facts. If I will do a miracle everyone will trust me, but the real believer trusts me without miracles."

I'm sorry, but I cringe every time I read such ideas. Surely one must trust (even I try to do it sometimes ), but the evidence indicates that not everyone trusts even when presented with miracles. Note that Satan, Adam, Peter, Judas, etc all stood in the presence of God, witnessed miracles and yet sinned.

One of the things I like about Tolkien's world as it's not as complicated. Miracles are just someone knowing a bit more of the music than you, and having a better voice/instrument with which to express it.

I would say that evil was more powerful in the past - because: there were Melkor and Sauron, and all the other lads; evil was more concentrated, and thus harder to resist; the foundations of the world are good and able to heal the evil from "within" (cf Myths Transformed & Athrabeth).

But if you lived in the south, far from Morgoth's reach, did the more powerful evil even enter into your daily life? By the Fourth Age, the evil within men was worldwide, though in a much lesser degree than was present in the one being of Melkor.

But does this relate to Tolkien's religion?

Originally Posted by obloquy

innocent like children.

You've not met my youngest...

It seems silly to apply a physical law to what is fundamentally metaphysical. Maybe you're joking.

Think that Bêthberry might be trying to relate her thoughts to those of us that think in terms of the Laws of Physics. And she never jokes.

I disagree with that. Were they simply tempted by something that was witheld from them, or were they deceived by the Devil? Had Satan not lied to them about God's warning ("you positively will not die"), would they have still disobeyed?

Great question. If Satan could fall from grace all on his own (taking one third of the heavenly host with him), could not Adam and Eve get there too without any outside help?

One gets the feeling that Melkor was set up - trapped. I'm not in his fan club, as was indicated in this thread, but when I read that Manwe was set to be King of Kings, then exactly what was to be the role of his somewhat greater brother, if not to stir the pot? His powers were given him that he could antagonize and therefore strengthen in some way each of his siblings.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

I said Adam and Eve were created with free will.

My bad, I misread

Originally Posted by alatar

But if you lived in the south, far from Morgoth's reach, did the more powerful evil even enter into your daily life?

Well, it's not like Melkor and the balrogs went from door to door converting good people, up in the north . Balrogs exited Angband only for the greatest battles, while Melkor came out of his will only to battle Fingolfin (he might have waged many battles himself previous to getting imprisoned the first time, but that was prior to the coming of Men). However, it is likely that, during his reign, many, if not most, of all Men were still subdued by him, doing his will - due to fear, some curses of fear (as with Maeglin, for example), sheer corruption, or whatever other means he found available. Later on, with no such power figure around them, Men were increasingly capable to part from evil. I'll try later to elaborate more on this.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, it's not like Melkor and the balrogs went from door to door converting good people, up in the north . Balrogs exited Angband only for the greatest battles, while Melkor came out of his will only to battle Fingolfin (he might have waged many battles himself previous to getting imprisoned the first time, but that was prior to the coming of Men).

What were Melkor and the Balrogs doing all day shut up in Angband? If they strove to promote their agenda, what were they doing...licking stamps?

Dear Sir or Madam,

Are you:

• Tired of being pushed around by those pesky arrogant elves?

• Hating having to move every time some Valar or Maiar gets an itch?

• Feeling left out - forgotten - in the grand scheme?

• Bored with the everyday grind and looking for something?

If you've answered yes to any of these questions, then we can help. We're Mel-Corp®, a leading business enterprise specializing in changing the world. You may have heard of us; we're located up far north past Ard-galen. We're sending you this invitation for a special seminar that we're having that will be of help to you.

Leave your checkbook at home! You might want, however, to wear any jewelry you have and bring along any interesting artefacts... This free seminar will show you how Mel-Corp is striving to set the world back on track for you.

Looking forward to meeting you!

Regards,
Morgoth Bauglir

CEO, Mel-Corp
Angband
North ME

just follow the dragon tracks

Another thought: In Middle Earth, Melkor, Sauron and Saruman exit the stage after their time, and so even if they retain a little of their 'evil' (as considered by Bêthberry's Conservation of Evil), there is less in this age. In Tolkien's Christianity (methinks), the same Lucifer that tempted Adam and Eve still roams the Earth like a lion (1 Peter 5:8), albeit on a leash. Why did Tolkien have his origin of evil leave, and how does this work with those seeing a 'message' in his work?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by alatar

Why did Tolkien have his origin of evil leave, and how does this work with those seeing a 'message' in his work?

Well, as we know from the Ainulindale, the true source of Melkor's actions still resides with Eru; moreover the last paragraph of the Silmarillion states that the evil seeds planted by Melkor still give fruit. In a sense, this is what made it possible for him to be defeated - he dissipated his power, he diminished himself so that he may perpetuate his works through an long lasting corruption of Arda. In a sense, the Marrer did not leave Arda; Melkor might be gone (he might even repent ), but his essence of evil is ever at work.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, as we know from the Ainulindale, the true source of Melkor's actions still resides with Eru; moreover the last paragraph of the Silmarillion states that the evil seeds planted by Melkor still give fruit. In a sense, this is what made it possible for him to be defeated - he dissipated his power, he diminished himself so that he may perpetuate his works through an long lasting corruption of Arda. In a sense, the Marrer did not leave Arda; Melkor might be gone (he might even repent ), but his essence of evil is ever at work.

I think you're seeing the glass as half empty. As I pointed out in post 35 above, Melkor's slow self-defeat may be a foreshadowing of the gradual mending of Arda itself. The Melkor element is not necessarily evil. True, the way in which Melkor behaved as Morgoth, when he had become physical himself, was evil according to those laws of morality that govern physical beings. But wasn't Melkor's mar actually effected when his voice disrupted and overpowered those of the others during the Music? That spiritual event is what Iluvatar brought into physical existence and it continues to unfold: there are eruptions of discord and epochs of dissonance, but Iluvatar himself is its ultimate source, and if we could view it all at once, as only Iluvatar can, we might see the "grand design." The healing of Arda may not be just in spite of Melkor's efforts, but may actually be made possible only by the power of his essence and how much of it he invested in Arda, which is surely more than any other Power.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

The Melkor element is not necessarily evil.

