Thread: Feanor

I'd like to know what everyone's opinion of Feanor is. He's one of my favourite characters (if not my favourite) but he never seems to get much love among other fans.

Admittedly he could have handled himself more.. diplomatically..

So what does anyone think? Does his force of will and determination make up for his greediness and recklessness?

Well, without him, there wouldn't have been a a lot of wars happening and all would have remained peacefully and quiet, thus the story would have been pretty boring. I do appreciate his work, the silmarilli and think he was a great elf. He was strong in will and determination as you mentioned, until Morgoth barged in and ruined his life. Would you not do the same if the most beautiful and powerful jewels in the world, the most amazing things you could and everybody else ever craft were stolen from you? And your father being murdered the same day. What else could he do other than having revenge. You wouldn't expect him to just sit and do nothing. Maybe he wasn't that greedy, but I'm sure he was a bit reckless. I don't think he should have killed his own kind which made him look pretty bad.

I much rather prefer Fingolfin as one of my favorite characters, who in my opinion seems to be the greatest elf and king of all ages. Who else to challenge Morgoth in a fight and wound him for eternity?

I remember back when I read the silmarillion, Feanor was my prototype hero he had everything to be the greatest elf, but as I grew up I understood feanor lacked "teamwork" which is nearly the first thing to have when you go to war with the most powerful valar. In other words if Feanor would of had little more teamwork just bit, he would have been even better than fingolfin.

My personal favorite was Thingol not sure why, I like he married Melian a Maia so that alone is a feat of his own, its like marrying an angel woman and you been a superman (elf).

Originally Posted by Al.

I remember back when I read the silmarillion, Feanor was my prototype hero he had everything to be the greatest elf, but as I grew up I understood feanor lacked "teamwork" which is nearly the first thing to have when you go to war with the most powerful valar. In other words if Feanor would of had little more teamwork just bit, he would have been even better than fingolfin.

My personal favorite was Thingol not sure why, I like he married Melian a Maia so that alone is a feat of his own, its like marrying an angel woman and you been a superman (elf).

For me, Thingol comes next after Fingolfin.

I strongly dislike Feanor. In my view he was very much akin to Morgoth. Both were endowed with tremendous innate power and skill, and each felt that as a result he was justified in doing whatever he pleased without consideration of the rights or well-being of others.

The preference of Fingolfin is expected and very much understood. He was far more noble and kingly, much more what you would expect of a high king of the Noldor. Feanor was in some ways bound to Morgoth though, and certainly was corrupted by him, even indirectly. The creation of the Silmarils (and even the potential to create them) would always have made him a target of Morgoth's. He fell easily to the 'temptation' of his own works and to Morgoth's attacks against him, but things very much developed in a way that could easily be twisted to seem "against him".

He had enough spirit and force of will to move in an almost oblivious state though, his single mindedness opposed both Morgoth and the other Valar. Admittedly he may not have set this will to the best target. His story makes for quite a good tragedy though, the most skilful and promising child of the Elves eventually fell to his own greed.

Thranduil always was a personal favourite of mine as well. I liked his character when I read the hobbit for the first time (with no idea really who/what he was in the great scheme of things, or even that there was a great scheme of things). His distrust of Dwarves carried over from Dolriath always strikes me as a commitment to holding a grudge for as long as possible.

Finrod Felagund. Wisdom, foresight, loyalty, open-mindedness, self-sacrifice. He was also a badass who slew a werewolf with this bare hands while chained in a pit. Not to mention what passes for a good wizard in Tolkien's legendarium.

And then there is this:

[Sauron] chanted a song of wizardry,
Of piercing, opening, of treachery,
Revealing, uncovering, betraying.
Then sudden Felagund there swaying
sang in answer a song of staying,
Resisting, battling against power,
Of secrets kept, strength like a tower,
And trust unbroken, freedom, escape;
Of changing and of shifting shape,
Of snares eluded, broken traps,
The prison opening, the chain that snaps,
Backwards and forwards swayed their song.
Reeling and foundering, as ever more strong
The chanting swelled, Felagund fought,
And all the magic and might he brought,
Of Elvenesse into his words.
Softly in the gloom they heard the birds
Singing afar in Nargothond,
The sighing of the sea beyond,
Beyond the western world, on sand,
On sand of pearls in Elvenland.
Then the gloom gathered; darkness growing
In Valinor, the red blood flowing
Beside the sea, where the Noldor slew
The Foamriders, and stealing drew
Their white ships with their white sails
From lamplit havens. The wind wails,
The wolf howls. The ravens flee.
The ice mutters in the mouths of the sea.
The captives sad in Angband mourn,
Thunder rumbles, the fires burn-
And Finrod fell before the throne.

Thank you for reminding him to me. A powerful poem for a powerful elf.

I kind of agree with the OP, Feanor is one of my favorite figures too.. (In fact my muti-box team consisting of 4 elf hunters, a elf tank and an elf mini, kinship's name is the Sons of Feanor - I was surprised that the name was available and that it was allowed)

There is a lot of parallel between Feanor and Melko in my mind - both were empowered with skill and gifts beyond their peers - and both fell to the desire to do it their way - which seems to be a path to evil in Tolkien's philosophy.

But i dont think he was truly evil - he just had a problem with authority - lol

And of course struggled with the concept of "you have free will, but everything you do is preordained"

It seems to be a precautionary tale - that even the greatest can fall. And here are the signs of someone who is falling...

And to not love the works of your hands too much - a re-occurring theme.

It is interesting that Melko and Aule both had these same desires to create something of their own - but one is considered evil and the other is not - but of course that is because of how they handled being busted by Eru - one in jealousy, shame and anger - the other in humility and supplication.

Which is why Feanor fell and his brothers did not.

True he was responsible for a great many sorrows - but with out him many wondrous things would not exsist or come to pass either and i am reminded of how Illuvatar said to Melko: (paraphrased) you have free will but if you try to stray from the path I have laid out before you you will find that through your own desires my greatest works will be revealed and you will find that you have been acting in accordance to my plan all along.

Thats enough to tick anyone of right there - so, in a way i can commiserate with Feanor and view his tale as tragic - but a necessary role - that has caused a great deal of evil - but also ushered in some of the greatest plans of The One.

D

I have unusual opinions on Feanor and the Valar (excluding Melkor):

I am fine with Feanor. Though he led to the death of most of his people, and led his Sons to a mental torment, I guess it's only human... er, Elf to risk big over things as valuable as the Silmarilli. (BTW, Maedhros and Maglor are the only two of his sons I liked).

However, I find myself to be very annoyed with the Valar. I get it, the Kinslaying and the Oath were both terrible deeds, and the Noldor wilfully went to exile. But that doesn't mean most of you sit your butt in the Blessed Realm and just watch the immense suffering and pain in Middle-Earth. When you finally got to your senses and sent help, Beleriand was already ravaged and most of its inhabitants dead.
Great job, Valar. I bet Illuvatar will give you a gold star for your exceptional protection of His Children.

The actions (or inactions) of the Valar in the tales are very difficult to justify, in my opinion. At the risk of extending the issue to places we want to take it, in my opinion this is essentially the same problem we face in real life in reconciling the concept of a benevolent deity with the many horrors of real world life (e.g., war, tsunamis, random crime). JRRT was a devout Catholic and had a very strong faith in a Supreme Being as understood by Catholics. It is my belief that this background influenced his treatment of the role of the Valar - even though JRRT went out of his way in his ancillary writings (i.e. the Letters) to say that his works were not Christian allegories.

JRRT had two fundamental problems to address. First, as a pure storytelling matter, how do you handle the potential intervention of demi-gods? If the Valar were more proactive, it would make for a much less interesting story. The Valar were able to defeat Morgoth on multiple occasions. If they had chosen to intervene more directly, the Silmarillion story would be very different, and LotR simply would not exist as we know it.

