Was Eru a Sadist?

[Bombadil]

Was middle-earth just a chess board for Eru? Creating the white pieces and the black pieces(unintentionally, or intentionally perhaps) for various checkmates thorughout the region?

I'm not very familiar with how much Iluvatar had in terms of power after the creation of middle-earth, so correct me if Im wrong. This thinking came to me while re-reading appendix B as it stated:

It was afterwards said that they came out of the far west and were messengers sent to contest the power of sauron, and to unite all those who had the will to resist them; but they were forbidden to match his power with power..."

Now im not sure on the origin of the istari and if they were sent by Eru himself, or the reasons for not allowing them to match sauron's power, but it almost seemed to me like it would ruin the fun if Sauron was so easily matched.

Other things to note are his gift/curse to elves of immortality and his gift/curse to men of mortality. Was he teasing each race by showing the potential of both sides of life?

And finally, One could say that Eru represents Tolkien, because he created Arda - and we all know Tolkien loves to write tragically.

And with no further ado, im open this topic for discussion or people putting me in my place because Im utterly wrong about something!

[Child of the 7th Age]

I will respond only to the one issue that you raise, which is that of the istari and the limitations placed on them. This was not a matter of 'sadism'. Rather the istari were to teach and instruct Men so that the latter would be able to stand on their own feet and face whatever evil came at them.

Remember that the Fourth Age was to see the dominion of Men. What good would it have done if Gandalf and the others had come blazing in from the West and defeated Sauron with their own might? What would Men have learned? They would still be like children who are cared for by others.

It was only when things got very grim, after Gandalf fought the Balrog and was killed, that he was permitted to return with fewer restrictions placed on him. Even so, he was generally very careful to teach and persuade rather than directly confront.

[Bombadil]

Very good analogy of the Istari being like parents, thanks for clarifying!

[Bêthberry]

And finally, One could say that Eru represents Tolkien, because he created Arda - and we all know Tolkien loves to write tragically.

I see no necessary logical association between "writing tragically" and "being a sadist."

However, one of the largest quagmires in all reading is the assumption that authors usually write themselves the juiciest parts. Often the great beauty or persuasive power of an attractive character is enough to make us feel this must the author himself or herself. Such a response usually takes aesthetic power for biographical inspiration, wrongly.

Once, two major Victorian novelists met, William Makepeace Thackeray and Charlotte Bronte. She was a naive country Parson's daughter immersed in the sophisticated world of London literati for the first time. He introduced her to his dinner guests as "Jane Eyre." Unused to his games of attitudinising and play of wit, she became livid. Afterwards, a friend overheard them arguing in hi study. Thackeray, well over six feet tall, being lectured to by a small woman under five feet. Thackeray could not understand her objections to being identified with Jane; he asked if she would not associate him with Pendennis, the hero of one of his novels. She retorted no; she would call him---one of the minor characters. He was stung. She had hit home with more perspicuity than he had, with devastating effect.

Okay, what does this have to do with Tolkien? First, that our assumptions about how we go about identifying literary characters with their creators need to be very carefully reasoned. You barely consider the association between Tolkien and Eru except on this flimsiest of notions that both were creators. If you want to seek Tolkien in his work, look as Bronte did for Thackeray at his minor characters. Somewhere here on the Downs there is a thread suggesting Tolkien's close affinity with Faramir, I think it is. And even that is tentative and circumspect. Authors are far more likely to write facets of themselves into several different characters, or imbue a characters with their features amalgamated with features from several other people. They're a shifty lot, but not sadists. There's too much fun in their play.

[Bombadil]

haha i think that this thread is more of a "putting me in my place" one, and i thank you for your views on the suggestion.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Remember that the Fourth Age was to see the dominion of Men. What good would it have done if Gandalf and the others had come blazing in from the West and defeated Sauron with their own might? What would Men have learned? They would still be like children who are cared for by others.

This was precisely the point I made when my husband (the aptly named Witch-King) told me he held a grudge against Gandalf for not helping the hobbits scour the Shire at the end of the War of the Ring. Those four hobbits were more than ready for the challenges they met back at home! It is tempting to some to adopt the expressed opinion of Saruman, that mortals are Gandalf's playthings and he "drops them when their usefulness is at an end," (paraphrasing from memory here); but that is a dangerous view, and would lead to the idea that mortals are indeed but pawns in a larger game, toiling blindly without ever gaining any rewards for their labors. The higher power as sadist would then be a possibility within the minds that thought so.

Somewhere here on the Downs there is a thread suggesting Tolkien's close affinity with Faramir, I think it is. And even that is tentative and circumspect.

Tolkien wrote in one of his Letters (or it may be a footnote to a letter) in response to a question of which character is most like himself (I do not have the Letters to hand at the moment, so I can't be more specific, sorry!) that he saw himself most like Faramir, because of the more spiritual nature to Faramir's outlook. I don't remember what qualifiers he gave. Having read many of Tolkien's Letters, I can't imagine him identifying himself with Eru!

Cheers!
Lyta

[HerenIstarion]

Anyone wants to place a bet how many pages this thread can carry on? Mine gamble would be somewhat around 11 (when folks on canonicity thread get wind (as I see you already started to) of what's going on.

So, thanks to bombadil for posing such a provoking question!

In the interim, I would simply state: no, Eru was not a sadist (still more much was already said by previous participants)

And go on watching what happens next (and after that, and after what happens after that etc etc )

cheers

[davem]

Well, how much do we know about Eru's personality? (Does He have a 'personality' in teh sense in which we have a personality?)

We can't say He's a 'sadist' because we have too little evidence on which to base an analysis. He is too transcendent a figure. If we had the account of His incarnation in Middle Earth as foretold in the Athrabeth, & could see what He got up to - if he went around 'doing a Sauron', etc, then we could judge Him. Unfortunatley, we're limited to basing our judgement of Him on events which occur in Middle Earth, because we can't know his mind. Of course, one could make a case for him being uncaring - if he's so powerful, why doesn't He just make the bad stuff go away? We'd judge other supposedly 'good' characters in the story harshly if they stood by & allowed the innocent to suffer. Indeed, Tolkien seems to state very clearly (to this reader, at least, though maybe I'm just reading it into the text, & its not really there ), that there is a moral obligation to protect the innocent & if necessary, sacrifice oneself for the 'Good' & that there really is such a thing as 'Good' - deliberately capitalised, with all the implications of that acknowledged & accepted!

But as we can't see things from an 'Eruian' perspective, we don't know why He only intervenes occasionally, & in specific ways. Maybe Tolkien is trying to do a Milton, & justify the ways of God to Man, or maybe he's trying to keep the deus ex machina back for the really dramatic moments.

As Bethberry has said, we can't really equate Eru with Tolkien in a one-to-one way. Particularly if, in any way at all, he intended Eru to be a 'reflection' of God.

