The New Shadow by JRR Tolkien: an aborted story of the Fourth Age

[baragund]

It seems to me The New Shadow can be seen as a close parallel to the Akallabeth. In both stories, you have a society supposedly freed from ills but, eventually, evil creeps back. In the Akallabeth, there was the convenient figure of Sauron / Annatar egging on the increasingly corrupt kings and the King's Men, but that downfall began long before Ar-Pharazon captured him. In The New Shadow, there is only the the evil side of human nature that generates the downfall.

I can see how it would be a depressing story to write, especially if there is no longer a supernatural "bad guy" to blame. But it could have had a heroic or hopeful ending where, like in the Akallabeth, there was a wholesome component of this new Gondorian society who survived or managed to back back the impending evil.

 

[Annaheru]

You may be satisfied with a perfect God who can't control his own creation, but I ain't!

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.
~I will agree that Shadow leads to man's inability to help himself, but within the mythos that's inevitable; else there would be no need for the Final Battle and New Music that JRR told us about.

baragund,
I recently wrote a college paper on Akallabeth, and I agree with you. In Ak. it is really easy to see the Apocalyptic cycle I mentioned earlier, it's also present in Sil, and LoTR is the following one. Shadow could have easily followed.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

...Eru prefered that his creations 'behave' out of love for him...

Eru needs love? What kind of omnipotent perfect god is needy?

Barley

 

[Annaheru]

he doesn't need it, but he may want it: as much for their good as his glory. I think 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]

... 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.

Sure I can argue and disagree with it. I am taking a look at Eru, who is God in a thin disguise. Both Eru, and God as described in Catholicism (and most versions of Christianity) are seen as anthropomorphic entities (how could they be otherwise) and therefore adrip with human qualities: anger, jealousy, but most egregious: when it comes to "evil," it is as if evil is an independent force or agency that has gotten out of control (the usual story is that one of the good guys turned rogue), that God let slip. I do not call that "perfection." That's all I'm saying.

(Of course then there must be the rationale: "Even evil is part of the Grand Purpose, although you can't understand why, and I ain't tellin'." And I don't buy it.)

Barley

 

[Narsil]

Well, I have read the fragment (at http://www.fountain.btinternet.co.uk/tolkien/.), and it leaves me quite chilled.

I would actually like to read The New Shadow. I'd read of it but had never actually read it.

I downloaded and saved this story and will read shortly. Thankyou for the link!

 

[Narsil]

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.

I think this pretty much sums up how I feel about the Sil vs LOTR. However I do feel that LOTR had a happier ending in that Middle Earth was pretty much intact in the end. In the Sil, victory was eventually attained but at great cost. Beleriand was destroyed and many of the Elves went back to Valinor. It wasn't until the Valar themselves destroyed Morgoth (and with it the known world) that victory was indeed attained. The Silmarils themselves were lost forever and the oath that was made by the sons of Feanor destroyed them as well. The quest for the Silmarils was a hopeless one and the Noldor were doomed from the beginning. It was only the courage of Earendil and the compassion of the Valar that saved them in the end.

In LOTR it was a similar theme but there was much more hope and victories along the way..the battle of Helm's deep, the Ent's attack on Isengard, the Battle of the Pelennor fields, Aragorn's victory over the Corsairs of Umbar. Things did look hopeless at many times but for some reason LOTR came across to me, at least, as being "less hopeless" than in The Silmarillion.

Then there is the Akallabeth, which outlines the downfall of Numenor. I wonder if The New Shadow is basically the counterpart to the Alkallabeth and takes place in the 4th Age just as the the events of Numenor took place in the 2nd Age? Both seem to be a story of "Paradise Lost".

I will read The New Shadow and comment on it soon.

 

[Snaga]

I stick to my opinion that it was better that no sequel was written. I believe it would have seemed a pale, uninteresting tale besides Lord of the Rings, aping its theme but on a lesser scale, with less grandeur and heroism. The Silmarillion is dark for it does show the 'long defeat' but it also shows the soaring pinnacles that the elves reached - the marvel of their strength, their subtlety of thought, and the heroism in spite of the hopelessness of their cause. Lord of the Rings works because we get that again, but glimpsed from the perspective of hobbits. This sequel would have been prosaic - a man's eye view of man's frailty. It could be made to work, but there would be a great cost. I think that it would have diminuished Lord of the Rings. Why? Because what is Lord of the Rings without the bitter-sweet feeling of a victory at great cost, of losing the magic of what once was, of the departure of the elves, and that the hobbits have disappeared... we know at the end that those days have gone, never to return. Where would that feeling be, if you were already reaching for the sequel? It would be gone, no matter how gloomy the next instalment was.