Secondly, even though JRRT was, intentionally, not creating a Christian allegory, he also acknowledged in his letters that his faith shaped his writings. His creativity was coming from a world view in which a benevolent God exists, and yet so does human misery. It is my opinion that the passive role of the Valar (which I personally find very difficult to justify) is an expression of a viewpoint that can be reduced (to the point of gross oversimplification) into two component beliefs: (i) free will is paramount, and (ii) God works in strange and mysterious ways.

When viewed through that lens, I believe the actions of the Valar become more palatable. Otherwise, however, I really cannot justify them.

Originally Posted by Vilnas

The actions (or inactions) of the Valar in the tales are very difficult to justify, in my opinion. At the risk of extending the issue to places we want to take it, in my opinion this is essentially the same problem we face in real life in reconciling the concept of a benevolent deity with the many horrors of real world life (e.g., war, tsunamis, random crime). JRRT was a devout Catholic and had a very strong faith in a Supreme Being as understood by Catholics. It is my belief that this background influenced his treatment of the role of the Valar - even though JRRT went out of his way in his ancillary writings (i.e. the Letters) to say that his works were not Christian allegories.

JRRT had two fundamental problems to address. First, as a pure storytelling matter, how do you handle the potential intervention of demi-gods? If the Valar were more proactive, it would make for a much less interesting story. The Valar were able to defeat Morgoth on multiple occasions. If they had chosen to intervene more directly, the Silmarillion story would be very different, and LotR simply would not exist as we know it.

Secondly, even though JRRT was, intentionally, not creating a Christian allegory, he also acknowledged in his letters that his faith shaped his writings. His creativity was coming from a world view in which a benevolent God exists, and yet so does human misery. It is my opinion that the passive role of the Valar (which I personally find very difficult to justify) is an expression of a viewpoint that can be reduced (to the point of gross oversimplification) into two component beliefs: (i) free will is paramount, and (ii) God works in strange and mysterious ways.

When viewed through that lens, I believe the actions of the Valar become more palatable. Otherwise, however, I really cannot justify them.

Well said, +rep

I agree, the story would've been boring if the Valar joined ranks with the Noldor and defeated Morgoth. But even though the Valar's (mostly) inaction made the story interesting, I still want to criticize them

I guess it's like in the real world, where people argue about whether God is benevolent, helping us in "mysterious ways", or is actually malevolent, doing nothing about the suffering on Earth. Being atheist, I'm not too familiar with both arguments. But I can see how Tolkien showed how the argument began with people like Feanor and Turin Turambar, who believed that the Valar forsook them and Eru did not know of their anguish.

Originally Posted by Vilnas

The actions (or inactions) of the Valar in the tales are very difficult to justify, in my opinion. At the risk of extending the issue to places we want to take it, in my opinion this is essentially the same problem we face in real life in reconciling the concept of a benevolent deity with the many horrors of real world life (e.g., war, tsunamis, random crime). JRRT was a devout Catholic and had a very strong faith in a Supreme Being as understood by Catholics. It is my belief that this background influenced his treatment of the role of the Valar - even though JRRT went out of his way in his ancillary writings (i.e. the Letters) to say that his works were not Christian allegories.

JRRT had two fundamental problems to address. First, as a pure storytelling matter, how do you handle the potential intervention of demi-gods? If the Valar were more proactive, it would make for a much less interesting story. The Valar were able to defeat Morgoth on multiple occasions. If they had chosen to intervene more directly, the Silmarillion story would be very different, and LotR simply would not exist as we know it.

Secondly, even though JRRT was, intentionally, not creating a Christian allegory, he also acknowledged in his letters that his faith shaped his writings. His creativity was coming from a world view in which a benevolent God exists, and yet so does human misery. It is my opinion that the passive role of the Valar (which I personally find very difficult to justify) is an expression of a viewpoint that can be reduced (to the point of gross oversimplification) into two component beliefs: (i) free will is paramount, and (ii) God works in strange and mysterious ways.

When viewed through that lens, I believe the actions of the Valar become more palatable. Otherwise, however, I really cannot justify them.

Very good point(s). Tolkien said on many occasions he wasn't a fan of allegoric novels, be it Christian or otherwise. He even criticised C.S. Lewis for making his Narnia stories far too overtly Christian, and to be fair to Tolkien, I agree, the Narnia books, to me at least, are lessened as stories as they bend in awkward ways to fit religious messages in.

One minor justification for the Valar's (in)action I content myself with is that they are not angelic, holy and righteous in the sense that the Christian (Jewish) God is. While Eru may be considered a direct parallel to God (although I prefer to align Tolkien's deities with the Ancient Greek Gods and Titans, which was probably not JRRT's intention, however I feel the story much better fits that style of "god") the Valar seem to me much more "human" than their equivalent Arch Angels. Again, much more like their Greek equivalents.

In the way that Morgoth acts to his own ends and via his own means (admittedly he equates to Lucifer, or Hades... :P, and so gets special dispensation for acting "out of order") so too, I think, do the other Valar. While the others seek to further the "good" in the world, and more generally oppose Morgoth and protect the Children of Eru, they are not compelled to help in the same way the Christian Angels and God are. They also seem incapable of intervening on any large scale without massive and catastrophic consequence, which would certainly make them think twice about it.

Originally Posted by Curandhras

They also seem incapable of intervening on any large scale without massive and catastrophic consequence, which would certainly make them think twice about it.

I suspect that this was pretty much key. Sure they'd defeated Morgoth before, but ended up ruining most of the planet because of it. Sure they managed to fix thing, but this second round would be in a world with a lot more sentient life. Replacing some bunnies or squirrels here and there is no big deal.

But replacing all those humans, elves, dwarves and what not?
Yeah, definitely going to make you think twice about intervening directly.
It's like carpet bombing with cluster bombs, that's going to lead to an awful lot of collateral damage.

Originally Posted by Sornantica

I suspect that this was pretty much key. Sure they'd defeated Morgoth before, but ended up ruining most of the planet because of it. Sure they managed to fix thing, but this second round would be in a world with a lot more sentient life. Replacing some bunnies or squirrels here and there is no big deal.

But replacing all those humans, elves, dwarves and what not?
Yeah, definitely going to make you think twice about intervening directly.
It's like carpet bombing with cluster bombs, that's going to lead to an awful lot of collateral damage.

The Valar did not need to directly intervene: In the days of Dagor Nirnaeth Arnoediad, all they needed was to send hosts of, say, the Vanyar and the remaining Noldor in Aman. They could have also sent Eönwë and a few of their champions of battle to confront the Balrogs and the Drakes under Glaurung.

The Winged Dragons had not yet come into existence, and, other than Glaurung, the Dragons were weaker than they were in the days of the War of Wrath. Nirnaeth Arnoediad would've never come to be, instead, it would've been the second Dagor Aglareb. In fact, this time, the second Siege of Angband could've been successful, now that none would want to repeat the mistakes of the earlier Siege.

So in my opinion, the Valar should have intervened, though indirectly.
If not for Ulmo, Turin would've actually been right when he said the Valar forsook the peoples of Middle-Earth.

But replacing all those humans, elves, dwarves and what not?
Yeah, definitely going to make you think twice about intervening directly.
It's like carpet bombing with cluster bombs, that's going to lead to an awful lot of collateral damage.[/QUOTE]

But the Valar know what happens to elves and dwarves when they"die", they're not concerned, neither should you be.

Originally Posted by Morthaur

But replacing all those humans, elves, dwarves and what not?
Yeah, definitely going to make you think twice about intervening directly.
It's like carpet bombing with cluster bombs, that's going to lead to an awful lot of collateral damage.

But the Valar know what happens to elves and dwarves when they"die", they're not concerned, neither should you be.

There's still the small matter of folks keeling over before its their appointed time, and how this could mess up the plans of the Big Guy upstairs.

Plus it's not as if the Big Guy is going to be very happen with them, willfully killing off his brats, either.

And then there's the small matter that the Valar are aware that there's going to be One Big Final Battle eventually, after which the Two Trees will be restored once more. So they may not have wished to waste their resources on something that would've been won anyway. Cold hearted? Maybe, but rather practical.