There is a question to be asked, perhaps, about what Tolkien's concept of God was. The God presented in Job, for example, is difficult to reconcile with 'Gentle Jesus, meek & mild'. I think Tolkien's God is the God of Job, & there we come to
another problem. As I stated in another thread, viewed literally, God in Job is playing a game with Satan, & Job is the playing piece. Littlemanpoet pointed me in another direction - seeing God's appearance to Job as an experience of Transcendence for Job, so that he is rising above his suffering, the suffering of humanity in general, & seeing it from a 'higher' perspective - If I'm not over simplifying his position - I'd advise you to read his later posts in the 'Nebulous It' thread for clarification.

Oh, please, not another long thread - Canonicity is taking over my life

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Thanks for your provocative thesis, Bombadil - that's often a good way to get an excellent discussion going. Here are my thoughts:

Eru was an artist, a musician first and foremost, not a sadist! The first few sentences of the Ainulindalë show us a Creator who:

1. Sought fellowship and relationship.

...he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the off-spring of his thought, and they were with him before aught else was made. And he spoke to them...

2. Wanted to create.

...propounding to them themes of music...

Ilúvatar... declared to them a mighty theme, unfolding to them things greater and more wonderful than he had yet revealed...

3. Wanted his creation to result in joy and glory.

...they sang before him, and he was glad.

...things greater and more wonderful than he had yet revealed; and the glory of its beginning and the splendour of its end amazed the Ainur...

4. Desired harmony.

Then Ilúvatar said to them: 'Of the theme that I have declared to you, I will now that ye make in harmony a Great Music.'

5. Encouraged others to exert their creativity and power.

And since I have kindled you with the Flame Imperishable, ye shall show forth your powers in adorning this theme, each with his own thoughts and devices...

It is all summed up in the last sentence of the third paragraph of the Ainulindalë (All of these quotes are from the first page):

'But I will sit and hearken, and be glad that through you great beauty has been wakened into song.'

A sadist is interested in exercising power over others, not letting them develop their own. He/she is destructive, not creative, and does not look for beauty to result from his/her actions. And he/she is most certainly not interested in harmony and real fellowship with others!

(I looked up 'sadism' on the M-W online dictionary; here is an excerpt:

...gratification is obtained by the infliction of physical or mental pain on others; delight in cruelty; excessive cruelty.

I can see no evidence of such gratification or delight in Eru as he is shown in the Ainulindalë.)

[edit: davem posted while I was writing this; as you can see, I do think we are given information about Eru's personality, in those very paragraphs I have quoted.]

[davem]

Well, those accounts weren't written, or even dictated by Eru Himself, so we're only getting opinions here

I still don't think we can get a clear enough sense of Eru's personality - & I'd still ask whether he has a 'personality' in the psychological sense, or an Ego or a superego, or an id - does He have a 'Self' in the Jungian sense?

In other words, can we use psychological terminology to 'psychoanalyse' Him? Can we diagnose Him as suffering from a human personality disorder? Even if we could interpret some acts in psychological terms, it being impossible to (taking the position of a creature within Middle Earth) concieve of the mind of Eru. And if we're analysing Eru as a character, we're really analysing Tolkien's concept of God, & psychoanalysing him - why would he come up with a God that behaved in a sadistic way (if we think He does).

[Olorin_TLA]

This all boils down to: "assuming there's a Supreme Being in this existence, are THEY a sadist?" because that's what Eru is.

So devout religiopus people would be likely to say no. , myself, would say yes. The reason why Tolkien would say no, and others, is that "God works in mysterious ways" etc, etc. Basically, if a mortal were to act like Eru, we'd hope Saruon ate them. But who can fathom Go, Tolkein might well say. And you'd be free to disagree.

[Lhunardawen]

Well, those accounts weren't written, or even dictated by Eru Himself, so we're only getting opinions here

The mere fact that Eru himself has said those words in the Ainulindalë leads us to what kind of being (more like deity, actually) he really is. I would not say he is being psychoanalyzed by interpreting his words, because don't we (rather subconciously) get to know more about a person when we hear him speak? Esty has actually given quotes that are quite straight to the point, thus there is no need for deep analysis.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

"Our Father in Heaven, Hallowed be thy na..."

ZAP!

"I AM YOUR MOTHER, YOU BLIND MORON!"

Yep, Eru/God/Budda/Allah is sadistic alright. He/She/It allows freedom of speech so that we mortals can murder each other at slight disagreements, all for His/Her/Its entertainment.

But let's get back to the question: Was Middle-Earth just a chess-board for Eru? You know, that allegory is actually leave room for another question: why isn't there any instances where Eru stepped in to pull out the source of his annoyance? We read the rebellion the Evil ones. We also read of the disobedience of the Children. But never we read of Eru lifting a finger against them, except in the case of Numenor. But in the case of Numenor, Manwe actually beaconed Eru to take control of the situation.

So are we not left with the image that the Valar are the actual players in the game of chess in Middle-Earth? Eru seemed to take more of a referee's place.

[HerenIstarion]

why isn't there any instances where Eru stepped in to pull out the source of his annoyance

If I were a parent, my will would be that my children behaved properly and tied up their room, but my will would also be that they were free. If I were to find the room in a mess, I would certainly have my will contradicted in one way, but carried along in another, since my children were free to mess it up. Furthermore it is question of my priorities, what is it I like best - tidy room or free children. (I would certainly prefer both at once, but if they refuse to clean up?...)

That's for it, and I would heartily remind participants it is not the place to vent one's spleen for the injustice (have you thought, by the way, whence such a concept as 'injustice' emerges?) of the universe, but the discussion board

thank you

[Lalaith]

As Olorin has already pointed out, the question of Eru's 'sadism' can be asked of any concept of an omniscient and morally perfect Creator who allows evil and sorrow to exist in his creation.
It is a problem and paradox that has tormented philosophers and theologians since time immemorial. Many pagan religions resolved the problem by conceiving of gods who were not all-powerful and had moral flaws. Aristotle meanwhile conceived of a 'first mover' that was perfect, pure thought, thinking only of itself, thus unconcerned with our doings.
Eru does seem to be conceived more in the line of the Christian and Muslim deities, who are held to have more active and moral involvement in their creation. However it is interesting that no-one in Middle Earth actually appears to worship Eru, ask him to intercede on their behalf or even to mention him. So perhaps Eru is more of an Aristotlean 'prime mover' than he first appears to be.

[davem]

I suppose it depends how 'worship' is defined - certainly there's nothing along the lines of Christian style worship - but there is worship of a kind in both Aman & Numenor. I don't think Eru can be thought of as a 'first mover', as He is clearly involved in the world - if mostly indirectly through the Valar, though He does intervene directly at certain points - as in the destruction of Numenor, &, less blatently, possibly in bringing about the destruction of the Ring.

One thing occurs as I write, & I don't know if it belongs here, or is worth starting a new thread for - in one of the notes to Osanwe Kenta its stated that all foresight comes from Eru - knowledge of the future can only be passed to beings within the world by Eru directly, as only to Him is full knowlege of the future accesible, so Eru must be the source of Frodo & Sam's visions in Galadriel's Mirror. But Galadriel says the Mirror is dangerous as a guide of deeds, because not everything it shows comes to pass. Yet, everything they see in the Mirror does come true, & this time at least, it is showing the truth.