 

[Greenwood]

Snaga,

I have to say I agree with much of what you say. LOTR is an incredibly "hard act to follow". I believe it is going to be one of those books that lasts for centuries (assuming mankind allows the world to continue). How do you follow such a book without diminishing it? I would add another consideration to the possible reasons for Tolkien abandoning it. It took Tolkien fifteen years to write LOTR. By the time he was sketching The New Shadow, he was far from a young man. He may have just realized he didn't have the time and energy left to do it, or at least not to his own high standards.

 

[baragund]

The orc hit the nail on the head.




On a wayyyyyy different topic: Snaga, any orclings on the way yet?? Or I suppose they would be Uruk-hai, no?

 

[Narsil]

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.

Barley

Tolkien would probably agree. It sounds like a perfect argument for "Original Sin".

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.

I agree with this POV. While TNS started out rather dark and probably got darker, no doubt good would've triumphed. That's assuming Tolkien's philosophy in general hadn't changed since LOTR. It very well could've but we'll never really know for sure. It seems he felt it wouldn't make for a compelling story and would only be a shadow of his former great works. It probably didn't help that was nearing the end of his life. Had he started this 10 years earlier perhaps we would indeed have a sequel to LOTR.

If I were a teacher and had a classroom of students studying Tolkien I'd make TNS required reading and ask the students to finish this story, basing it on Tolkien's philosophy and works. It would be fascinating to see how it turned out.

While part of me agrees with what a lot of you are saying and understands the reasons behind Tolkien not pursuing this any further I think there was fertile ground for this story.

If The New Shadow had taken place 1000 years after the fall of the Dark Tower no doubt it would in many respects be "modernized" in that this story would probably take place in a time and place that would resemble our society much more than Middle Earth. There wouldn't be any real memory of what transpired in the War of the Ring. The Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits would considered myths at best. As Snaga pointed out, the magic would indeed gone and it would be a faint shadow of what was and thus hardly worth doing. Basically it would be a modern story without any of the mythic grandeur of LOTR, seen through the eyes of Men and peopled by Men. It wouldn't be much different from any other action-adventure-drama. Not worth doing IMO.

But I don't see that as being the case here. TNS takes place 100 years after the fall of the tower. This puts it into an entirely new perspective for me. For one, the King is Eldarion, son of Aragorn and Arwen. This would be no ordinary man! Surely he could hearken back to Earendil or Elrond, being of both Numenorean and Elvish blood. That makes for some compelling reading right there and a lot could be done with that. There would also be Faramir's and Eowyn's children and grandchildren to consider as well. I see a lot of potential in this story and would've loved to have seen it explored.

Also, 100 years later surely there would a renegade Elf or two who decided not to go into the West? Or perhaps the Dwarves could take on more importance? A descendent of Gimli? Maybe Merry, Pippin's or Sam's children could come into the story..Who knows? When it comes to the Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits it is hard to believe that everything dried up so soon after LOTR. In the entire history of ME, 100 years isn't that long. It seems logical that since LOTR took place about 60 years after The Hobbit a sequel for LOTR could easily come about 100 years later, despite the many changes that happened at the end of the 3rd Age.

As for the nature of the evil itself, that could be made interesting as well. There is talk of "satanic cults" but they needn't be based soley on the deeds of the Men of Gondor. The name Herumor was used to hint at the role of evil in TNS. This was the name a renegade Numenorean who became powerful in Harad during the 2nd Age. It would be interesting to see this explored. Sauron was Morgoth's disciple so perhaps this could indeed by a disciple of Sauron? It would also be interesting to read more about Harad and the other lands to the East and South. If ever evil was to rear it's ugly head, surely it would be the lands where Sauron's followers lived and might still harbor anger and resentment towards Gondor, despite Aragorn's pardoning them at the end of the war.