Originally Posted by Sornantica

And then there's the small matter that the Valar are aware that there's going to be One Big Final Battle eventually, after which the Two Trees will be restored once more. So they may not have wished to waste their resources on something that would've been won anyway. Cold hearted? Maybe, but rather practical.

The Valar were not cold hearted, other than Melkor. Mandos was never moved to pity by anyone (except once by Luthien), yet he was with all the other Valar when it came to preserving the Children of Illuvatar. What I believe is that the Valar made a mistake, or were just not that smart when it came to not wiping out most of the Noldor

Originally Posted by Haunt123

The Valar were not cold hearted, other than Melkor. Mandos was never moved to pity by anyone (except once by Luthien), yet he was with all the other Valar when it came to preserving the Children of Illuvatar. What I believe is that the Valar made a mistake, or were just not that smart when it came to not wiping out most of the Noldor

Maybe not cold hearted per se, but very "efficient" or "calculating" if you will. Like Spock from Star Trek, kinda. Maybe not quite in touch with emotions of men, or perhaps understanding that the 'greater good' is more important than feelings.

Originally Posted by Vilnas

Secondly, even though JRRT was, intentionally, not creating a Christian allegory, he also acknowledged in his letters that his faith shaped his writings. His creativity was coming from a world view in which a benevolent God exists, and yet so does human misery. It is my opinion that the passive role of the Valar (which I personally find very difficult to justify) is an expression of a viewpoint that can be reduced (to the point of gross oversimplification) into two component beliefs: (i) free will is paramount, and (ii) God works in strange and mysterious ways.

If you're going to grossly oversimplify Tolkien's theological worldview that much, you'd best not mention it at all. Gross oversimplification is really no different from error.

First, it must be acknowledged that Tolkien's worldview is not simply "Christian" but "Catholic". You can't understand him unless you understand that. The Catholic worldview is extremely different from most other sects of Christianity. Second, "God works in strange and mysterious ways" is much more a Protestant viewpoint than a Catholic one. Catholic theology says that we can study God and learn about him through our faculty of reason and that he wants us to do this. (In fact, the "Problem of Evil" has been solved by Catholic theologians and philosophers for centuries, it is other Christians who cannot answer it.) Third, I do not know what you mean by "free will is paramount" in this context or how that has anything to do with the Valar. The Valar did not give the Children of Eru Free Will, Eru did. Lastly, you need to really understand that the Valar are NOT an analogue for the Christian God. Eru is. They are not really like the Christian God at all. Specifically, they are not omniscient or omnipotent, not by a long shot.

In fact, in the beginning the Valar seem set on defying Eru's gift of Free Will to the Elves. They go to war with Melkor to keep him away from the Elves. They want to bring the Elves to Valinor and protect them from every bad thing. It should be noted that this goes disastrously, leading directly to the first kinslaying and all the trevail of the Noldor to come. Tolkien suggests in parts of HOME that the Valar never should have done this. That Eru did not approve. So essentially we have a body of truly powerful beings who are still quite fallible who do try to do something about the "Problem of Evil". They try to save the Elves from all the evil of the world by bringing them to the Blessed Realm instead of leaving them in the place where Eru awakened them and it did nothing but lead to horror and death and destruction.

Is it then any wonder that they were reluctant to act again? Especially since if they act to stop the war of the Elves against Morgoth their intervention will lead to more death and destruction. Beleriand sank because it was a war between Powers and the world couldn't really handle it. And the Valar would have to be participants in a war where thousands of Eru's Children (on both sides, if you count Morgoth's corrupted servants, and I think you should) would die. None of their previous actions were like that. It is a very grave thing for a Power to get involved in. They are subject to Eru just as the Children are, after all. They can't just do whatever they like. That sort of thing leads to becoming Morgoth.

Originally Posted by Fionnuala

Is it then any wonder that they were reluctant to act again? Especially since if they act to stop the war of the Elves against Morgoth their intervention will lead to more death and destruction. Beleriand sank because it was a war between Powers and the world couldn't really handle it. And the Valar would have to be participants in a war where thousands of Eru's Children (on both sides, if you count Morgoth's corrupted servants, and I think you should) would die. None of their previous actions were like that. It is a very grave thing for a Power to get involved in. They are subject to Eru just as the Children are, after all. They can't just do whatever they like. That sort of thing leads to becoming Morgoth.

Good post, +rep'd.

I agree fully with everything you've said here, including the Catholic allegory (or lack of) although I don't want a sectarian religious argument to break out, they never end well...

As I've said in a previous post, the Valar work much better if you imagine them as equivalent to the Greek Olympian gods (Zeus, Hades etc). Not only do they have similar roles (Water "god", nature "god") etc but are represented similarly from a theological viewpoint. They are not perfect like the Abrahamic God, nor are they bound or assumed to do good at all times.

Eru doesn't fit quite so well into the Greek structure, but can be thought of as all the Titans (or even the primordial Gods) combined into one being.

The difficulty in drawing proper comparisons between Tolkien's mythology and any real ones is that they are different things. Tolkien has created his own "religion" and associated "bible" and to try and ram that into any real world scripture is to diminish it, I feel. Quite frankly I think Tolkien's creation story holds just as much water as any of those presented in real life, so we shouldn't try and bend and twist his writings to fit into something that we maybe find easier to understand, I don't think.

Originally Posted by Fionnuala

If you're going to grossly oversimplify Tolkien's theological worldview that much, you'd best not mention it at all. Gross oversimplification is really no different from error.

Hrm. I am not sure of the best way to respond. I have followed your posts for four years and greatly respect your opinions. That said, I had a point I wanted to raise for consideration by the group and did not have time to prepare a lengthy dissertation. I do not regret or apologize for my post. I did make it clear that I was both oversimplifying and presenting my own opinions regarding the influences on Tolkien’s writings. In fact, time issues aside, part of my reason for presenting my point in the way I did was in hopes of avoiding a detailed religious discussion on the internet. Those generally do not end well, although I imagine that this particular sub-forum could handle one.

Originally Posted by Fionnuala

First, it must be acknowledged that Tolkien's worldview is not simply "Christian" but "Catholic". You can't understand him unless you understand that. The Catholic worldview is extremely different from most other sects of Christianity. Second, "God works in strange and mysterious ways" is much more a Protestant viewpoint than a Catholic one.

Although I have an interest in religion and am reasonably well educated with respect to multiple faiths, I freely admit that I lack a complete understanding of both Catholicism and Protestantism and the distinctions between them. I do apologize if I have mistakenly mischaracterized Tolkien’s beliefs. However, I stand by my intended point there, which my oversimplification may have muddled. I will come back to what I meant at the end of my post.

Originally Posted by Fionnuala

Third, I do not know what you mean by "free will is paramount" in this context or how that has anything to do with the Valar. The Valar did not give the Children of Eru Free Will, Eru did. Lastly, you need to really understand that the Valar are NOT an analogue for the Christian God. Eru is. They are not really like the Christian God at all. Specifically, they are not omniscient or omnipotent, not by a long shot.

I absolutely agree with you. Eru created all. He alone had the power to endow living creatures with free will. The story of the creation of the Dwarves makes that explicit. The Valar are merely Eru’s regents in Arda. They endeavor to bring about the fulfillment of the Music, even though none of them understands or remembers it in its entirety, just as they do not (cannot) fully comprehend the will of Eru. In a very real sense, they are much more akin to the Children than they are to Eru. In my opinion, the Valar generally see themselves as stewards of the world – Gandalf’s statement to Denethor on the same subject writ even larger.

Originally Posted by Fionnuala

In fact, in the beginning the Valar seem set on defying Eru's gift of Free Will to the Elves. They go to war with Melkor to keep him away from the Elves. They want to bring the Elves to Valinor and protect them from every bad thing. It should be noted that this goes disastrously, leading directly to the first kinslaying and all the trevail of the Noldor to come. Tolkien suggests in parts of HOME that the Valar never should have done this. That Eru did not approve. So essentially we have a body of truly powerful beings who are still quite fallible who do try to do something about the "Problem of Evil". They try to save the Elves from all the evil of the world by bringing them to the Blessed Realm instead of leaving them in the place where Eru awakened them and it did nothing but lead to horror and death and destruction.