Does this mean that Galadriel's Mirror is functioning differently when Frodo & Sam look into it - but if it is, would that mean their future is fixed from that point & Eru is showing them exactly what WILL happen?

But if the Mirror is only showing 'possible' futures, how come every one of the things they see comes about? If they are seeing the real, actual future, then its source can only be Eru.

So Eru is intervening directly to show them the future by means of Galadriel's mirror?

The implications of this seem quite significant - unless I'm completely wrong in my interpretation.

[HerenIstarion]

davem, you probably had the following in mind?:

Osanwe-kenta

Pengolodh here elaborates (though it is not necessary for his argument) this matter of "foresight". No mind, he asserts, knows what is not in it. All that it has experienced is in it, though in the case of the Incarnate, dependent upon the instruments of the hröa, some things may be "forgotten", not immediately available for recollection. But no part of the "future" is there, for the mind cannot see it or have seen it: that is, a mind placed in time. Such a mind can learn of the future only from another mind which has seen it. But that means only from Eru ultimately, or mediately from some mind that has seen in Eru some part of His purpose (such as the Ainur who are now the Valar in Eä). An Incarnate can thus only know anything of the future, by instruction derived from the Valar, or by a revelation coming direct from Eru. But any mind, whether of the Valar or of the Incarnate, may deduce by reason what will or may come to pass. This is not foresight, not though it may be clearer in terms and indeed even more accurate than glimpses of foresight. Not even if it is formed into visions seen in dream, which is a means whereby "foresight" also is frequently presented to the mind.

I can not make my own mind as of whether Galadriel was deducting or having foresight, though...

[Bêthberry]

I think you might be on to something, Lalaith in asking which 'model' of deity is suggested here.

We have Tolkien's statement that he tried "consciously so in the revision" to suggest a Christian ethos and symbolism for his Legendarium. However, in also harkening back to the old Norse mythologies, he would find a different concept of deity--or certainly different deities who behaved with wilful abandon, excess, selfishness and selfcentredness, in short, with all the shortsightedness and lack of self control which humans possess. Are the tendencies of deities in the old heroic epics to be found in the Legendarium?

One other point, although Estelyn's dictionary definition suggests elements in sadism, it is incomplete in that it omits the dynamic nature of the tendency. Usually there is a willing partner, the masochist, who allows or submits to the game willingly. Sadism is not, simply, imposed cruelty but a dynamic relationship.

But another way to look at the question:

Does Eru play upon the emotional weaknesses of the people of Middle-earth? Are they free to control their proclivities so that they cannot be blindsided by him? Or surprised by the consequences of their own failings? Usually, in mythologies, it is the the secondary agent who is used to test and challenge the characters, not the main deity.

In Chrisitanity, that secondary agent is Satan, who has been understood in many different ways over the last four thousand centuries. He was not always the "grand and malevolent" figure, the great antagonist which Milton characterised in Paradise Lost but merely someone, an angel, sent to block or obstruct human activity in such a way as to teach people something about their own weaknesses and foibles. (I am here relying upon Elaine Pagels' book The Origin of Satan.

To borrow Tolkien's metaphor from "On Fairy Stories", there is much simmering in the great Cauldron of Story.

[Legolas]

Forgive the long quotes, but this was something Tolkien obviously thought to be very important and made it central to the progression of Man's kingdoms.

However it is interesting that no-one in Middle Earth actually appears to worship Eru, ask him to intercede on their behalf or even to mention him.

It is not so - both Men and Elves worshipped him (and dwarves, possibly).

Númenór is not 'Middle-earth' exactly, but it was no less a part of Arda. The Men of Númenór acknowledged and praised Eru upon the Pillar of Heaven...

The Silmarillion(*)

But in the midst of the land was a mountain tall and steep, and it was named the Meneltarma, the Pillar of Heaven, and upon it was a high place that was hallowed to Eru Ilúvatar, and it was open and unroofed, and no other temple or fane was there in the land of the Númenóreans.

Letter No. 156

The Númenóreans thus began a great new good, and as monotheists; but like the Jews (only more so) with only one physical centre of 'worship': the summit of the mountain Meneltarma 'Pillar of Heaven' – literally, for they did not conceive of the sky as a divine residence – in the centre of Númenor; but it had no building and no temple, as all such things had evil associations.

And the Downfall of Númenór essentially starts in the days of Tar-Ciryatan and his son as the Númenóreans clash with Manwë in wanting to go to Valinor and such. This leads directly to perhaps the most important factor - the divide among the Númenóreans and the cessation of praise for Eru upon the Pillar of Heaven.

But those that lived turned the more eagerly to pleasure and revelry, desiring ever more goods and more riches; and after the days of Tar-Ancalimon the offering of the first fruits to Eru was neglected, and men went seldom any more to the Hallow upon the heights of Meneltarma in the midst of the land.*

The Eldar, too, acknowledged and praised Eru as their sole creator and God.

In The Lord of the Rings the conflict is not basically about 'freedom', though that is naturally involved. It is about God, and His sole right to divine honour. [b]The Eldar and the Númenóreans believed in The One, the true God, and held worship of any other person an abomination[b]. Sauron desired to be a God-King, and was held to be this by his servants; if he had been victorious he would have demanded divine honour from all rational creatures and absolute temporal power over the whole world. (183)

The Elves also had their fall (at least the Noldorin Exiles) in denying Eru praise, for they left it behind in Aman, holding contempt for those who stayed there, along with their practices:

The High Elves were exiles from the Blessed Realm of the Gods (after their own particular Elvish fall) and they had no 'religion' (or religious practices, rather) for those had been in the hands of the gods, praising and adoring Eru 'the One', Ilúvatar the Father of All on the Mt. of Aman. (156)

Dwarves would've praised Eru also, at least in their beginnings:

...for Aulë 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 Ilúvatar and his great love of the materials of which the world is made. (212)

This quote notes the progression of such worship to 'present' in the Middle-earth mindset. This letter goes into a discussion of Númenórean religion, but unfortunately, CT (or the other editor, Humphrey Carpenter) chose to cut the letter off after this statement.