I wouldn't take an utilitarian approach - that his element is not evil because it worked out for good. Also, Tolkien states in his letters that the free will of the valar was guaranteed by Eru - and Eru setting up all available options and Melkor choosing one them are different aspects. I would paraphrase Tolkien on Gollum:

Originally Posted by Letter #181

Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him...I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.

[obloquy]

I wouldn't take an utilitarian approach - that his element is not evil because it worked out for good.

Well that's not what I'm saying, either. Melkor's power was not evil power. I express my thoughts on this more completely in another thread:

Classifying Melkor as "evil" is questionable. He sought to further his own purposes, and since those were in disharmony with the other themes in the Music they were resisted and this caused strife. What's interesting is that, while the Valar did not know what physical manifestation their music would have, Iluvatar did and still he did not condemn Melkor. Instead he declared that ultimately his will would be accomplished, with Melkor as his instrument.

At this point it had all been laid out for Iluvatar to see. This suggests to me that Melkor had not done anything "evil"--at least in the absolute sense--in the eyes of his father. The corruption of Arda becomes minor on this universal scale, and the "big picture" had not been altered from Iluvatar's original purpose. Melkor, at the time when he had already wrought all his corruption, was above (or outside the jurisdiction of) the concepts of "morality" or "good and bad" that we and the Children of Iluvatar are familiar with and use as guides to make our decisions. Melkor merely resisted the vision of his Creator, which he was created with the will to do and this action was apparently still within his rights. Iluvatar did chastise him, but then made it clear that the beauty of his vision had not been compromised:

Obviously. That's the point. All of Melkor's discord did not corrupt Iluvatar's plan, so how can we call it evil without maligning Iluvatar himself? He didn't fix the Music or remove Melkor's contribution.

....
[Iluvatar] didn't oppose it, he contained it. He humbled Melkor and silenced him when he saw fit, but he did not oppose the theme Melkor had sung. Had he opposed it, he would not have claimed to be its "uttermost source."

....
I'm not saying that Iluvatar favored Melkor's discord, but I am saying that it was permitted and within Melkor's rights.

Good post, and it echoes my feelings on the definitions of good and evil. God isn't just "good" because he never makes an error that leads to bad, he is the ultimate good because that's what he chooses to define himself as. He is the arbiter on a tier above the two sides. Since Melkor and the rest of the Valar were installed as creators and gods of Arda, they had a similar right to do what pleased them without moral constraint. As far as I can remember Iluvatar does not provide a moral structure to guide their actions, apart from his direct communication with Manwe. Morality is designed to guide physical beings. Similar to the Biblical account of the origin of the demons, once Melkor incarnates himself and begins to break the moral laws of the Incarnates, he is no longer above those laws and is then subject to condemnation.

[alatar]

I'm somehow drawn to the thought that, in Arda, Tolkien skirts the problem of evil that is an issue in his Christian religion (as I understand it). In short, in Christianity it is posited that evil exists in the world as (1) the result of man's fall and (2) a consequence of free will - you can't choose God if there is no other choice. God allows evil - or the turning away from him - in order to have free will. Skeptics consider that, at the end of all things, there will exist a heaven in which followers will have both free will and live in Paradise. If this is possible at the end, why could not God have created Eden with choice yet Perfection, where all was truly and forever good?

Anyway, in Arda we have evil, yet the world is far from perfect before humans show up. Melkor goes his own way, he thinks, and yet simply does the work of Eru. Presumably all creatures are granted free will, or at least the illusion thereof, regardless of whether they exist within or outside of Arda, yet I don't think that it was necessary for a Melkor to appear for free will to be granted. Evil is, but technically wasn't a necessity.

Make sense? I'm trying to wrap my thoughts around it as well.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

This suggests to me that Melkor had not done anything "evil"--at least in the absolute sense--in the eyes of his father.
...
I'm not saying that Iluvatar favored Melkor's discord, but I am saying that it was permitted and within Melkor's rights.

That Iluvatar didn't remove the corruption of Melkor is due to the laws inherent in this universe:

Originally Posted by Letter #153

Free Will is derivative, and is.'. only operative within provided circumstances; but in order that it may exist, it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it, whatever betides : sc. when it is 'against His Will', as we say, at any rate as it appears on a finite view. He does not stop or make 'unreal' sinful acts and their consequences.

There does seem to be a system of judgment, which can be applied even to every finite creature:

Originally Posted by Melkor Morgoth, Myths Transformed, HoME X

Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru.

This is pretty much the same rule as applied to Gollum above, only in reverse, demonstrating the same principle: it is intention that defines the morality of an action. Gollum's actions may lead to good macrocosmically, but he did them out of wickedness, so he still is evil. On the other hand, even if one errs, but with good intent, it is not a sin.

Cf. Osanwe-kenta, we also have the existence of the axani, 'law, rule, commandment; as primarily proceeding from Eru'. According to this text, Melkor repudiated all such rules coming down from Eru. In the Later Quenta Silmarillion, there is a definition of the root of evil:

Originally Posted by Of the severance of marriage, HoME X

... trust in Eru the Lord everlasting, that he is good, and that his works shall all end in good. This the Marrer hath denied, and in this denial is the root of evil, and its end is in despair.

Melkor is defined countless times as the Enemy; is he simply the enemy of the elves, or of the Men? I doubt that. From the beginning he fought against Manwe and Co, but even he is merely a vice-regent of Eru; this opposition to Manwe is in fact an opposition to Eru.

Originally Posted by obloquy

[Iluvatar] didn't oppose it, he contained it. He humbled Melkor and silenced him when he saw fit, but he did not oppose the theme Melkor had sung. Had he opposed it, he would not have claimed to be its "uttermost source."