Yes, I am familiar with all of this. That was in fact my very point in bringing up free will, and I believe that we are largely in agreement here. I was attempting to explain the inaction of the Valar on the basis of their desire to respect the free will of the Children of Illuvatar. Even in the "canon" work of the Silmarillion (as compared to HOME or the Letters) it is suggested that things did not end well whenever the Valar attempted to influence the Elves to suit the Valar’s pleasure (aside from concerns over the Elves’ safety, the other reason the Valar wanted the Elves to come to Valinor was that the Valar wanted to teach them and enjoy their company).

Originally Posted by Fionnuala

Is it then any wonder that they were reluctant to act again? Especially since if they act to stop the war of the Elves against Morgoth their intervention will lead to more death and destruction. Beleriand sank because it was a war between Powers and the world couldn't really handle it. And the Valar would have to be participants in a war where thousands of Eru's Children (on both sides, if you count Morgoth's corrupted servants, and I think you should) would die. None of their previous actions were like that. It is a very grave thing for a Power to get involved in. They are subject to Eru just as the Children are, after all. They can't just do whatever they like. That sort of thing leads to becoming Morgoth.

I did not get into the Valar’s concerns regarding the destructive force of the conflict. However, I certainly agree that it was a core reason for their delay in acting against Morgoth, together with the issue of free will. Nevertheless, although those are the best in-story explanations I can provide for the inaction of the Valar, I still do not find them satisfying or compelling. In the end, the Valar do go to war against Morgoth for the benefit of the Children (just as they did when the Elves first awakened, also after a long delay that was explicitly stated to be due to a concern about the destructive power that would be unleashed). Beleriand is destroyed as a result of the War of Wrath. But this war had always been inevitable, unless Morgoth was to be allowed to dominate Middle-earth and all Eru’s Children within it. Why did the Valar delay the entire First Age of the World? Why did they allow the Children to suffer Morgoth’s depredations for so long? Why did they delay until Earendil came bearing the Silmaril to plead for mercy on behalf of the Children? I believe the delay was primarily due to considerations of "free will" rather than concerns over the destruction that would result from the conflict.

However, for me personally, this also remains a difficult proposition. The concept of "free will" as something vouchsafed by a deity (or safeguarded by his regents) becomes highly problematic when individuals with greater power thwart the effective exercise of free will by those with lesser power. How much "free will" does a child that is butchered by soldiers really have? And yet that outcome is itself the product of the exercise of free will by those soldiers and their ultimate commanders. The "problem" with free will is that by guarantying it to all, the invariable result (outside of a utopia) is that the actions of some individuals end up denying effective free will to others. At the risk of another gross oversimplification, this is why communities develop the concepts of crime and punishment. I particularly like one characterization of this in a book called "Perdido Street Station" by the British author China Mieville. He describes a humanoid bird race called the garuda, in whose culture there is only one crime. It translates to "choice theft." All of the various crimes proscribed in the human society could be understood through this one paradigm, because in each instance the victim is deprived of some form of choice (e.g., the choice of what to do with money that has been stolen).

In a fantasy setting where demi-gods walk the earth, the problem of choice theft is exacerbated by orders of magnitude. Morgoth’s power is so great that he can literally tear down mountains. He can mentally dominate lesser beings. The story of the children of Hurin poignantly demonstrates how Morgoth, the self-styled "master of the fates of Arda," could twist the lives of those who managed to find the strength will to defy him.

The Valar clearly understood this. The Herald of Manwe declaimed to Feanor: "Vala he is, thou saist. Then thou hast sworn in vain, for none of the Valar canst thou overcome now or ever within the halls of Eä, not though Eru whom thou namest had made thee thrice greater than thou art."

Thus, the Valar recognized that the struggle of the Children (all of them) against Morgoth was doomed, that they had absolutely no hope of successfully resisting one of the Valar.

AND THE VALAR LEFT THEM TO IT ANYWAY.

This is what I find inexplicable and unforgivable. Even if we say that the Noldor exiles had brought abandonment upon themselves because of the Kinslaying, what of the Moriquendi? What of Men, as yet unawakened? What of the Dwarves, Ents, and all other living beings? The Valar were supposed to be the regents of Eru within Arda. Yet they failed miserably in protecting the Children of Arda from the mightiest being in creation (save Eru himself), a rogue tyrant who desired to dominate and rule all other living creatures. For the entire First Age the Valar completely abdicated their obligation to bring the criminal Morgoth to justice. I agree that the Silmarillion presents this delay by the Valar as being in part due to fear of the destruction that would be caused by the conflict. But I say again, in the end it came to that anyway. That conflict was inevitable unless the Valar were willing to let Morgoth rule Middle-earth and all within it forever. Morgoth was denying the free peoples of Middle-earth the effective exercise of their free will, and the Valar acknowledged that the Children could never defeat Morgoth.

So how then can I justify the inaction of the Valar? Was it due to a respect for Morgoth’s right to exercise his own free will? But that exercise was criminal and required punishment, which the Valar did eventually mete to him. [I am using this crime/punishment language because I like the "choice theft" concept, but obviously this is at heart a moral issue and can be couched in language which more clearly expresses that.] Was it due to a respect for the right of the Noldor to exercise free will? They also transgressed with the Kinslaying and were exiled. It is not hard to say that the Valar were correct to deny the Noldor succor as a result of their choices. But what of the Moriquendi, Men, Dwarves, Ents, etc.? The Noldor should not be able to choose suffering and death at the hand of Morgoth on their behalf. Was the inaction of the Valar therefore a matter of respect for the free will of those other inhabitants of Middle-earth? As I have said, it is my belief that this is a false respect, because Morgoth was very busy in denying them that free will, and the Valar had an obligation to intervene to protect the Children from him.

Perhaps the only real in-story explanation is that the Valar were fallible, as you point out. [The meta-story explanation is easier to deal with, which is that there wouldn’t be much of a story if the Valar were interventionist.] But even if we accept that, what of Illuvatar? He alone is the source of free will. He has vouchsafed that to his Children. How can we explain that Illuvatar allows Morgoth to torment the Children as he does? This is essentially the "Problem of Evil" as you point out. I will not pretend that I can summarize the Catholic solution to this Problem, especially as understood by Tolkien. I will say that Tolkien quite clearly does have Illuvatar intervening in the affairs of Arda from time to time. The most famous of these is found in the dialogue between Gandalf and Frodo, when he explains that Bilbo was "meant" to find the Ring, and not by Sauron. Tolkien confirms in his Letters that the other power at work there was the will of Illuvatar. This is in part where I was coming from with "God works in mysterious ways." Illuvatar’s exact motives are hard to understand. He permits great suffering to occur, but he also does intervene. We cannot always perceive when, how or why. When he does, it may be through what are seemingly unlikely vehicles – the coincidence of a hobbit from the Shire stumbling upon the Ring in the darkness of the Misty Mountains; or the actions of Gollum, too far gone to be redeemed but nevertheless the agent of the eucatastophe that brings down Sauron beyond all rational hope.

At the risk of sidetracking the thread (perhaps a new thread would be in order), I would be very interested in the thoughts of the group on this aspect of the books, as it has always troubled me. One thing that I found very interesting in the Letters was a discussion by Tolkien of one of the distinctions between his created world and that of the real world. I am paraphrasing this from memory, so there is a good likelihood I will screw up some of the nuances, but Tolkien explained that in the real world the rebellion and fall of Lucifer occurred after God made the world. As a result, God’s design for the world remained perfect, notwithstanding the evil that would be caused by Lucifer as Satan. In contrast, Melkor’s rebellion occurred before Arda was made. In fact, his initial rebellion occurred during the Music which shaped Arda. Consequently, Arda itself was flawed to some degree – not just the physical realm but also that which occurs within it. My personal belief is that this is the "real" explanation for why the Valar do not intervene.