We are in a time when the One God, Eru, is known to exist by the wise, but is not approachable save by or through the Valar, though He is still remembered in (unspoken) prayer by those of Númenórean descent. (297)

A further explanation comes of this progression later on:

Men have 'fallen' – any legends put in the form of supposed ancient history of this actual world of ours must accept that – but the peoples of the West, the good side are Re-formed. That is they are the descendants of Men that tried to repent and fled Westward from the domination of the Prime Dark Lord, and his false worship, and by contrast with the Elves renewed (and enlarged) their knowledge of the truth and the nature of the World. They thus escaped from 'religion' in a pagan sense, into a pure monotheist world, in which all things and beings and powers that might seem worshipful were not to be worshipped, not even the gods (the Valar), being only creatures of the One. And He was immensely remote. (156)

How did they fall? The treasures of the world won their attention, and the (envy of the) immortality/majesty of Valinor and the Elves won their hearts and mind. Even in the Faithful, those that did not push for war on Valinor, Elendil, his sons, and his men failed to reestablish worship of Eru, though they retained other Númenórean values:

the Faithful in Númenor, who had refused to take pan in the rebellion, [...] established a kind of diminished memory of Númenor in Exile on the coasts of Middle-earth – inheriting the hatred of Sauron, the friendship of the Elves, the knowledge of the True God, and (less happily) the yearning for longevity, and the habit of embalming and the building of splendid tombs – their only 'hallows': or almost so. But the 'hallow' of God and the Mountain had perished, and there was no real substitute. Also when the 'Kings' came to an end there was no equivalent to a 'priesthood': the two being identical in Númenórean ideas. So while God (Eru) was a datum of good Númenórean philosophy, and a prime fact in their conception of history. He had at the time of the War of the Ring no worship and no hallowed place. And that kind of negative truth was characteristic of the West, and all the area under Numenorean influence: the refusal to worship any 'creature', and above all no 'dark lord' or satanic demon, Sauron, or any other, was almost as far as they got. They had (I imagine) no petitionary prayers to God; but preserved the vestige of thanksgiving. [...] It later appears that there had been a 'hallow' on Mindolluin, only approachable by the King, where he had anciently offered thanks and praise on behalf of his people; but it had been forgotten. ... (156, continued below)

As Tolkien said often, the mixing of Man and Elf (in Dior and Earendil) served as part of the idea in Men eventually taking the Elves' place as rulers of the land ("The entering into Men of the Elven-strain is indeed represented as part of a Divine Plan for the ennoblement of the Human Race, from the beginning destined to replace the Elves") - this meant in terms of love for God too, which many could easily overlook. Aragorn would be the one to turn Gondor in the right direction again (as the Númenórean influence was excavated):

... It was re-entered by Aragorn, and there he found a sapling of the White Tree, and replanted it in the Court of the Fountain. It is to be presumed that with the reemergence of the lineal priest kings (of whom Lúthien the Blessed Elf-maiden was a foremother) the worship of God would be renewed, and His Name (or title) be again more often heard. But there would be no temple of the True God while Númenórean influence lasted. (156)

So why do we hear calls of Elbereth and petitions to the Valar (from Frodo, Gildor's party's song, Legolas, Sam, Damrod, etc.) instead of Eru? A note in paranethesis from the previously quoted letter explains...

Those under special Elvish influence might call on the angelic powers for help in immediate peril or fear of evil enemies. (footnote: The Elves often called on Varda-Elbereth, the Queen of the Blessed Realm, their especial friend, and so does Frodo.) (156)

The Elves still acknowledged the majesty and authority of the Valar; further, they recognized (were aware) that the Valar were in more of a position to help them - physically present in Arda - while the One is remote, subtle, and does not directly intervene often. It's just as one might call out to a guardian angel.

Olorin_TLA said

Basically, if a mortal were to act like Eru, we'd hope Saruon ate them.

This is not exactly the case; rather, it is presented in a misleading manner. If one were to act like Eru in terms of thinking they could create, dominate, etc., we would wish them to stop, but this is simply because a mortal *cannot* be Eru, nor if the mortal even had said power, could they exercise it in the gracious manner that Eru does. This is precisely why Morgoth and Sauron are hated, cause so much suffering, and ultimately fail.

Bethberry said

an angel, sent to block or obstruct human activity in such a way as to teach people something about their own weaknesses and foibles.

In 'sent to...', do you mean to imply that Satan was sent intentionally by God to do so?

As for the chessboard analogy, I do not think it works. If Middle-earth was a chessboard, there would be a number of different parties, but if you still reduced it to two sides - good and evil - each piece would be able to move itself. In that point of view, Eru is just as he is presented in the text - the Creator. He would've made the board and each piece, and place the restrictions on their movements (the parallel being the limitations of power); He would not be the one moving the pieces. Each piece has a will of its own.

[The Saucepan Man]

Anyone wants to place a bet how many pages this thread can carry on? Mine gamble would be somewhat around 11 (when folks on canonicity thread get wind (as I see you already started to) of what's going on.

Oh Eru, nooooooooooooooo!

It seems to me that, in responding to this question, we have three broad options:

• We can interpret Eru as God in our own world, which (as Lalaith notes in post # 15) raises age old questions to which there is and can be no definitive answer, such as why God allows suffering in the world.
  
  
• We can try to look at in it Tolkien’s terms and answer on the basis of our understanding of his concept of God (as davem suggested in post #8).
  
  
• Or we can discuss how we react as readers to Eru based on what we know about Him in the text (the key aspects of which are outlined by Estelyn in post #9).

Personally, I prefer the last option as Eru is a fictional character and should, to my mind, be discussed as such (although our reactions as readers will, I suppose, be influenced to a degree by our own personal beliefs). On basis of the quotes given by Estelyn and Legolas and the definition which Estelyn and Bêthberry give of “sadism”, I would conclude that Eru is most definately not a sadist. But, in giving His Children free will, He has to accept (as indeed he does) the consequences, ie that they have the potential to rebel and give rise to evil, the inevitable consequence of which is suffering on the part of individuals. To have it any other way would be to deny them free will, and what would be the point of that?

The question remains, however, why certain individuals are “selected” for suffering. Gandalf says, for example, that Bilbo was “meant” to find the Ring. The almost inevitable consequence of this is that he or (more likely) Frodo will be charged with the task of destroying it, if it is to be destroyed. This issue was, as davem indicates, explored in great depth in the Nebulous "It" and Absolutes thread. My own view is that, while Eru refrains from simply just stepping in whenever He wants (which would deny His Children their free will), He allows himself to do so when evil would otherwise prevail (or, to use H-I’s analogy, when the mess in the bedroom serves to undermine the structural order of the house ). But He never does so directly, but rather through His Children (such as Frodo), who still have a choice whether to go through with what He requires of them. Frodo could have turned back at any point, although that in itself raises an interesting question of what Eru would then have done to prevent Sauron’s total victory. Why Frodo? I think that it was because he was best suited to the task at hand. If he couldn’t have done it, then no one could have.

One further question arises in my mind, however. Are there such things as “natural” disasters in Arda (volcanoes, earthquakes and the like) or are all such phenomena the consequence of evil (in which case they will ultimately be the consequence of free will)? Such things cause suffering too, but if they are not the consequence of evil, then why does Eru allow them to exist within Arda? Did He give “nature” free will too?

[davem]

I don't know how relevant it is, but there is a poem by GB Smith, on of the TCBS, an elegy for Rob Gilson. Smith didn't long outlive Gilson:

As John Garth says the 'piece declares a stark view of divine providence: Gilson's death is 'a sacrifice of blood outpoured' to a God whose purposes are utterly inscrutable & who 'only canst be glorified / by man's own passion & the supreme pain'. (from Tolkien & the Great War)

Of course, we can't say that Tolkien saw God in this way, but he did share the views & values of his friends.