I don't think that there is much difference between containing and opposing Melkor's discord. Manwe is specifically said to be "the chief instrument of the second theme that Iluvatar had raised up against the discord of Melkor", so the opposition between Melkor and Eru was definitely not one-sided. There is further evidence of Eru's disapproval of Melkor deeds when Tolkien reffers to the corruption of the elves into orcs:

Originally Posted by Of the Coming of the Elves and the Captivity of Melkor

This it may be was the vilest deed of Melkor, and the most hateful to Iluvatar.

Could anything, in fact, not have its uttermost source in Eru - esspecially when we are talking something as fundamental as a moral category, evil? I doubt that. As I mentioned previously, Eru setting up all available options and Melkor choosing one them are different aspects.

Originally Posted by obloquy

As far as I can remember Iluvatar does not provide a moral structure to guide their actions, apart from his direct communication with Manwe. Morality is designed to guide physical beings. Similar to the Biblical account of the origin of the demons, once Melkor incarnates himself and begins to break the moral laws of the Incarnates, he is no longer above those laws and is then subject to condemnation.

Besides the axani I already mentioned, I believe that this distinction does not take into account the fact that the valar can act without being embodied

Originally Posted by Of the Sun and Moon and the Hiding of Valinor

For the Valar may work many things with thought rather than with hands, and without voices in silence they may hold council one with another.

We also know that Aule also overstepped his boundaries, he broke a rule, when he tried to make the dwarves:

Originally Posted by Letter #212

Aule, for instance, one of the Great, in a sense 'fell'; for he so desired to see the Children, that he became impatient and tried to anticipate the will of the Creator... When he had made thirteen, God spoke to him in anger, but not without pity : for Aule had done this thing not out of evil desire to have slaves and subjects of his own, but out of impatient love, desiring children to talk to and teach, sharing with them the praise of Iluvatar and his great love of the materials of which the world is made.

The One rebuked Aule, saying that he had tried to usurp the Creator's power; but he could not give independent life to his makings...

- Behold, said the One: these creatures of thine have only thy will, and thy movement. Though you have devised a language for them, they can only report to thee thine own thought. This is a mockery of me.

Originally Posted by alatar

Presumably all creatures are granted free will, or at least the illusion thereof, regardless of whether they exist within or outside of Arda, yet I don't think that it was necessary for a Melkor to appear for free will to be granted. Evil is, but technically wasn't a necessity.

I think we should make a difference between evil as a moral category, and Melkor as the most powerful agent of evil; indeed, the two of them exist independently. And since evil is a prerequisite of free will, and if all the valar had free will from the beginning, then evil precedes even Melkor (who, on the other hand, in the beginning at least, was pictured to be good; he fell "afterwards").

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I think we should make a difference between evil as a moral category, and Melkor as the most powerful agent of evil; indeed, the two of them exist independently. And since evil is a prerequisite of free will, and if all the valar had free will from the beginning, then evil precedes even Melkor (who, on the other hand, in the beginning at least, was pictured to be good; he fell "afterwards").

Think that this is what I was getting at. If, in heaven, there will be free-willed spirits/souls, and, by definition, being in the presence of God cannot contain evil, why could not the Creator create a world with free will and not evil (or, again as some posit, so much)? Why the "prerequisite?"

Regardless, as I don't want to start another brouhaha, but how does evil differ in the world that Tolkien created? To me it seems that the free will - evil connection is not to the same degree, if it exists at all in Arda.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by alatar

Why the "prerequisite?"

Well, there might be a misunderstanding. I see the moral category of evil as anything else but an idea, a possibility, a potential, an abstract, an archetype if you will - not as an active power. Without it, no exponent of evil could exist. And without good having a counterpart, we really could not have morality, and a good chunk free will neither.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by alatar

Skeptics consider that, at the end of all things, there will exist a heaven in which followers will have both free will and live in Paradise.

The scriptures indicate that the paradise will be on Earth, as was originally intended. After all, why should an issue brought up by rebellious creations change God's purpose for Man? Why put them on Earth to begin with, if their real place is in Heaven? He wouldn't; Man was created expressly to live on Earth, and this is reinforced by the knowledge that there are already spirit creatures who were created to live in Heaven (angels). I recognize that this is a controverted point, but I believe this analysis makes more sense than a Heavenly reward for righteous life on Earth, as if Earth was always intended to be merely a testing ground.

Originally Posted by alatar

If this is possible at the end, why could not God have created Eden with choice yet Perfection, where all was truly and forever good?

I believe he did. That is, all was good except direct challenge to his sovereignty, which is what Satan's lie amounted to, and also Adam and Eve's acceptance of it. Eating the fruit was just a gesture to consummate the rebellion; it's not as if that was God's favorite fruit and he simply didn't want to share it. I know this sounds like the opposite of what you said, but in order for peace to be maintained, that one principle must always be unchallenged: once Man declares that he is not subject to God, men begin to fill that vacuum of leadership and lawmaking, which (long story short) necessarily leads to strife.

Originally Posted by Raynor

That Iluvatar didn't remove the corruption of Melkor is due to the laws inherent in this universe
...
Cf. Osanwe-kenta, we also have the existence of the axani, 'law, rule, commandment; as primarily proceeding from Eru'. According to this text, Melkor repudiated all such rules coming down from Eru. In the Later Quenta Silmarillion, there is a definition of the root of evil

I recognize that Melkor/Morgoth was the Enemy. I also recognize that he committed evil. What I am saying is that before the physical manifestation of the Music, Melkor's rights were absolute and his "corruption" of the theme was within his rights as primary created being. All it amounts to is Melkor dabbling in everyone else's sauce, making it all more to his taste. He had no knowledge of how the Music would unfold when brought into being by Iluvatar. The manifestation of his discord turned out to be immoral within the physical world, but prior to that, when he originally wove his "element" into all things, there was no such inherently physical* designation. Certainly later, when Melkor was running amok within the material world, his actions were evil. The wicked things he did during the Ages had already been woven into the tapestry, so to speak, but relatively innocently; in that when his voice overpowered others in the Music, he exhibited only grandiose selfishness, not specifically murder, torture, corruption, etc.