You could even have another version of Gandalf when you consider that there were two "Blue" Istari who originally went into the Eastern lands and weren't heard from again. I would imagine that they could be used now, especially if you are concentrating on an evil that takes it's roots in the eastern lands.

I suppose one could shrug it it off as a pale "redo" of LOTR but most sequels are like that in that they often repeat the general theme of the story that precedes them. I don't think that Tolkien himself could've topped LOTR, particularly at the point of his life when he wrote TNS. But I do think that it would've been possible to have had a compelling, interesting sequel that would've satified the curiousity of those who wanted to read more about Middle Earth in the 4th Age, particularly when you consider that people still line up bookstores for the latest addition of Harry Potter. Had Tolkien had felt the need to write it, I don't think it would've been as daunting nor as dark as one would think.

Unfortunately I don't think Tolkien was himself compelled to write it and died not too long afterwards so we'll never know. But I found it interesting reading and would've liked to have known what it was exactly that Borlas found in his house. I think it would've made for an interesting tale and wished it had come to fruition.

 

[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.

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

 

[Narsil]

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

Barley, I'm not a religious person by any means. In fact, if I were to guess I'd say we share similar views in that respect. My knowledge of religion is even less than my faith in it, and that's not saying much.

But 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.

If this is wrong then chalk it up to my not knowing what the heck I'm talking about. It's how I interpret it. Since Tolkien was a devout Catholic I can see him taking the view that men need to constantly be vigilant against evil because that is their innate tendency. Seems this is an important component in the Catholic faith.

As for me, I think some people are good and most will stay that way. However, some people are bad and nothing will change them. The jails are full of people who were supposed to be "rehabilitated". I don't think that evil people will become good..but good people are often tempted by evil, so perhaps that dovetails with the idea of Man's tendency towards evil unless he's vigilant against temptation.

Oh boy, is this thread not going in a good direction and I'm not helping it. I think I'm breaking some rule about not discussing religion here Could you please read my second post? The one about the actual topic? I'd rather discuss that because I find it a lot more interesting.

 

[Ithrynluin]

Narsil, that was a wonderful post there. You've got some interesting ideas that make up for an intriguing would-be sequel. How can we bribe you into writing it?

As for the issue of religion, it is indeed forbidden to discuss it 'on its own', but within the bounds of Tolkien's world, it is perfectly okay.

 

[Narsil]

Ithrynluin,

Thank you for the compliment. I'm easily bribed, it wouldn't take much. Just having the opportunity to add my perspective and input on something that Tolkien inspired and see it published would be quite a reward in itself.

It would be nice if Tolkien was still alive and thinking of writing TNS, saw my post and used those ideas. Now THAT would be priceless!

 

[Alcuin]

Tolkien wrote about this ("The New Shadow", which is published as it stands in Peoples of Middle-Earth) in Letter 256 to one Colin Bailey, dated 13 May 1964.

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.

There are similar comments in Letter 338 from June 1972.

Christopher Tolkien has extensive commentary on the story in Peoples of Middle-Earth, on its manuscripts (3 of them, apparently), on the two letters, and extensive footnotes.

 

[Alatar]

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT HE SMELLED!!!
Thanks for the link

 

[Ellatur]

whoa scary stuff...

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT HE SMELLED!!!

Taking your question seriously, I think it means that he sensed/intuited that kind of evil that was in the air in Mordor — that miasma of sheer living evil — he could just feel it.

My own private thought: I believe that Tolkien had a hunch that he just wasn't up to dealing with the ramifications of serious evil arising yet again, that he simply wasn't up to going "once more into the breach" — he was too old and tired. And, it would have taken away the power and meaning (that good can triumph over evil in a major way) from everything he'd written prior to that.

[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.

Then all we have is a specifically Christian concept: a doctrine, a dogma — not Divine Truth, but only a particular religion's assertion.

Barley

 

[Litsedal]

I hate unfinished work.....
Anyway I think that Tolkien should have finished it, evin if it wasn't going to be published until the History of Middle Earth series...It would be a little side-tale...
We were discussing this somewhere and came up with lots of plot outlines. Unfortunately the copyrights prevent 'sequels or continuation of the author's work without direct written permission'...grrr....