But does this description of God bear any relation to Eru? Are Eru's purposes 'utterly inscrutable'? Well, The Legendarium is not really clear on Eru's motives - why create anything at all - boredom? Because its His nature as a creator to create? All we are presented with is Eru the creator.

And is Eru a God who 'canst only be glorified by man's & (Elves'?) passion & supreme pain'?

In other words, is it all simply about the glorification of Eru? And if so, is that enough justification for all the suffering?

Perhaps what Smith is doing is attempting to find a reason for the horror of the Somme & his own grief. A gentle, loving God, is difficult to reconcile with the horrors his generation witnessed. Was he attempting to redefine God, rather than lose Him altogether?

Has Tolkien taken this idea of God over into Middle Earth?

Probably not so simple as that. Garth comments on Ainulindale:

'Elevated subject & style should not obscure the tale's pertinence to the terrible times Tolkien had known. It is nothing less than an attempt to justify God's creation of an imperfect world filled with suffering, grief & loss. The primal rebel Melko covets Illuvatar's creativity where the Satan of Milton's Paradise Lost coveted God's authority, a distinction reflecting Tolkien's aestheticist anti-industrialism & Milton's anti-monarchism. Melko enters the void to search for the Secret Fire, yet having failed to findd it he nevertheless introduces his own discordant music, brash but marked by 'unity & a system of its own'. But in this collaborative Genesis, he distorts Creation itself, as Illuvatar reveals: 'Through him has pain & misery been made in the clash of overwhelming musics; & with confusion of sound have cruelty, & ravening, & darkness, loathly mire & all putrescence of thought or thing, foul mists & violent flame, cold without mercy, been born, & death without hope.' These ills (universal, though strikingly evocative of the Somme) do not arise exclusively from Melko's repetitive music; rather , they spring from its clash with Illuvatar's themes.

In Tolkien's view, creative decadence & spiritual schism were inextricably linked. During the TCBS crisis of 1914, he had told Wiseman: 'It is the tragedy of modern life that no-one knows upon what the universe is built to the mind of the man next to himn on the tram: it is this that makes it so tiring, so distracting; that produces the bewilderment, lack of beauty & design; its ugliness; its atmosphere antagonistic to supreme excellence.' In 1917 he had again bemoaned the decay in 'beauty in all men's works & fabrications for more than two centuries', & located its cause & symptom in the 'clash of backgrounds' that had opened up since the Middle Ages.

'The Music of the Ainur' portrayed such schism on a universal scale, but moved beyond complaint to reach a consolatory view. Illuvatar insists that the cosmogonic discords will ultimately make 'the Theme more worth hearing, Life more worth the living, & gthe world so much more the wonderful & marvellous'. As if to shed some light on this rather bald assertion, he cites the beauty of ice & snow, produced from water (Ulmo's work) by intemperate cold (Melko's). So much for the natural wonders & marvels; but how do the discords improve the experience of life for the individual facing 'cold without mercy ... & death without hope'? This is left as a riddle for the ensuing stories of good & evil to unravel'.

I suppose that Tolkien is saying we can't judge the world from within it, that only an 'eternal' perspective can make sense of the world. For those who believe this world is all there is, then it will seem that evil, pain & suffering is the norm, & if there is a creator, & we judge Him only by events in this world, He will probably seem cruel & possibly sadistic, but if we make our judgement based on a transcendent view, then our judgement will inevitably be different.

Or to put it another way, when we put down LotR, or even the Sil, what impression are we left with? Is our overwhelming sense that of Eru's sadism? Isn't it rather our wonder at the beauty, heroism, sacrifice & love that we've seen enacted there?

Tolkien seems to be trying to tell us that that will be our impression when we (if we believe that sort of thing) look back on life here, 'from beyond the circles of the world'.

[Bêthberry]

Ulmo asked me the following:

Bethberry said
Quote:
an angel, sent to block or obstruct human activity in such a way as to teach people something about their own weaknesses and foibles.

In 'sent to...', do you mean to imply that Satan was sent intentionally by God to do so?

That is how Elaine Pagels describes the meaning of the word in the Hebrew Bible. Because this is a concept quite different from the usual one where Satan is a malevolent character who embodies transcendent forces, perhaps I should provide a full quotation from her book, The Origin of Satan:

In the Hebrew Bible, as in mainstream Judaism to this day, Satan never appears as Western Christendom has come to know him, as the leader of an 'evil empire', an army of hostile spirits who make war on God and humankind alike. As he first appears in the Hebrew Bible, Satan is not necessarily evil, much less opposed to God. On the contrary, he appears in the book of Numbers and in Job as one of God's obedient servants--a messenger or angel, a word that translates the Hebrew term for messenger (mal' ak) into Greek ( angelos). In Hebrew, the angels were often called "sons of God" (ben e' elohim), and were envisioned as the hierarchical ranks of a great army, or the staff of a royal court.

In biblical sources the Hebrew term satan describes an adversarial role. It is not the name of a particular character. Although Hebrew storytellers as early as the sixth century B.C.E. occasionally introduced a supernatural character whom they called the satan, what they meant was any one of the angels sent by God for the specific purpose of blocking or obstructing human activity. The root stn means "ones who opposes, obstructs, or acts as adversary." (The Greek term diabolos, later translated "devil," literally means, "one who throws something across ones path.")

Thesatan's presence in a story could help account for unexpected obstacles or reversals of fortune. Hebrew storytellers often attribute misfortunes to human sin. Some, however, also invoke this supernatural character, the satan, who, by God's own order or permission, blocks or opposes human plans and desires. But this messenger is not necessarily malevolent. God sends him, like the angle of Death, to perform a specific task, although one that human beings may not appreciate; as the literary scholar Neil Forsyth says of the satan, "If the path is bad, an obstruction is good." Thus the satan may simply have been sent by the Lord to protect a person from worse harm. The story of Balaam in the biblical book of Numbers, for example, tells of a man who decided to go where God had ordered him not to go. Balaam saddles his a** and set off, "but God's anger was kindled because he went; and the angle of the Lord took his stand in the road as his satan le-satan-lo that is, as his adversary, or is obstructor . . . . The book of Job, too, describes the satan as a supernatural messenger, a member of God's royal court. But while Balaam's satan protects him from harm, Job's satan takes a more adversarial role. Here the Lord himself admits that the satan incited him to act against Job.

Pagels examines other accounts , such as the one where the satan "is invoked to account for divisions within Israel. " In one such example, the satan takes a role in census-taking during King David's reign. In other accounts, the satan speaks for "a disaffected--and unsuccessful--party against another party." Ultimately, she argues, the satan came to be invoked by dissidents characterising their Jewish opponents and this led, she claims, into the depiction of Satan in the early Christian communities as God's rival and antagonist. Her book is a social history of how the concept of the satan changed over time until it came to be used so thoroughly to characterise the enemies of Christendom.