Additionally, to reiterate what I expressed a few posts ago, Arda's healing may be possible solely because of Melkor's vast vitality, which he poured into creation more than any other sub-creator.

*in Tolkien's world, by virtue of the fact that guidelines were not laid out for the sub-creators' Music, and persistent disharmony was chastized but not "repaired". Only after the theme was brought into material being did actions take on the aspect of either good or evil within that physical cosmos. Whether morality applies solely to physical creation in our universe (and whether there is such thing as immaterial creation) is certainly debatable elsewhere.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Whether morality applies solely to physical creation in our universe (and whether there is such thing as immaterial creation) is certainly debatable elsewhere.

Well, I take the liberty to give it a try, should anyone feel interested.

Originally Posted by obloquy

All it amounts to is Melkor dabbling in everyone else's sauce, making it all more to his taste.

I find it really difficult to challenge that, since I can't rely on facts or evidence, seeing that all this happens before a "humanly" conceivable world. All I can put forward are my personal thoughts. Should we agree that moral judgment can be applied before Ea, doesn't his behavior require a stricter view? I believe the problem is two-pronged; I would say the valar did have rights, to express themselves peacefully, and Melkor interfered with that, with the intention to subvert what they were doing. And if it is intention that counts, then even in a child's play, or in arts, deeds can have moral consequences. I would further argue that what they were doing had nothing trivial about it; the making of music seemed to be their primary activity, the fundamental way in which they learned about each other and of the mind of Iluvatar; this would only aggravate Melkor's subversion. However, even greater than this, seems to be Melkor's intent to challenge directly even Iluvatar. In a theist world, isn't this a sin per se? Could it be amoral to go one-on-one with the Creator, in front of everyone else? No matter how little or much he knew, isn't it a prerequisite that you treat the ultimate being with utmost respect, in each and every aspect? I believe that Melkor having the ultimate proof of the existence of Eru can only put evil at the root of his disrespect. I think that Melkor had all it took for him to make realise what he was doing, so I see both his deed and his intent as evil - with his retribution coming either then (with the humiliation in front of others), or during Ea, or afterwards.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Additionally, to reiterate what I expressed a few posts ago, Arda's healing may be possible solely because of Melkor's vast vitality, which he poured into creation more than any other sub-creator.

I don't think that this action gives him credit, since the healing wouldn't be necessary should he not have erred; I see the healing as a negative point in his activity - it is the one thing that most likely requires the greatest "effort" from Iluvatar to counter. I do see that his marring brought greater glory to Iluvatar, it gave more valor to Men (& all the others who opposed him), and these are good in and of themselves, but they most likely occur due to the active intervention of Eru, without which most likely the opposite would happen.

[davem]

Of course, Melkor may well have thought that what he was doing was 'right', that he was actually improving the Music (& later, by extension, the world). Whatever, he wasn't actually stopped by Eru - he waas even told directly by Eru that what he was doing would redound to his, Eru's, own glory - 'What you're doing will make me even more glorious!' - which could be taken as encouragement from a certain perspective.

In the end one cannot, as supreme creator, give one's Children free will & then object to the way they use it. If Eru had wanted his Children to only to do what he told them he could have made them robots. Once he creates beings with free will he gives them the ability to go against him. Melkor may simply have been doing his best. Even his desire to reduce the creation to 'chaos' may have been down to his belief that Chaos was a superior form to order. The fact is we don't have Morgoth's side of the story, & don't know his real motivation- we have his enemies' interpretation of his motives. He may well have honestly believed that his vision was superior. One would have to be able to prove that Eru's (& by extension the Valar's) vision was 'superior' in some objective sense. 'Eru was the supreme being & therefore must be right' is simply a 'Might=right' argument.

I'm not sure that Eru's behaviour, let alone his motives, are unquestionably 'right'. There's no mention of 'love' being one of Eru's motives for doing anything. His motive seems, in fact, his own glory - He doesn't, I note, condemn Melkor's dissonances because they will lead to suffering - he says, in effect 'Go ahead - what you're doing is only going to make me look even better than I do right now!'

This is the essential problem for me - either you have one supreme being who runs things Himself, or you have a pantheon of gods who argue & fight among themselves, in a conflict of order vs chaos. When Eru intervenes the Valar become robots who simply obey orders, or are sidelined.

And in the end, for me, Tolkien 's greatest works are the ones where Eru & the Valar are very much in the background & can be safely ignored - TH, LotR, CoH.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

'What you're doing will make me even more glorious!' - which could be taken as encouragement from a certain perspective

That certain perspective, in which a God encourages someone to persevere in evil, could not, in my opinion, be further from Tolkien's world. And there is no such mention in Eru's words:

Originally Posted by Ainulindale

And thou, Melkor, wilt discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind, and wilt perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary to its glory.

If, in the end, as I said previously, the evil of Melkor brings about good, it is only due to Eru, without whom it would not be possible. What Eru is talking about here is the final impotence of evil, or of any action set against Eru.

In the end one cannot, as supreme creator, give one's Children free will & then object to the way they use it.

Why? What would impede the supreme creator to do that?

Even his desire to reduce the creation to 'chaos' may have been down to his belief that Chaos was a superior form to order.

There is hardly any evidence that Melkor sought to improve creation, that is, at least in the final stages of his madness, when he would have likely turned all creation into the chaos you mentioned. And regardless of what one believes it is right, if it goes against the greater good, and if it endangers it, it cannot be possibly tolerated. This "anything goes" argument is simply incongruent with morality.

The fact is we don't have Morgoth's side of the story, & don't know his real motivation- we have his enemies' interpretation of his motives.