Originally Posted by Vilnas

At the risk of sidetracking the thread (perhaps a new thread would be in order), I would be very interested in the thoughts of the group on this aspect of the books, as it has always troubled me. One thing that I found very interesting in the Letters was a discussion by Tolkien of one of the distinctions between his created world and that of the real world. I am paraphrasing this from memory, so there is a good likelihood I will screw up some of the nuances, but Tolkien explained that in the real world the rebellion and fall of Lucifer occurred after God made the world. As a result, God’s design for the world remained perfect, notwithstanding the evil that would be caused by Lucifer as Satan. In contrast, Melkor’s rebellion occurred before Arda was made. In fact, his initial rebellion occurred during the Music which shaped Arda. Consequently, Arda itself was flawed to some degree – not just the physical realm but also that which occurs within it. My personal belief is that this is the "real" explanation for why the Valar do not intervene.

I'm a little too tired to reply to the entire post at the moment, although you raise many good points and it's a good read.

What I will say, though, is the desire to preserve the free will of the Children, if this really was such an important preservation to the Valar, could well be a sound reason for their delay. While they told Feanor he would not be able to defeat Morgoth (and they were right) they may have meant to dissuade him from doing something.. well, stupid. Rather this than they actually believed that no one could stand against Morgoth. Fingolfin was able to wound him severely before he perished. It's not unthinkable that had the armies of the Elves and Dwarves been better than they were (that is, more numerous, more well equipped, and with more resolve) they could have driven back the armies of Morgoth and weakened him sufficiently (similar to Sauron's defeat by the last alliance) that the Valar could have intervened without such devastation being necessary. Perhaps the Valar were waiting to see if this was a feasible outcome, however unlikely, and only acted when it became clear that the "free peoples" as they were could not stop Morgoth and his forces without their "help".

The wider theology addressed in your post, the problems of evil and free will are rather more difficult to answer, in any religion or similar story. It is easy to substitute God as the Abrahamic religions view him for Eru, and form theories and opinions that way. I think, though, we should try to take the "religion" and "scripture" as it is. Comparisons with God and Satan help to visualise or reinforce points, but it shouldn't be forgotten that although parallels can be drawn between the two they are not one and the same, as stated by Tolkien himself. The connection between Eru and his Valar is not the same as the relationship between God and the Arch Angels, in the same way that the relationship between Man and the Angels is not the same as the relationship between Elves and the Valar.

As for Eru's intervention in his willing the ring into Bilbo's possession, I have a brief answer which I will back up tomorrow if you can be bothered to read it. The act of willing the ring into Bilbo's hands is, as is common with Tolkien's "magic", very subtle and something that could easily be mistaken for chance, someone else's good intuition, persuasiveness (in Gandalf and Saruman's cases certainly) etc. Now Tolkien has stated he wished this to be interpreted as Eru's intervention it is easy to see how this is the case, and therefore ask why he did not to more. It is possible, at least to me, that Eru (maybe by his own enforcement) is able only to influence his world in such subtle ways. There could be myriad instances of such interventions littered throughout Tolkien's works which we don't even consider. If he drew up a list of all the times he felt that Eru had intervened, it could be very different to our lists. Gollum's fall at Mount Doom was also chalked up as Eru's intervention. I'm sure if we wanted we could find numerous other examples of "luck" and "coincidence". Who is to say that he wasn't actively seeking to end Morgoth in a similar fashion but due to the sheer chaotic nature of the Vala he was unable.

Like I've said I realise much of the above post isn't terribly well written or backed up, I'll understand if people disagree with one or all of my ideas. The problems you pose are interesting ones though and deserve more time than I've given them just now. I'll check back tomorrow when I'm feeling more awake.

Originally Posted by Curandhras

I have a brief answer which I will back up tomorrow if you can be bothered to read it.

I would love to read it. My purpose for participating in this forum (which I love) is to explore ideas about my favorite books. I'm not out to win arguments or convince anyone that my point of view is "right."

I will also provide my thoughts on your interim post a bit later, when I can give it the time it deserves.

To Vilnas:

Actually just to add up, there is something Tolkien called "Flame imperishable" or what gave life to the Elves, men and dwarves which also can consider it free-will, that is analogy to the Holy spirit thus Valar were forbbiden to act in some occassions just like in Catholic Angels, Eru didn't let them mess with free-will. Prime example Feanors Oath vs Morgoth.

The Valar struggle between this "free-will" of the Children of Iluviatar and their own "free-will" is basically the story of the Valar.

Originally Posted by Silmarillion

But to the Atani I will give a new gift' [said Illuvatar].Therefore to willed that the hearts of Men should seek beyond the world and should find no rest therein; but they
should have a virtue to shape their life, amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Ainur, which is as fate to all things else

Only the Race of Man was given "complete" free will, to compensate for their mortality and, even more, short life span. Men could act on their own and make things happen which were not imagined by any of the Ainur during the Ainulindale.

I'm not saying Elves did not have free will: they could act on their own, and not all their actions were bound by fate. But the free will they had was to a lesser extent, as they were fated to go through some events, and they could not avoid this fate. On the other hand, Men were not bound by fate, as the passage states, with a few exceptions, which include Beren and Turin.

I have another side-note to this discussion (of the Valar and their actions) that may relate to Vilnas's question. I have gradually (through role play, actually) become more and more interested in the passage in the Silmarillion that reflects Ulmo's second thoughts about the original call to Aman:

"Now Ossë followed after the host of Olwë, and when they were come to the Bay of Eldamar (which is Elvenhome) he called to them; and they knew his voice, and begged Ulmo to stay their voyage. And Ulmo granted their request, and at his bidding Ossë made fast the island and rooted it to the foundations of the sea. Ulmo did this the more readily, for he understood the hearts of the Teleri, and in the council of the Valar he had spoken against the summons, thinking that it were better for the Quendi to remain in Middle-earth" (Chapter 5, "Of Eldamar").

Eventually, of course, the Teleri, drawn to the light of the Two Trees, do settle in Aman. But this call and fortification of Aman is already a kind of abandonment of Middle earth and its destiny (including the Sindar, Men, and dwarves) that never fully satisfied Ulmo at least. It was begun before the Elves awoke, and it sundered the Two Kindreds. Was it a mistake? (From whose perspective?) I don't know, but it's an interesting question.

I actually think these stories are in part written as Tolkien's attempt to think through the problem of evil and creation himself. I don't think the meta-explanation should be quite so easily discarded (Vilnas: "[The meta-story explanation is easier to deal with, which is that there wouldn’t be much of a story if the Valar were interventionist.]"). For Tolkien, the existence of story is part of the beauty of creation, and the "better story" -- a redemption of fallen Arda in which the Children of Iluvatar have a role, in which there are Beren and Luthien and Meriadoc Brandybuck -- is a real enrichment (perhaps even to Eru himself) over a "perfect" world in which there are no heroes (because no villains). Which is more satisfying, to have Manwë take out Sauron, or to have the Ring-bearer fulfill his quest?

"And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, 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."

Originally Posted by Curandhras

So what does anyone think? Does his force of will and determination make up for his greediness and recklessness?

His arrogance cost the lives of tens of thousands, what more need be said, the burning of the ships was one of the most evil acts in the First Age.

Originally Posted by Vilnas

However, for me personally, this also remains a difficult proposition. The concept of "free will" as something vouchsafed by a deity (or safeguarded by his regents) becomes highly problematic when individuals with greater power thwart the effective exercise of free will by those with lesser power. How much "free will" does a child that is butchered by soldiers really have? And yet that outcome is itself the product of the exercise of free will by those soldiers and their ultimate commanders. The "problem" with free will is that by guarantying it to all, the invariable result (outside of a utopia) is that the actions of some individuals end up denying effective free will to others. At the risk of another gross oversimplification, this is why communities develop the concepts of crime and punishment. I particularly like one characterization of this in a book called "Perdido Street Station" by the British author China Mieville. He describes a humanoid bird race called the garuda, in whose culture there is only one crime. It translates to "choice theft." All of the various crimes proscribed in the human society could be understood through this one paradigm, because in each instance the victim is deprived of some form of choice (e.g., the choice of what to do with money that has been stolen).