Sorry this post is so long and actually off topic but I did want to give Ulmo a complete reply. I have not been able to transcrible all the diacritical marks which Pagels uses for her Hebrew terms, nor identify the footnotes she makes.

[Guinevere]

Davem wrote

It is nothing less than an attempt to justify God's creation of an imperfect world filled with suffering, grief & loss

I suppose that Tolkien is saying we can't judge the world from within it, that only an 'eternal' perspective can make sense of the world. For those who believe this world is all there is, then it will seem that evil, pain & suffering is the norm, & if there is a creator, & we judge Him only by events in this world, He will probably seem cruel & possibly sadistic, but if we make our judgement based on a transcendent view, then our judgement will inevitably be different.

I agree very much!! I've always felt something like this, but am not able to find the words to express such things....

In the Ainulindale , Eru says

"...nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined."

And after the flight of the Noldor it is told

... Manwë wept and bowed his head. But at the last word of Fëanor : that at the least the Noldor should do deeds to live in song for ever, he raised his head, as one that hears a voice far off, and he said: "So shall it be! Dear-bought these songs shall be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Ea, and evil yet be good to have been." But Mandos said: "And yet remain evil. To me Fëanor shall come soon."

In the LotR, Haldir expresses a similar feeling:

"The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair, and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater."

It is somehow an attempt to explain the presence of evil and suffering...that they are even somehow necessary.

When reading LotR, I get a comforting feeling, that there is a merciful providence behind it all that will somehow turn things out for the best. There is a balance of sadness and joy. Good is usually rewarded and evil punished.

But when reading the Silmarillion which is much more tragic and sad, I often felt a bit like Bombadil who started this thread. Well, I didn't exactly assume that Eru was a sadist, but I kept asking myself constantly "why?" Why all this suffering and this injustice? (Well, actually, when looking around in the world or at history, I feel just the same!) Especially Húrin and Túrin's fate moved me (and reminded me somehow of Job, too!) and I wondered what made Tolkien write it this way, so differently from LotR ?

Eventually (after much pndering and reading Tolkien's letters) I've come to think just about that which Davem wrote and I quoted above.

Hope this made sense, I'm not good at expressing myself.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

A brief answer to one question you ask, davem:

...Eru's motives - why create anything at all - boredom?

As I quoted the 'Ainulindalë' in my above post, we can see Eru's desire for fellowship as one reason for creating - that resulted in the Ainur and their cooperation in creating with him. The other desire that motivated creation was the desire for beauty - a reason that also motivates many of us who create works of art, whether great or small.


Another brief comment on one of your early posts:

...those accounts weren't written, or even dictated by Eru Himself, so we're only getting opinions here

I really doesn't matter who wrote or dictated the accounts; the evidence of a person's personality traits shows in his/her actions. From Eru's deeds we can deduce some facts about him, though admittedly not all. This corresponds with the Biblical statement that God can be recognized in his creation.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made. (Romans 1, 20)

This way of characterization reminds me of the discussions we've had on Tolkien's way of writing, giving his characters 'psychological depth' by showing what they do, not necessarily what they think.

[Bêthberry]

davem, you always write eloquently and movingly about your own experience of transcendence and this gives your posts great power. I would, though, like to ask you to consider something.

For those who believe this world is all there is, then it will seem that evil, pain & suffering is the norm,

I know that, for you, only the experience of transcendence gives hope beyond the travails of this world. This is a fundamental reality for you. And this is true for many others as well. However, how can you generalise this to everyone? Does it always follow for all people who believe "this world is all there is" that they will necessarily believe "evil, pain & suffering is the norm"? I am not questioning your own experience but I wonder if it can be generalised to everyone. I know people for whom this does not follow and I would not like to see their experience disavowed. Can you really speak for them?

[symestreem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

One further question arises in my mind, however. Are there such things as “natural” disasters in Arda (volcanoes, earthquakes and the like) or are all such phenomena the consequence of evil (in which case they will ultimately be the consequence of free will)? Such things cause suffering too, but if they are not the consequence of evil, then why does Eru allow them to exist within Arda? Did He give “nature” free will too?

Such things cause suffering, but they can also cause good. I question the effect that the inhabitants of Middle-earth could have had on nature, except for their actions causing the Valar to intervene with the weather (see Windy and Cold and The Symbolic Significance of Weather). But if the chaos theory works in Middle-earth, then something as simple as the flight of an arrow can trigger a hurricane. If the arrow was being fired for 'good purposes', would the Valar intervene and stop the hurricane? What if the archer knew what would happen and fired it anyway, because the need for the arrow was greater than the possible suffering of the hurricane? He'd be justified, but would he be responsible for the loss of life in the hurricane? I suppose it's a good thing we can't see along the future branches and see the consequences of our actions, because then we'd all be too scared to move!
Would the Valar, allow something as massive as the weather to be controlled by chance, or would they control it themselves? If they control it themselves, as they seem to do at least part of the time, then we can assume that many weather occurrences actually are for the better. Are there any instances of this in the books?

[davem]

Bethberry Wow!

I was looking at the world through 'Tolkien-coloured' glasses there (though I admit leaning towards that view myself).

As Garth said re Ainulindale:'It is nothing less than an attempt to justify God's creation of an imperfect world filled with suffering, grief & loss.'

This is an imperfect world, & it is filled with suffering, grief & loss - & that's simply the fact for most of humanity, & always has been. But then, if you're a believer, how do you account for God not putting it all right? You require an explanation - at least one that will work for you.

When you say : I know people for whom this does not follow and I would not like to see their experience disavowed. Can you really speak for them?:

I think that's another issue - aren't you talking there about their individual experience of life - their lives, mine, yours, may be happy, untroubled & comfortable, but Tolkien is not attempting to deal with individual happy lives, but with the experience of humanity on this planet through history. Not the relationship of you or I with God, but Humanity's relationship with God down through the ages. My life may be perfectly happy, I may go through from cradle to grave with not a single unpleasant experience, but that does not 'explain away' the inquisition, the Somme, the Holocaust, Hiroshima, 9/11. Or the famines, earthquakes, tidal waves. Or cancer, AIDS, babies born addicted to crack. All of it.

Tolkien is attempting to account for the suffering of humanity, not of individual humans. That's what mythology attempts - to explain our relationship with deity, & why the universe is the way it is.

Of course, there has always been good as well as evil in life - but its the evil we have the problem with, that we feel the need to account for - maybe we have some deep sense that the good doesn't need explaining, because that's how it should be.

[Lhunardawen]

I've just watched the movie "Troy" based on Homer's The Iliad, and Greek mythology entered my mind. The Greek gods and godesses are probably the perfect examples of sadistic deities. They just stand by and look down, watching people kill themselves, or sometimes joining in the fun (the way Hera, Helena, and Aphrodite indirectly caused the Trojan War as they fought over the golden apple in Paris' hands). Eru is absolutely not like that.