Does that imply that Melkor could be the most misunderstood hero? That our judgment is clouded by the tortures, corruptions and destructions he perpetrated and we can't objectively judge him from a moral point of view?

He may well have honestly believed that his vision was superior. One would have to be able to prove that Eru's (& by extension the Valar's) vision was 'superior' in some objective sense.

I already gave this quote (in this thread, and in other occasions when we debated):

Originally Posted by Of the severance of marriage, HoME X

... trust in Eru the Lord everlasting, that he is good, and that his works shall all end in good. This the Marrer hath denied, and in this denial is the root of evil, and its end is in despair.

Denying that Eru is good is the root of evil, according to Manwe. Similar interpretations can be found in the letters, and, implicitly, in all Tolkien's work.

'Eru was the supreme being & therefore must be right' is simply a 'Might=right' argument.

Might, and wisdom, and supreme goodness, etc...

And in the end, for me, Tolkien 's greatest works are the ones where Eru & the Valar are very much in the background & can be safely ignored - TH, LotR, CoH.

I for one choose not to ignore Bilbo being meant to find the One Ring, Gandalf returning from beyond Creation with increased powers and Gollum falling. As you and I know from past debates, either in the works, or in the letters, these are implied/stated to be the works of Eru.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

If, in the end, as I said previously, the evil of Melkor brings about good, it is only due to Eru, without whom it would not be possible. What Eru is talking about here is the final impotence of evil, or of any action set against Eru.

Rather like a doctor giving a gun to a man he knows will go out & shoot people, because he, the doctor, knows he will be able to fix up the victims & come out looking good as a result. Eru didn't have to allow Melkor into Arda at all. If he could be expelled at the end of the FA he could have been expelled before 'Ea!'

There is hardly any evidence that Melkor sought to improve creation, that is, at least in the final stages of his madness, when he would have likely turned all creation into the chaos you mentioned. And regardless of what one believes it is right, if it goes against the greater good, and if it endangers it, it cannot be possibly tolerated. This "anything goes" argument is simply incongruent with morality.

Who determines what the 'greater good' is? Melkor's desire to destroy Arda & reduce it to nothing is, to my mind, rather akin to Eru's wiping out of Numenor. Both Eru & Melkor's intention is to destroy what they don't like.

Does that imply that Melkor could be the most misunderstood hero? That our judgment is clouded by the tortures, corruptions and destructions he perpetrated and we can't objectively judge him from a moral point of view?

Of course we can judge him from a moral point of view. We should also judge Eru from a moral point of view, & hse the same standard, not resort to 'Eru is good & therefore whatever he does is good' arguments. One can't argue that mass killing by Melkor is bad, but mass killing by Eru is good because Melkor is bad & Eru is good. That's a circular argument. Either mass killing is bad whoever does it, or its acceptable.

I for one choose not to ignore Bilbo being meant to find the One Ring, Gandalf returning from beyond Creation with increased powers and Gollum falling. As you and I know from past debates, either in the works, or in the letters, these are implied/stated to be the works of Eru.

Bilbo was only 'meant to find the Ring' by Eru long after TH was written, when LotR became the cumination of the Legendarium. The only one who 'intended' Bilbo to find the ring originally was Tolkien. I doubt many readers of LotR in the pre-Sil days thought about 'divine' intervention in LotR - unless they were religious & chose to read that into it. Personally, I find the whole experience of reading TH & LotR better if I forget Eru & the Valar out of it. I also find it interesting that at Aragorn's coronation in the first edition there is no mention of the Valar: "Now come the days of the king. May they be blessed" is what Gandalf says , "while the thrones of the Valar endure" was added in the Second ed revision - & interestingly the mention is also missed out in the movie, where they, deliberately or not, use the original version. One can perhaps see this as a result of all the 'theological' speculation Tolkien was indulging in during the late fifties/early sixties.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Rather like a doctor giving a gun to a man he knows will go out & shoot people, because he, the doctor, knows he will be able to fix up the victims & come out looking good as a result. Eru didn't have to allow Melkor into Arda at all. If he could be expelled at the end of the FA he could have been expelled before 'Ea!'

Free will was guaranteed for them, as I already quoted:

Originally Posted by Letter #153

Free Will is derivative, and is.'. only operative within provided circumstances; but in order that it may exist, it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it, whatever betides : sc. when it is 'against His Will', as we say, at any rate as it appears on a finite view. He does not stop or make 'unreal' sinful acts and their consequences.

There also are the axani, the rules coming down from Eru; while the valar and the rest can do what they will, their actions have consequences and will be judged against the rules that were given to them.

Who determines what the 'greater good' is?

Eru, obviously.

Melkor's desire to destroy Arda & reduce it to nothing is, to my mind, rather akin to Eru's wiping out of Numenor. Both Eru & Melkor's intention is to destroy what they don't like.

Melkor would have destroyed everything no matter what. Numenor was destroyed only after it became the very seat of evil, where from oppression , torture, killing and blasphemy spread throughout all Middle Earth. These can hardly be compared.

Either mass killing is bad whoever does it, or its acceptable.

We have already been through this, in the Akallabeth thread. My position is that the whole of Numenor was utterly corrupted due to Sauron, and its healing was not possible at that time, and its existence meant danger to the rest of the Men; even at our level, I don't see what other better solution was possible in these circumstances. Tolkien also states in the letters that the supreme inventiveness of the creator can make even a divine punishment to be a divine gift; given what living in Numenor would have meant for its inhabitants, simply their death was, in itself, a gift, as they were facing an evil they could not overcome.

For all created spirits, who is to say what should be their role, and their life length? To me, the answer is obviously Eru.

The only one who 'intended' Bilbo to find the ring originally was Tolkien.