So how then can I justify the inaction of the Valar? Was it due to a respect for Morgoth’s right to exercise his own free will? But that exercise was criminal and required punishment, which the Valar did eventually mete to him. [I am using this crime/punishment language because I like the "choice theft" concept, but obviously this is at heart a moral issue and can be couched in language which more clearly expresses that.] Was it due to a respect for the right of the Noldor to exercise free will? They also transgressed with the Kinslaying and were exiled. It is not hard to say that the Valar were correct to deny the Noldor succor as a result of their choices. But what of the Moriquendi, Men, Dwarves, Ents, etc.? The Noldor should not be able to choose suffering and death at the hand of Morgoth on their behalf. Was the inaction of the Valar therefore a matter of respect for the free will of those other inhabitants of Middle-earth? As I have said, it is my belief that this is a false respect, because Morgoth was very busy in denying them that free will, and the Valar had an obligation to intervene to protect the Children from him.

Perhaps the only real in-story explanation is that the Valar were fallible, as you point out. [The meta-story explanation is easier to deal with, which is that there wouldn’t be much of a story if the Valar were interventionist.] But even if we accept that, what of Illuvatar? He alone is the source of free will. He has vouchsafed that to his Children. How can we explain that Illuvatar allows Morgoth to torment the Children as he does? This is essentially the "Problem of Evil" as you point out. I will not pretend that I can summarize the Catholic solution to this Problem, especially as understood by Tolkien. I will say that Tolkien quite clearly does have Illuvatar intervening in the affairs of Arda from time to time. The most famous of these is found in the dialogue between Gandalf and Frodo, when he explains that Bilbo was "meant" to find the Ring, and not by Sauron. Tolkien confirms in his Letters that the other power at work there was the will of Illuvatar. This is in part where I was coming from with "God works in mysterious ways." Illuvatar’s exact motives are hard to understand. He permits great suffering to occur, but he also does intervene. We cannot always perceive when, how or why. When he does, it may be through what are seemingly unlikely vehicles – the coincidence of a hobbit from the Shire stumbling upon the Ring in the darkness of the Misty Mountains; or the actions of Gollum, too far gone to be redeemed but nevertheless the agent of the eucatastophe that brings down Sauron beyond all rational hope.

At the risk of sidetracking the thread (perhaps a new thread would be in order), I would be very interested in the thoughts of the group on this aspect of the books, as it has always troubled me. One thing that I found very interesting in the Letters was a discussion by Tolkien of one of the distinctions between his created world and that of the real world. I am paraphrasing this from memory, so there is a good likelihood I will screw up some of the nuances, but Tolkien explained that in the real world the rebellion and fall of Lucifer occurred after God made the world. As a result, God’s design for the world remained perfect, notwithstanding the evil that would be caused by Lucifer as Satan. In contrast, Melkor’s rebellion occurred before Arda was made. In fact, his initial rebellion occurred during the Music which shaped Arda. Consequently, Arda itself was flawed to some degree – not just the physical realm but also that which occurs within it. My personal belief is that this is the "real" explanation for why the Valar do not intervene.

These are really the areas of your post I meant to address. Firstly I will say the reply I'm about to write will include some of my own opinions on various religions (Tolkien's or ours) that may offend people. While it is obviously not my intention to offend anyone of any faith in any discussion involving almost anything, there is potential for people to take offense, so I apologize in advance. I will also say that my knowledge of the various religions is not as good as I would like. My grandparents (and father) were Irish, so I have a fairly sound knowledge of Catholicism (although I don't follow it myself, nor do my parents).

Now, the "real life" problems you draw on here, the problem of evil, especially are problems that arise in relation to religions on Earth, predominantly the Abrahamic religions, but more so the "newer" Christian religions. Even Catholicism acknowledges there is this "contradiction", however there is a belief that anyone suitably close to God, or anyone who "sees the light" so to speak is able to comprehend and rationalise the behaviour of God, to such an extent that the problem of evil (if it is a problem at all) and the contradictions that arise over free will are easily explained and solved. The fact that no one has ever actually come out with a reasonable solution to these problems that doesn't depend heavily on certain caveats seems to contradict this, however you could argue that we simply can't understand the arguments given by anyone who is suitably holy, since we ourselves are not.

Although Tolkien was a Catholic, he studied extensively the religions of the ancient Greek and Norse peoples. He has stated (I can't remember where, so these are not quotes per se, I will try to find the exact quotes in the stack of books and companions lying around my bookshelves at a later date) that the cosmology and "religion" that he created was based more heavily on the religions he studied, rather than the one he followed. He also said that he would not feel comfortable writing such an in depth account of the Catholic God's behaviours and methods.

With this in mind the problems you raise can be thought of in the context of these two polytheistic religions. Although Tolkien alters the structures, in some cases combining, in others "promoting" deities to form Eru Illuvatar in a position of prominence, the structure, roles and nature of the Valar are far better explained in terms of Norse Gods or Greek Olympians than Arch Angels. The poignant difference between these religions and Christianity is that these religions do not suffer from the problems of evil or struggle to explain free will. (I have read/learned more about Greek mythology and religion than Norse, so from now on my line of thought will be centred on the Greek gods, although from the little I know about Norse mythology, it does apply largely unaltered to both) In the Christian religions the one God is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. In this situation it is very difficult indeed to explain away the existence of evil within His world. The rebellion of Satan does not constitute a good "starting point" for evil, at least not in my view. In the Torah and first testament of the Bible the rebellion of Satan does not paint Satan in an "evil" light per se, he disagrees with the way God is running things and speaks out, if I remember correctly theologians attribute this to Satan's desire to preserve (or enhance) the free will of men, something he felt God was intruding upon.

So the problem of evil stands within Christianity. However in the polytheistic religions Tolkien studied, there is no perfect God. There is no concept of a being who is perfect in the sense that he is a force for pure good. There are beings withing the religion that have similar "powers" to Yaweh, but do not share his status in so much as their existence does not imply that they would stop any evil from ever occurring. The Greeks had a much more subjective view of good and evil, each case had to be taken "on its own merits". This alone makes it hard to have any God who is "purest good". So when Hades rebelled against his father and brother (almost exactly in the way that Melko rebelled against his father and brother) there is no contradiction. There is no intrinsic reason why Hades can't create evil if he wishes. There is also no reason why terrible acts can be committed by men, or why natural disaster cannot do huge harm. There is a constant struggle between the "good" and "evil" Gods within the Greek religion in the same way there is within Tolkien's mythology, however the good Gods (or Valar) and good Titans (or Gods/Eru condensed) do not intervene with the evil deeds of man, nor do they (or are they able) to avert any catastrophes engineered by the evil Gods and Titans.

Perhaps it is good to clear up some terminology I've been using, I don't mean to sound condescending, though I understand that I'm not always the clearest writer. The Greek Gods (the Olympian Gods) in this analogy are analogous to the Valar. They are sons and daughters of greater beings and share similar traits. There is a "father or leader", in Zeus or Manwe, an evil brother in Hades or Melko etc. This all fits very nicely. Going up "a level" in the deities there are the Titans, who themselves are sons and daughters of the primal Gods. Uranus and Gaia are the primal Gods of Sky and Earth, and in some theologies decent from Aether (the first). These two sired Cronus, who in turn is the father of Zeus and Hades (among others). So tracing the "family tree" back you arrive at either Cronus and Gaia, or Aether (the first, and God of light). I think if we use the Aether interpretation, Eru can be thought of as Aether combined with all of his "Godly" offspring right up until the Olympian Gods, who although are called "Gods" reside very much on Earth and are subject to similar wants and temptations as man. Yaweh (the God of the Jewish religions) can be thought of in a similar way, certainly based upon this concept, although heavily altered.