[Bombadil]

For those not familiar with what Lhunardawen is talking about, actually reading the Iliad is your best bet. The movie seldom talks about the Gods which are so prevalent in the poem.

But yes, great point. In that particular mythology the Gods are (with do doubt in my mind) if not sadistic, very wrathful.

Perhaps it would be safer to continue this thread by comparing (and contrasting) the Gods of other Mythology, such as Greek, to Iluvatar. Maybe finding certain qualities of Eru that wouldn't classify him as a sadist, but rather ones that remain mere qualities.

[HerenIstarion]

I doubt it is correct to compare Eru with gods of Greek mythology. Those latter bear more likeliness to Valar than Eru Himself, who's proper peers in our world should rather be Holy Trinity, Jehovah and Allah, i.e., Gods of explicitly monotheistic religions with equally explicit strong personalities (so, IMO, Buddhism should be excluded)

[mark12_30]

Free Will was a big risk, but having once made the commitment, there it is.

If I were to pick a "sadist" I'd pick Melkor.

[The Saucepan Man]

Free Will was a big risk, but having once made the commitment, there it is.

Yes, but then again what option did Eru have if he wanted to create Children that were worth creating? As a father, I would rather have children capable of independent thought than mere automatons, even if it means that sometimes (well, often actually ) they do things that I don't like.

[Evisse the Blue]

As Saucepan man suggested, I’ll stick with judging Eru from what we can gather from the books.
Re: Galadriel’s mirror: The remarks about the mirror always intrigued me, reminding me of the modern horoscope predictions. Watch this: the mirror shows: ‘things that were, things that are, things that yet may be’, ‘what they desire to see, as well as things unbidden’, ‘some never come to be’. This pretty much covers all there is, doesn’t it? Anything is possible! It’s as if Eru wants to play upon their creatures’ need and desire for knowing the future by offering them…absolutely nothing at all, that is, even more uncertainty. Unless of course you’re Galadriel, and have the gift of interpreting correctly what you see.
But given Frodo and Sam’s situation, they do see the future, and the future looks bleak. And herein comes Eru’s greatness: by his grace, they are not shown the outcome of their success (Aragorn coronation, everyone singing in their praise, etc), but the worst of what is to come. The matter of choice is clearly laid before them: This is what will happen. ‘Would you still do the right things even if you are reinforced for doing the wrong thing?’ (sorry for the psych terms). So, consequently, they are both tempted to turn back: Frodo sees the personification of his terror, an image that will come back to haunt him again and again, and he momentarily wavers; Sam sees the scouring of the Shire and immediately wants to go home. I am reminded here of Bethberry’s mention that ‘Satan’, as it were, is sometimes a ‘messenger’ of God. But in the end it all proves for the best. In choosing to go on, Frodo and Sam harden their wills against the worst instead of foolishly hoping for the best (hope here used as ‘looking up’ not the higher ‘Estel - trust’).

Re: Clash and Schism causing both discord and marvellous beauty – Now here is an idea that I like…it it esthetically pleasing to my mind, but one can argue against it.
Also one can argue the idea of evil and suffering as necessary. With the risk of straying a bit from Tolkien, I’m reminded of Ivan’ ‘profession of unfaith’ – so to speak (in Dostoievsky’s Brother’s Karamazov): At the very end, when God’s majesty and wisdom is revealed, and the lamb shall sit with the lion and the victim shall embrace his assasin, therefore all sufferance will be found to have a higher meaning, Ivan will understand, but not forgive, and he will still hate God. Because all the benediction that is to come –still a promise of benediction and transcendance – will not be enough to pay for the tears of a single suffering child.
Yeah, there are those of us who will believe that…and as someone said, it’s a matter of opinion.

OT: WARNING SPOILERS: As for Troy - eh...how can you learn anything of the gods and men as gods' puppets from that movie?? The movie does not even show the gods, the beauty contest which is the true reason for the Trojan War is inexistent, and...in a nutshell it's just a war from the history of Ancient Greece. All the magic is gone. Yeah, read the book, rather.

[HerenIstarion]

I was brought here by series of cross-links in my own posts and thought I may as well bring it back up. After all, I gambled at the thread to last for eleven pages, and it barely reached the end of its first. Let's give it a fresh start, than...

[Child of the 7th Age]

Heren -

Thanks for resurrecting this thread. It's a good one!

Back to something Saucepan Man said...

The question remains, however, why certain individuals are “selected” for suffering. Gandalf says, for example, that Bilbo was “meant” to find the Ring. The almost inevitable consequence of this is that he or (more likely) Frodo will be charged with the task of destroying it, if it is to be destroyed....My own view is that, while Eru refrains from simply just stepping in whenever He wants (which would deny His Children their free will), He allows himself to do so when evil would otherwise prevail (or, to use H-I’s analogy, when the mess in the bedroom serves to undermine the structural order of the house ). But He never does so directly, but rather through His Children (such as Frodo), who still have a choice whether to go through with what He requires of them. Frodo could have turned back at any point, although that in itself raises an interesting question of what Eru would then have done to prevent Sauron’s total victory. Why Frodo? I think that it was because he was best suited to the task at hand. If he couldn’t have done it, then no one could have.

I concur with this. In LotR Gandalf implies that Frodo was "meant" to have the Ring and uses words that suggest the choice was made by Eru or by someone else "beyond". But I do have one question that centers on Weathertop and Frodo, and touches on the topic of this thread. Exactly how much risk does the person assume when he/she agrees to go along with Eru's given task?

At Weathertop, Frodo was injured by a wraith and, merely because of that simple physical act, he almost became a wraith himself. Maybe it is unfair to raise "if" questions, but this thought has nagged at my mind a long time. What if Frodo had actually turned into a wraith? Unlike the other wraiths, he had not given in to the lure of the Ring. He had not been 'spiritually defeated' if you want to use such words, but had merely been unfortunate enought to suffer a physical injury. How would Frodo have deserved the horrible fate of turning into a wraith? This seems like supreme injustice!

Admittedly, this didn't happen in the story, yet Tolkien depicts a world where it could have happened, and part of me finds that unsettling. It's one thing to agree to take on the task of Ringbearer and, as a result of that choice, you eventually die or your spirit is so broken that you have to leave for healing. At least in those situations, you haven't forfeited your entire being. There is still the possibility of "redemption" even if only after death. (What happens beyond the circles of the world is anyone's guess since Tolkien does not tell us, but the possibility of renewal has not been ruled out.) It's another thing, however, to be transformed into an inherently evil shadow creature where there is no hope of redemption, and all this merely because you said 'yes' and then suffered a physical injury.

There are a couple of possibilities here...

Perhaps Frodo's fate really did hang in the balance and it was simply a matter of luck and/or the Elvish skill in healing that determined whether or not he suffered the fate of becoming a wraith. If he pulled through that was fine, if not he was a "casualty" of war. In that case, those who take on the role of Eru's instruments because they believe it is the right thing to do are actually naked and unguarded to the evil in the universe. They may lose not only their life or their peace of mind but their very 'soul' through no action or failing of their own. That sounds terrifying to me.