However, this is what the work is now, as Tolkien last intended for us to see it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Eru, obviously

So effectively we cannot judge Eru - whatever he does is 'good' simply because he does it - or in other words there is no objective standard of good & evil, 'Good' is whatever Eru says it is, & evil is whatever Eru says it is. Slaughtering tens of thousands of Numenoreans is 'good' (it cannot simply be 'necessary', let alone 'the lesser of two evils' - because if Eru commited the 'lesser of two evils he would still be committing evil. The slaughter of the Numenoreans is a morally 'good' act because Eru commits it, & Eru is the source of Good. Note, you can't argue that the destruction of Numenor (or Gollum) was intended to bring about a good result - you have to argue that the act itself was good, otherwise you are arguing that Eru will commit 'not-good' (ie 'evil') acts)

However, this is what the work is now, as Tolkien last intended for us to see it.

But TH was not written with the later intention in mind. You seem to be arguing that Tolkien 'reinterpreted' TH, & imposed a new meaning on it. Well & good, but the reader of TH in the period 1937 - 1954 (ie pre- publication of LotR) would not have read it in that way. You seem here to be arguing for the 'purposed domination of the author' (not to mention the Author), which is something Tolkien himself rejected.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

So effectively we cannot judge Eru - whatever he does is 'good' simply because he does it - or in other words there is no objective standard of good & evil, 'Good' is whatever Eru says it is, & evil is whatever Eru says it is. Slaughtering tens of thousands of Numenoreans is 'good' (it cannot simply be 'necessary', let alone 'the lesser of two evils' - because if Eru commited the 'lesser of two evils he would still be committing evil. The slaughter of the Numenoreans is a morally 'good' act because Eru commits it, & Eru is the source of Good. Note, you can't argue that the destruction of Numenor (or Gollum) was intended to bring about a good result - you have to argue that the act itself was good, otherwise you are arguing that Eru will commit 'not-good' (ie 'evil') acts)

I believe that there are much more issues at play; for one, the morality of an act of God cannot be judged, unless we have his knowledge, which we don't. Then, if one is to judge the fact itself that he killed one or many persons, then I believe one is actually questioning his very right to end life at all. Then death itself would appear as a curse (be it "natural" or not, I might add); but this specifically stated to be a distortion of truth, a lie perpetrated by the Enemy.

You seem to be arguing that Tolkien 'reinterpreted' TH, & imposed a new meaning on it.
...
You seem here to be arguing for the 'purposed domination of the author' (not to mention the Author), which is something Tolkien himself rejected.

That Tolkien changed TH has well within his right, and we couldn't reasonably expect those who read only the early edition to have the same information. I am not sure what you mean by the purposed domination of the author in this case, but the author is certainly expected to structure the story to whatever level of information he considers it necessary; this is what it is transmitted to us and what we further want to make of it is down to personal level.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I believe that there are much more issues at play; for one, the morality of an act of God cannot be judged, unless we have his knowledge, which we don't. Then, if one is to judge the fact itself that he killed one or many persons, then I believe one is actually questioning his very right to end life at all. Then death itself would appear as a curse (be it "natural" or not, I might add); but this specifically stated to be a distortion of truth, a lie perpetrated by the Enemy.

Then you're arguing that there is no objective standard of right & wrong in M-e & we simply have to judge whatever Eru does as being right (& therefore 'Good') simply because he does it. By extension we also have to accept that Eru himself is 'Good' simply because he says he is. 'Good' & 'Evil' then become meaningless terms & we end up with a situation where 'A' is good because Eru does it & 'B' is bad because Morgoth does it - ie 'A' is judged to be a good act & 'B' an evil act because of who does it, not because they comply with or go against an objective standard of good & evil by which all acts are judged.

That Tolkien changed TH has well within his right, and we couldn't reasonably expect those who read only the early edition to have the same information.

But he didn't 'change' TH - he simply imposed a new interpretation on the existing text. And, strictly speaking, Bilbo did not 'find' the Ring - he stole it (& it doesn't matter that Smeagol also stole it - two wrongs don't make a right - Bilbo didn't know the Ring didn't belong to Gollum at that point, & when he realised the ring was Gollum's he still kept it.

The point being. Tolkien didn't write TH as part of the Legendarium. He wrote it as a stand alone story & Eru played no part in it in Tolkien's original intention, & he certainly did not 'intend' Bilbo to find it (particularly as at that time it wasn't The Ring). Early readers did not 'have that information' because neither did Tolkien. Even if they had had access to the Silmarillion as it then was they still wouldn't have known that Eru 'meant' Bilbo to find the ring, because Tolkien had not begun the sequel to TH which would eventually require Eru to 'mean' that. And even in LotR Tolkien (via Gandalf) is very careful to leave the nature & source of such 'meaning' ambiguous. One can, in the light of the Sil, read it as Eru. One could also read it in the light of Wyrd:

In its wider sense, wyrd refers to how past actions continually affect and condition the future. It also stresses the interconnected nature of all actions, and how they influence each other. The concept has some relation to the ideal of predestination. Unlike predestination, however, the concept of wyrd allows for human agency, constrained by past events, but nevertheless capable of shaping reality, an idea that is also prominent in the Dharmic concept of karma. Wyrd is "inexorable"[1] and "goes as she shall"[2], the fate (Norse ørlǫg) woven by the Norns. Indeed, the term's Norse cognate urðr, besides meaning "fate", is the name of one of the Norns, closely related to the concept of necessity (skuld). The name of the younger sister, Verðandi, is strictly the present participle of the verb cognate to weorþan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyrd

& leave Eru & the Valar out of the picture altogether......

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Then you're arguing that there is no objective standard of right & wrong in M-e

I don't see what alternative there could be. A standard doesn't come into existence by itself, it comes within a system, and that system is created by someone. There could be no higher authority than Eru to set forth a moral system. At most, one can argue that what he does is contrary to his own system, but this would require complete knowledge - which only Eru has. Whatever judgment one would make of Eru would be based on incomplete knowledge.

Tolkien didn't write TH as part of the Legendarium.