I hope that has cleared up the analogy I am trying to make. So now we have one "perfect" being comprising of all the almighty Gods, responsible for the creation of all those "below him" and also the universe and world on which they reside, along with his children. And in this theology we do not have the case where the single, perfect, benevolent, omnicient, onipotent God would seek to iradicate evil at every turn. While it is clear that Eru opposed the wrongdoings of Morgoth and Sauron (influencing, as you say, the ring into Bilbo's hand, and later Gollum's -> the lava) I find it better to imagine this as opposing Morgoth himself, rather than the concept of evil its self. Morgoth has rebelled against the music and idea and rebelled against the other Valar who stay true to Eru. Morgoth also threatens to dominate and harm the children of Eru, so it is natural that Eru opposes him. However if we consider him in the same vain as the Greek "higher beings" rather than the Christian God, the prolonged existence and rivalry is much easier to comprehend and explain than in the case of God and Satan.

There is no perfect analogy, since Tolkien's religion draws from many stories and cosmologies. However the Jewish religion (and so in turn Christianity and Islam) drew heavily on Greek mythology in the same way Tolkien does. I think if we assume he meant the structure of his deities to be more akin to the Greeks (certainly the Valar are almost carbon copies of their Greek counterparts) and the way the stories and world develops makes much more sense in the context of a more.. greek-y religion.

The concept of "free will" is much more difficult to explain in any basis. Even science throws up great challenges to free will. The brain is a physical construct, subject to all the same laws of physics as any other construct, which while are intrinsicly indeterminate, can be predicted and understood to a very high accuracy on a scale as large as a brain. While I don't wish to get into the problems physics imposes upon "free choice" (my university professors have bored me with it enough for me to know that it is, well, boring) however any discussion about free will needs very clear outlines on what is considered to be truly free choice.

For example, your example where a soldier kills someone is interesting. If we assume the soldier doing the shooting has made that choice freely to simplify the problem, the question is does the act of killing someone take away their freedom of choice. Certainly once they are dead they can't make any choices any more. It is conceivable though that a choice they made lead to the shooting. They chose to go outside into the combat, maybe? Chose not to run a certain direction, chose to stay hidden in a particular place? While ending a life most certainly ends their opportunity to make any further choices, it can be said (in very insensitive, cold and bleak terms) that in a way they "chose" to die (I know in moral terms this is just wrong, I don't mean to offend, again) I hope you can see where I am coming from in saying that. In the same way though, when someone dies of natural causes they are not able to make any more choices.

The difference between defining true free choice independent is complicated more by the introduction of pre determinism and fate as it is in the case of God and also Eru. If God knows everything that (independent of time) will happen, has happened or is happening and brings with him pre-determinism then free will is rendered irrelevant, since what ever you "choose" to do will always leave you with the same outcome. I hesitate to say that this takes away free will though, you can still make whatever choices you want, it's just that the outcome in the grand scheme will always be the same.

In Tolkien's mythology the way the "free will" of men is handled gives a great clarity and definition to free will in a way many other (if not all) religions fail to do. The benefit of having a religion penned by one of the (again, if not the) greatest author when it comes to constructing a full "universe" is that he's thought of everything! Haunt has already cited what I mean here, in fact he has made my point for me, essentially. All races are given free will, in that they are free to make any choices they want at any time, only there will be certain outcomes. Men though are able to make choices with consequences unforeseen to Eru. Whether you consider only Men to have truely free will depends on how you personally define free will.

P.S. I realise I've gone on about the Greeks in about 80% of my posts in this forum, sorry about that.

P.P.S. I like how this has developed from a discussion about Feanor. That's why I like him so much!

Originally Posted by Haunt123

Only the Race of Man was given "complete" free will, to compensate for their mortality and, even more, short life span. Men could act on their own and make things happen which were not imagined by any of the Ainur during the Ainulindale.

I'm not saying Elves did not have free will: they could act on their own, and not all their actions were bound by fate. But the free will they had was to a lesser extent, as they were fated to go through some events, and they could not avoid this fate. On the other hand, Men were not bound by fate, as the passage states, with a few exceptions, which include Beren and Turin.

The Valar and the Elves were bound up within the realm of Arda and their spirits were unable to depart it until the end of the universe. When they are killed, their spirits tarry a while in the Halls of Mandos until they are reborn/reincarnated (the specifics remained unclear). Thus, although the Elves are immortal, they eventually weary of the world and the long march of time. As you noted, Men spend but a few brief years within Arda, and then when they die their spirits depart the confines of Arda, destination unknown. I'm not so sure this is an issue of free will, except in the most theoretical sense of being trapped within the confines of Arda. As I understand it, the Valar and Elves are otherwise free to act as they choose. In that sense, Men also have a limit on their free will, as they are unable to choose to remain in Arda.

Originally Posted by Vilnas

In that sense, Men also have a limit on their free will, as they are unable to choose to remain in Arda.

No one has absolute free will, as we are always bound by the laws of physics, we are bound to die, etc.

Originally Posted by Haunt123

No one has absolute free will, as we are always bound by the laws of physics, we are bound to die, etc.

Even better, no one has any free will at all really.



Video is fairly long but really interesting when talking about free will.

Two things that people seem to have overlooked in the discussion about the Valar and their non-intervention, is that the debates regarding free will and the amount of damage caused by their interference may not and are not be mutually exclusive.

It's no different in our world, where both the risk for collateral damage and the political fallout for say a drone killing are weighed in the discussion on whether or not the trigger should be pulled.

So why should the Valar be different? All the arguments for and against should be weighed against the eventual outcome.

Which brings me to my next point. The elapse of time.
Valar are effectively immortal, whether they take a week, a month, a year, a decade or a century to deliberate about something, it's all the same to them.

I point to a similar situation with the Ents, and the Entmoot. The one where the Ents decided to march on Isengard was considered a quickie by Treebeard, yet it took 3 days for them to come to that discussion. And part of the speed may have been because they could've been speaking in New Entish rather than Old Entish, as that language might not even have words like yes and no, rather they hold monologues as to why they agree or disagree with a statement.

Now as Old as the Ents are, they're but youngsters compared to the Valar.

So that too may have played a role in the time it took for the Valar to respond to Morgoth's threat.

Now as for the whole Valar = Greek Pantheon thing. I really hate to say this, as it does sound quite rude, but I'm left with no other alternative. Complete and utter malarkey, as it shows no understanding of what the Greek Gods were like at all.

The Greek Gods weren't good aligned deities, they were essentially no different from humans, but with far more power as well the propensity to abuse their powers.

Examples?
Let's take Good Old Zeus..
Even though he's married to the Goddess of Marriage, he slept around with more partners, (both men and women I might add,) than Charlie Sheen, Mick Jagger, Errol Flynn and Casanova to name but a few combined.

Sometimes he seduces the willing (Othreis), sometimes he disguises himself as the partner or beloved of the person he wished to bed (Callisto and Alcmene) or he just kidnapped them and revealed himself and what he wanted (Europa, as in the Phoenician mortal, not the daughter of the Titans Oceanus and Tethys), sometimes he just made them pregnant (Danaë) and sometimes he just &&&&& them (Electra the Pleiad).

Or how about when he punished Mankind by taking away their ability to create Fire, after Prometheus has tricked him with what the Gods would henceforth accept as their offerings.

Athena then? Goddess of Wisdom, Warfare, Divine intelligence, Architecture and Crafts.
Has to be a safer choice then.

Well, not if you look at one of the origin myths of Medusa.
A mortal woman, who ended up chased by Poseidon, whom she had no interest in.
She fled and sought refuse in the temple of Athena, he didn't care, even as he lay rutting on her, she prayed to Athena to save her. End result? She got turned into the Gorgon that everyone knows for desecrating Athena's temple.

And the list just goes on and on.

So equating the Valar to the Greek Gods is like comparing a certain Big Blue Boyscout to the The Main Man (aka The Ultimate Bastich).