If we look at it from the perspective of certain aspects of "Christian" theology in regards to original sin, we could say that Frodo "deserved" anything he got because he was inherently evil by birth. We do know from Morgoth's Ring that Men of Middle-earth had an ancient story that told of their "fall" and estrangement from Eru, one they were not willing to share with other races. But to transport Chrisitian theology wholesale into Middle-earth and simply say Frodo 'deserved' to be a wraith, because of original sin doesn't seem in keeping with the tale Tolkien was spinning or even the way hobbits are depicted.

There is another alternative. Perhaps, behind the scenes Eru really was keeping an eye on things, not just in this matter, but in other situations as well. Perhaps Frodo's "luck" in recovery is no more an accident than other instances of chance in LotR. The problem is that unless Tolkien explicitly drops hints by using the pregnant passive or intimates that providence is at work in the story or his Letters, the reader simply isn't sure. There are an awful lot of times in LotR when the forces of good enjoy amazing luck. The pieces almost seem to fall in place as if someone was doing something behind the scenes. Is that Eru at work, or merely the vagaries of true chance? If it is Eru, the charges of sadism or even aloofness would not apply.

My guess is that it's awfully hard to make any judgement on Eru because we know so little. We know Eru is distant, so distant that we can only guess at what he is doing or feeling. A lot of our problem lies in the fact that, as readers, our own perspective is so dang limited. (Gosh, this sounds a lot like 'real life'!)

Finally, I don't think you can have any discussion of Eru's role in Middle-earth in regard to suffering unless you consider the essays in Morgoth's Ring that Tolkien wrote near the end of his life, specifically the discussion between Andreth and Finrod. What was going on here? The tone of these essays and what Tolkien was suggesting were so very different than everything that had gone before. If Eru already was considering a plan to "step into" the world of Man, you have a very different Eru than that depicted in the rest of the Legendarium. Was Tolkien having the same kind of second thoughts that led Bombadil to post this question and us to become engaged in the discussion? Was he uncomfortable with the distant Eru he had depicted in most of the Legendarium? Or was this just the natural personal expression of a man coming closer to the end of his life? Was Tolkien doing what I often admittedly do....transferring his personal concerns and feelings into the story itself?

[Lyta_Underhill]

What if Frodo had actually turned into a wraith? Unlike the other wraiths, he had not given in to the lure of the Ring. He had not been 'spiritually defeated' if you want to use such words, but had merely been unfortunate enought to suffer a physical injury. How would Frodo have deserved the horrible fate of turning into a wraith? This seems like supreme injustice!

An interesting turn of thought, Child, which points up my interpretation of Frodo's position at the Ford, when he was at his weakest and beset by the Ringwraiths, who sang to him, "To Mordor we will take you..." I always understood them to be impotent to actually carry out this "wraithification" of Frodo if Frodo did not, in the end, agree to it. As long as Frodo fought against it, he would not become a wraith. He might die, but he would not become enslaved to Sauron as the Nazgul are. In my view, this evil fate would have to be given's Frodo's stamp of approval, albeit under pressing circumstances, in order to claim him.

As for the possibility of death or a damaged spirit, I think as long as the purpose is pure and all actions directed by a good impulse, rather than an evil one, such as revenge or bloodthirstyness, pride, etc. , then the life was worth living. After all, Frodo must eventually die anyway, whether he did anything of note in his life or not. I cannot speak to the specifics of the corruption of Man by Morgoth in the Athrabeth, having my thoughts muddied with respect to that work in recent times (although I have H-I to thank for my even having read it at all!) Suffice it to say that it sounds like a note of bitterness seeped slowly into the soul of Men and thus Morgoth's poison enters in by the back door...it does seem that Tolkien externalized some aspects of Men that were not so in earlier times. Not clear on this yet, though.

Writing this rather on the run, so hopefully the thoughts above are coherent. If not, feel free to make fun of them, or better, correct them!

Cheers!
Lyta

[davem]

I suppose it depends what we understand by 'becoming a wraith'. I can't help but recall the Witch King's threat to Eowyn:

Come not between the Nazgul and his prey!Or he will not slay thee in thy turn.He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye.

or Gorbag's words to Shagrat:

Those Nazgul give me the creeps. And they skin the body off you as soon as look at you, & leave you all cold in the dark on the other side.

It makes me wonder about Gandalf being able to see a 'hint of transparency' about Frodo, & also about Frodo's words to Sam in Gorgoroth:

" I am naked in the dark, Sam, and there is no veil between me and the wheel of fire. I begin to see it with my waking eyes, and all else fails."

[Saurreg]

I can think of several reasons why Eru inflicted suffering among the population of Middle-Earth.

1. He was a sadist. He derived self gratification by inflicting pain and making the sufferers acknowledge his supremacy without question. A case of absolutie devotion and obedience, or else...

2. Evolution. Survival of the fittest. Eru did what he had to to weed out the weak and ensure that only the most adaptable inherited Middle-earth. A good investment for the future.

3. Preparation for the great beyond. This applies to men. Eru never stated that his final gift for them beyond Arda was going to be a bed of roses. The trials and tribulations could have been a form of training or selection process to prepare men for the afterlife.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Saurreg

I can think of several reasons why Eru inflicted suffering among the population of Middle-Earth.

1. He was a sadist. He derived self gratification by inflicting pain and making the sufferers acknowledge his supremacy without question. A case of absolutie devotion and obedience, or else...

2. Evolution. Survival of the fittest. Eru did what he had to to weed out the weak and ensure that only the most adaptable inherited Middle-earth. A good investment for the future.

3. Preparation for the great beyond. This applies to men. Eru never stated that his final gift for them beyond Arda was going to be a bed of roses. The trials and tribulations could have been a form of training or selection process to prepare men for the afterlife.

I can think of a fourth:

4. A means of allowing those in Arda to earn their eternal reward, their place in the afterlife.

This seems rather more likely to me. After all, Tolkien was Catholic, and his work is fundamentally Catholic, as he said himself. Eru is God, the same God Tolkien worshipped at Mass, the same God who according to Catholic theology places crosses in our lives for us to bear, so as to earn His graces and a place with Him in Heaven.

[Saurreg]

Good call Formendacil.

I think any theological reasoning behind the motives of the Christian/Islamic/Jewish God can be applied to the discussion at hand seeing that the two entities are so similar.

I think the reason is because our comprehension on omnipotence is so limited that whenever we are called forth to define it, we can only refer to existing and generally approved examples or sources and reiterate. The same must have occurred to Tolkien and he created Eru and was tasked to define this being. Being a devout catholic it would have much easier for him to draw parallels between his God and his creation either intentionally or not.

Consider this:

1. Both entities were supreme creators that existed before all else and will most probably continue forever

2. Both subjected its people to trials of hardship for various reasons

3. Both operated in mysterious ways that required not the understanding of their people but absolute devotion and trust.

There would be more similarities, but the above three would be the most apparant.