Control his creations? So you prefer Aule's robot dwarves? They could only do what their master told them to do- Eru prefered that his creations 'behave' out of love for him, and when they tried to thwart him, they eventually discover that all they did was prove him right.You may be satisfied with a perfect God who can't control his own creation, but I ain't!
Annaheru said:... the ultimate point to keep in mind is that when Tolkien wrote he incorporated his beliefs as to what is real. Tolkien believed in an omnipotent, perfect God, and created his mythical god accordingly: the nature of Eru, therefore, cannot be a matter of debate or interpretation. Within the mythos he is what he is, regardless of how illogical it may seem to us.
My arguments concerning Eru are based in Tolkien's own Christian heritage. JRR's understanding and beliefs about who God is define Eru. No one has to agree with them in real life, but in a world Tolkien made his word is law.
Barliman Butterbur said:Well, I have read the fragment (at http://www.fountain.btinternet.co.uk/tolkien/.), and it leaves me quite chilled.
Ithrynluin said:So what's the big denouement of the LOTR that is not present in the Sil? What is so endlessly depressing about the Sil that could not also be claimed about the LOTR?
The Sil ends with the demise of Melkor.
The LOTR ends with the downfall of Sauron.
So, both stories end with the ruin of a great supernatural evil. (Actually, if we're gonna nit pick about it, the Sil ends with the overthrow of Melkor, a being supremely greater than Sauron, and therefore the victory of good over Morgoth should be infinitely greater and more joyful than that over Sauron, eh?)
TLOTR is the Sil on a several times lesser scale. The enemy is lesser, but so are his opponents diminished from their primeval strength in the Elder Days. Therefore, I think it is fairly safe to assume that the bloodshed and battles will also be lesser quantity-wise, with less casualties (naturally) than in the wars of Beleriand. Yet, TLOTR contains much the same elements present in the Sil - deceit, betrayal, lust, folly, willful and unyielding behaviour, contempt,...etc. In contrast, both of these works contain a matching or superior number of antonyms for each of these 'evil' emotions, and finally, good always prevails, and the villains (at least the more intelligent ones) are aware of that in one way or another but fail or decline to change the error of their ways.
One of the few really big differences between the LOTR and the Sil is the style these books are written in. The former is much more detailed and more easily understood, while the latter is quite condensed and written using such language as to conjure up an ancient aura of ages long past and the very beginnings of the world/universe. Now you may like or dislike either of these for your own reasons, but there is no sense in claiming one is surpassingly more depressing than the other.
Barliman Butterbur said:
Annaheru said:As to TNS, I really don't see how we can say it points to 'doom and gloom'- JRR never finished it. In both the Sil and LoTR we pass from the high to the low and then see a partial restoration, a revival (if you will), that will ultimately descend another level until we reach the Final Battle and the New Song. TNS continues this theme. We know that Tolkien became more interested in the language (Quenya) in his later years, returning to his original purpose in creating ME. If he had really felt the need to finish this story good would have triumphed. In reference to LoTR he said "foresight had failed", and he abandoned the tale for a time. In TNS he looked at the darkness and stopped. What if the manuscript for LoTR had stopped at the beginning of bk3? Gandalf dead, Boromir dead, Merry and Pippin taken. Or at the end of bk4? That would offer a horizon every bit as dark as TNS.
Barliman Butterbur said:
Barliman Butterbur said:Originally Posted by Barliman Butterbur
I myself came to this conclusion long ago: that evil is a weed inherent in Man that pops up under any condition, and good is a Man-created garden that needs constant tending.
Narsil: Tolkien would probably agree. It sounds like a perfect argument for "Original Sin".
Tolkien might have indeed. But what is "sin," and what is "original sin?" If you say that original sin is the tendency for man to get desperate and to steal when he's desperately hungry, even murder, then I suppose you could call that "original sin." Others call it taking desperate survival measures. But men are usually peaceful when they have all they need. I think I'd like you to give me your definitions of "sin" and "original sin," and then perhaps we can take that further.
Barley
There are similar comments in Letter 338 from June 1972.I did begin a story placed about 100 years after the Downfall [of Mordor], but it proved both sinister and depressing. Since we are dealing with Men it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good. So that the people of Gondor in times of peace, justice and prosperity, would become discontented and restless – while the dynasts descended from Aragorn would become just kings and governors – like Denethor or worse. I found that even so early there was an outcrop of revolutionary plots, about a centre of secret Satanistic religion; while Gondorian boys were playing at being Orcs and going round doing damage. I could have written a 'thriller' about the plot and its discoverY and overthrow- but it would be just that. Not worth doing.
Alatar said:I WANT TO KNOW WHAT HE SMELLED!!!
Narsil said:[Discussing the concept of "sin"]...I'm going by the traditional Christian view of man being born in sin as a result of the Garden of Eden "incident". As a result it's Man's tendency to act "sinful" and tend towards evil unless he makes a concerted effort to embrace a higher power and act in a way that will "cleanse" him of his sins. This is what my more religious friends tell me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?