Well, it already contained references to Elrond and the Necromancer. And later he did change TH to make it fit better (initially, Gollum actually intended to give Bilbo the ring, was apologetic for not having it, offered to catch some fish and was persuaded to lead Bilbo out). You are also correct that the mention of being meant to find the ring is found in LotR. However, this is the work now, and Tolkien specifically stated that LotR required the Silm. for proper understanding, and that it was a continuation of it (more so than of TH).

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I don't see what alternative there could be. A standard doesn't come into existence by itself, it comes within a system, and that system is created by someone. There could be no higher authority than Eru to set forth a moral system. At most, one can argue that what he does is contrary to his own system, but this would require complete knowledge - which only Eru has. Whatever judgment one would make of Eru would be based on incomplete knowledge.

But the standard has to be logical if it is to be understandable (& therefore followable). If 'Good' & 'Evil' are simply what Eru states they are then how could one judge one's own, & other's actions? 'Thou shalt not steal', 'Thou shalt do no murder', etc, are clear statements that theft & murder are wrong (& they do not require 'divine' authority to make sense to us - any society that tolerates theft & murder won't survive very long). To declare the destruction of Numenor a 'Good' act (& as I stated it must be 'Good' according to your criteria, not simply the 'least worst option' or the lesser of two evils - a Good god cannot commit 'lesser evils', & an omnipotent deity cannot be 'forced by circumstance' into acting. Hence, the destruction of Numenor must be a Good act indeed, a Perfect act, which Eru freely chose to commit, otherwise Eru is not a Good, omnipotent, deity, but a victim of circumstance for whom the end justifies the means) requires us to show that it conforms with some objective standard of right. Yet, can one argue that it is either?

Well, it already contained references to Elrond and the Necromancer. And later he did change TH to make it fit better (initially, Gollum actually intended to give Bilbo the ring, was apologetic for not having it, offered to catch some fish and was persuaded to lead Bilbo out). You are also correct that the mention of being meant to find the ring is found in LotR. However, this is the work now, and Tolkien specifically stated that LotR required the Silm. for proper understanding, and that it was a continuation of it (more so than of TH).

Well, that was Tolkien's view, but the reader does not have to share it - & up till 1977 most readers of LotR felt they understood it perfectly well.I think its clear (despite Rateliff's arguments) that TH was never intended to be part of the Legendarium, & there was never any thought on Tolkien's part that it should (or could) be. The real point is that most readers of TH over the last 70 years have not even considered Eru, & most fans of TH & LotR don't get even part way through The Sil, or even the Letters, so however Tolkien understood his work, & to whatever extent he felt a knowledge of The Sil to be necessary, for most readers it simply isn't - one can't take into account what one doesn't know & one won't take into account what doesn't interest one.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

To declare the destruction of Numenor a 'Good' act ... requires us to show that it conforms with some objective standard of right.

I believe I have already showed that even to human eyes, the destruction of Numenor was necessary and good, even for its inhabitants. And, as I said previously, "if one is to judge the fact itself that he killed one or many persons, then I believe one is actually questioning his very right to end life at all. Then death itself would appear as a curse (be it "natural" or not, I might add); but this specifically stated to be a distortion of truth, a lie perpetrated by the Enemy".

Hence, the destruction of Numenor must be a Good act indeed, a Perfect act, which Eru freely chose to commit, otherwise Eru is not a Good, omnipotent, deity, but a victim of circumstance for whom the end justifies the means

But we do see a coherent manifestation of Eru's free will in this case; it was his own choice to guarantee free will to his creations ("operative within provided circumstances"), and therefore he "reacts" to others' actions, in accordance with the very rules he sets. The issue of omnipotence is not relevant here, since power is subject to will, and it was his will to endow Ainur and Eruhini with free will.

TH was never intended to be part of the Legendarium, & there was never any thought on Tolkien's part that it should (or could) be.

I wouldn't agree; there are differences in tone, but they are explainable

Originally Posted by Letter #131, ~ late 1951

The generally different tone and style of The Hobbit is due, in point of genesis, to it being taken by me as a matter from the great cycle susceptible of treatment as a 'fairy-story', for children.

Moreover:

Originally Posted by Letter #25, published in the Observer, 20.02.1938

My tale is not consciously based on any other book — save one, and that is unpublished: the 'Silmarillion', a history of the Elves, to which frequent allusion is made.

Originally Posted by Letter #124, 1950

...though shelved (until a year ago), the Silmarillion and all that has refused to be suppressed it has bubbled up, infiltrated, and probably spoiled everything (that even remotely approached 'Faery') which I have tried to write since. It was kept out of Farmer Giles with an effort, but stopped the continuation. Its shadow was deep on the later pans of The Hobbit.

one can't take into account what one doesn't know & one won't take into account what doesn't interest one.

True, but the mere popularity of a certain interpretation has no relevance in an informed discussion, especially when said interpretation is based on an incomplete knowledge of the intended whole work.

[obloquy]

I am not going to try to catch up right now, but I heartily disagree with davem's perspective. I mention this lest anyone confuse his argument with mine based on their mutual opposition to Raynor's.

Well fought, Raynor.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I believe I have already showed that even to human eyes, the destruction of Numenor was necessary and good, even for its inhabitants. And, as I said previously, "if one is to judge the fact itself that he killed one or many persons, then I believe one is actually questioning his very right to end life at all. Then death itself would appear as a curse (be it "natural" or not, I might add); but this specifically stated to be a distortion of truth, a lie perpetrated by the Enemy".

And this is a real problem - which Tolkien himself acknowledged - death does not feel like a 'gift' - & I'm not sure Tolkien believed that himself. In the BBC documentary Tolkien in Oxford he is shown reading a passage from Simone de Beauvoir:

'When it comes down to any large story, that interests people and holds their interest for any considerable length of time, they're all human stories and are only about one thing, aren't they? Death! (pauses for effect) the ineventability of death. There was a quotation from Simonne de Beauvoir in the paper the other day - about the death in 1939 of a musical composer whom I am very fond of; Carl Maria Weber. The biographer quoted this by Simonne Beauvoir; I'll read it if I may: "There is no such thing as a natural death. Nothing that happens to Man is natural, since his presence calls the whole world into question. All men must die; but for each man, his death is an accident, and and even if he knows it, an unjustifiable violation". Now, you may agree with those words or not: but they are the keyspring of The Lord of the Rings'.

Tolkien contradicts himself - Death, in the mythology is a 'gift'. Yet the 'keyspring to LotR' is that it is 'an accident', 'an unjustifiable violation'. I'd suggest in light of this that death at the hand of God is the least justifiable kind of death imaginable.

What you have to show is that the destruction of Numenor was a morally perfect act within the ethical code by which M-e is supposed to operate. One cannot argue, it seems to me, that every casualty of the destruction was deserving of death, & one undeserved death makes the destruction a morally imperfect act. And this is the whole problem for me. The Valar are not morally perfect. They made mistakes. Hence, if the Valar had been responsible for the destruction we would not expect a morally perfect act. When Eru acts we require it to be so - Eru as the putative source of the Moral Value System of M-e must act in accordance with it - but if he is doing so in this instance then this MVS is not one based in absolute good - not in the sense that we would understand it.

I wouldn't agree; there are differences in tone, but they are explainable

Yes, & he also stated:

“I don’t much approve of The Hobbit myself, preferring my own mythology (which is just touched on) with its consistent nomenclature – Elrond, Gondolin and Esgaroth have escaped out of it – and organized history, to this rabble of Eddaic-named dwarves out of Volüspá, newfangled hobbits and gollums (invented in an idle hour) and Anglo-Saxon runes.”

Tolkien clearly states here that he 'prefers his own mythology' to TH, & hence see TH as a thing apart. Of course, Tolkien seems to contradict himself in these statements, but I note that the earliest letter you quote :Letter #25, published in the Observer, 20.02.1938

My tale is not consciously based on any other book — save one, and that is unpublished: the 'Silmarillion', a history of the Elves, to which frequent allusion is made.

was written after he had been at the sequel for a good while, & had already decided that Gollum's ring was The Ring, & had belonged to 'the Dark Master'. Hence, following his usual practice, he was 'writing back' (in his own imagination at least) & beginning to link The New Hobbit (& by extention) TH itself with the Legendarium. It wasn't so in the beginning.

True, but the mere popularity of a certain interpretation has no relevance in an informed discussion, especially when said interpretation is based on an incomplete knowledge of the intended whole work.

This is not a question of 'relevance', but of perception & 'understandability'. Despite what Tolkien said LotR is, & has been since it was published, perfectly understandable by a general readership with no knowledge of Eru. A reading of TH & LotR (particularly the 1st ed text) leaves the reader open to infer something like Wyrd operating in M-e rather than Eru, a single, omnipotent loving deity. In fact Wyrd seems to me to fit much better with the 'northern' mood & spirit of the two books than the more 'Jaweh-an' figure of Eru (which I had a real struggle to incorporate into my mental M-e on my first reading of The Sil).

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien contradicts himself - Death, in the mythology is a 'gift'.

I don't see that; although I don't completely understand that passage, it seems to me that it refers to how the Men of M-E, tainted by the lies of the Enemy, perceive Death.

As far as Tolkien is concerned he stated that Death is not the Enemy, and that through the taste of it alone can "what you seek in your earthly relationships (love, faithfulness, joy) be maintained, or take on that complexion of reality, of eternal endurance, which every man's heart desires".

Originally Posted by Letter #208

But certainly Death is not an Enemy! I said, or meant to say, that the 'message' was the hideous peril of confusing true 'immortality' with limitless serial longevity. Freedom from Time, and clinging to Time. The confusion is the work of the Enemy, and one of the chief causes of human disaster.

When Eru acts we require it to be so - Eru as the putative source of the Moral Value System of M-e must act in accordance with it - but if he is doing so in this instance then this MVS is not one based in absolute good - not in the sense that we would understand it.

I already argued that the inhabitants of Numenor, who were not part of the Faithfuls, were corrupted by Sauron beyond healing within Arda, and that death for them was a gift. However, I can happily do even without that argument, as I don't see why such deaths should be justified anymore than any other death, regardless they way it occurs. As far as I know, any religion unequivocally depicts God as holding the right to deal death. The same happens here; why should one need to justify one or more deaths, if the very fact that 100% of all Men will have the same fate is accepted a priori? At most, I could see this case structured around how or when one would die, but any such criticism would require complete knowledge of that person's doom, merits or lack thereof, and what further compensations await after death, or in Arda Healed - and no such information is available to us.

Of course, Tolkien seems to contradict himself in these statements

I don't see it as a contradiction per se; there were simply two impulses at play, his desire to make a story for children and his fascination with the Silmarillion, which intertwined in the writing of TH.

This is not a question of 'relevance', but of perception & 'understandability'.

But this is exactly the point. I see nothing worthwhile in enumerating what various interpretations some readers would give (and the number / percentage of said readers is a complete mystery), especially if said readers don't have the author's last intended work, and if, in either case, they fail to notice Tolkien's implicit references to moral and religious truth.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

At most, I could see this case structured around how or when one would die, but any such criticism would require complete knowledge of that person's doom, merits or lack thereof, and what further compensations await after death, or in Arda Healed - and no such information is available to us.

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

But this is exactly the point. I see nothing worthwhile in enumerating what various interpretations some readers would give (and the number / percentage of said readers is a complete mystery), especially if said readers don't have the author's last intended work, and if, in either case, they fail to notice Tolkien's implicit references to moral and religious truth.

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

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

Any reading which does not contradict the text is valid.

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

[Boromir88]

Then you're arguing that there is no objective standard of right & wrong in M-e & we simply have to judge whatever Eru does as being right (& therefore 'Good') simply because he does it.~davem

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

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

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

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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

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

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

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