The Norse Gods also doesn't work very well as a comparison measure, seeing how little they tended to interact with humanity, and being more concerned with Ragnarok and winning that battle. And Loki isn't a member of the Aesir either, as his father is a Jötunn. And he was both ally and foe to the Norse Gods, unlike Morgoth who was the proverbial bad guy from Day 1. (Or maybe he was created to be said bad guy. Note the thing about Eru warning him, that no matter what Morgoth did, he'd simply be fullfilling Eru's will, as just another instrument/tool.)

In that regard the whole Lucifer/Arch Angel thing works far better, as Lucifer/The Adversary is of the same "Race" as the other Arch Angels. The separation in power hierarchy with the Arch Angels on the one hand and the lower classed Angels on the other, which seems to fit the Valar/Maiar separation as well.

As for the whole how can God be good, if he allows for Evil to exist. That's something that's been debated since mankind was able to comprehend the concept of theology, and that'll continue to be debated by the many more generations to come.

Makes it a fairly pointless exercise from my pov. If, there is a God, then it is everything. it may favour Good, but Evil has its place and role as well. There has to be balance in order for Life to exist or to be appreciated. Man/Woman, Light/Dark, Good/Evil. You can't have one without the other, as the mix of the two also leads to new concepts, like Shadow or Neutrality.

All we can say for certain about Eru anyway, is that he has a plan, in the way of The Song. Everything else is secondary to that really.

Originally Posted by Sornantica

The Greek Gods weren't good aligned deities, they were essentially no different from humans, but with far more power as well the propensity to abuse their powers.

This is sort of what I meant to address with my comparison. I realise its not at all a perfect analogy, I also accept I don't know all that much about the mythology.

I do view the Valar more akin to this though, than Arch Angels. Not so much in their willingness to abuse their power per se, but certainly in their ability and will to act in ways that differ from the will of their master or creator. Aule creating the Dwarves, for example.

I just feel that Arch Angles are too simplistic and "holy" to be used as a comparison for Valar. As I said in a previous post I realise that no analogy can be perfect. On reflection, I did go overboard on the comparison, although I couldn't think of any other set of deities that are similar in their "free will" (if you will) to act in ways that their creator's would not necessarily do. Even Aule (Hephaestus... j/k :P) creating the Dwarves without Eru's consent is not something I imagine an Angel would ever do, as an agent of God.

Originally Posted by Sornantica

As for the whole how can God be good, if he allows for Evil to exist. That's something that's been debated since mankind was able to comprehend the concept of theology, and that'll continue to be debated by the many more generations to come.

Makes it a fairly pointless exercise from my pov. If, there is a God, then it is everything. it may favour Good, but Evil has its place and role as well. There has to be balance in order for Life to exist or to be appreciated. Man/Woman, Light/Dark, Good/Evil. You can't have one without the other, as the mix of the two also leads to new concepts, like Shadow or Neutrality.

It's a good debate to have in fairness. It is pointless in that there's no need or end product to this discussion, but that doesn't mean there's no point having it. People like to discuss things, it's what we do.

I do agree with your points though, or at least accept the good reasoning. Like I say I never intended Olympians - Valar to be a perfect, like for like analogy, nor was I really intending to convince anyone that it should be. For me, though, I just find the comparison in "style" better explains the Vala and their behaviour.

You're possibly forgetting simple self interest, the Valar waged war after the destruction of Almarin, prior to the war of wrath when Morgoths middle earth foes were all defeated obviously his eyes would turn towards Valinor. He had bread the largest dragon in history (not sure how Ancalaglon compared in size to Ungoliant) that could fly with a host of supporting dragons and maybe Balrogs to menace Valinor, clearly the threat was too large for them not to act, if they used the pretext of saving the remaining free peoples of middle earth its avoiding the fact that they were next on Morgoths list. The Valar acted against Ar Pharazon and the Numenorean invasion, this is self interest again and after the bending of the world they effectively sealed them selves off from attack from Middle earth, thus there was no need to directly interfere again. On reflection I guess it might be possible for Sauron as a Maiar to be able to navigate the straight path and maybe take a navy with him, but after his form was destroyed on Numenor he may have found the prospect of sea travel disagreeable.

Originally Posted by Vilnas

I strongly dislike Feanor. In my view he was very much akin to Morgoth. Both were endowed with tremendous innate power and skill, and each felt that as a result he was justified in doing whatever he pleased without consideration of the rights or well-being of others.

I disagree whole-heartedly to this statement. Feanor is only as selfish as a father would be to his children. HOLD THAT JUDGEMENT! If you read back, there is a statement in the text that indicates that the Silmarils shine with a light of their own. They are a living thing, in a way, and are hallowed. Feanor did what he did because he genuinely believed it was right. He felt justified in keeping his creation because it was his creation and he, like most of his people, did not have the wisdom of sorrow to comprehend what leaving Valinor would mean. The two things he loved most in his world were taken away from him. He listened to the lies of Melkor UNKNOWINGLY, for he shunned him always and publicly denounced him. He heard the lies that Melkor spread through other elves whom he did trust, and did not know or did not realize from whence the lies and rumors came. Feanor was very hot and very untempered, as only one can be who has never known real sorrow or suffering. His father was murdered, the first death ever in the Land of the Undying, his life's work was stolen from him, the land he loved made black by evil, and he wanted revenge. The people followed him. Yes, he was swayed by evil. But he himself was not evil.

Lothlorien and Rivendell are able to survive during the Third Age because of the Three Rings. The Three Rings are under the sway of the One Ring. Does this make Lothlorien and Rivendell evil places? Does it make Galadriel and Elrond evil?

I always considered Fëanor as the ultimate antihero of Arda (along with Túrin) rather than a full villain.

I'll give him this: he was foresighted to capture the light of the Trees in the living gems (as it seems the Silmarillion are) before Morgoth destroyed the Trees. But he was a lot influenced by Morgoth, given the lies he talked to Fëanor and the lies he talked about Fëanor to other Noldor, trying to steal the honor of making Silmarils to himself though he had no part in it. The last drop was Morgoth killing Finwë - in Míriel's absence, his father meant a lot for him.

After Finwë's death Míriel actually wanted to eventually return to life. But since an Elf can't have two wives, Finwë stayed in her stead in Mandos and she returned to her body. But when she was back in life she noticed that the world wasn't the same again, so she returned in Mandos in her body and became the handmaiden of Vairë, who had already been in her side in Valar's debate about her.

She apparently regretted that she didn't return to life sooner, because she would have helped to teach Fëanor better wisdom. After Fëanor's and Finwë's passing, Nerdanel asked to live with Indis. Nerdanel always had reverence for Indis, though it wasn't exactly Fëanor's pleasure that she disagreed him in the matter of Finwë's second wife.

As for my favorite Noldo? Finrod, by a long shot, and the reasons are already listed. Though some people like to call him "not quite a Noldo", but they seem to ignore that he's a descendant of Finwë in direct line and raised as a Noldo. Not all inherited qualities are half and half, the other is often more dominant despite "1/4 of something". He even calls himself a Noldo, and Galadriel's the same way.

My favorite Noldo is, without doubt, Fingolfin Nolofinwë, most valiant of all Elf Lords.

Originally Posted by Sornantica

they were essentially no different from humans, but with far more power as well the propensity to abuse their powers.

That's a very modern and post-christianized view on an ancient culture's religion.

The greek gods were gods. Deities. And though a lot of their stories demonstrated they had aspects of humanity, they were very very different from humans. So while one can certainly focus on stories of Zeus' intimate escapades, one also needs to keep in mind the temples, the rituals, the actual day to day prayer and deification that people gave Zeus, one of their central gods.

Yeah, Zeus had some human qualities in the stories he appears in. Especially in epic stories like the Iliad or plays, where the one of the key tropes was to help support the story and characters through the gods' human like qualities. But don't forget the other side of that coin. Zeus was a deity. Who was worshiped. There's a whole other side to it that you won't find in Tolkien's work since he was just making up a mythology and fantasy world and not dealing with actual gods from actual religions that actual people worshiped.

Originally Posted by Haunt123

My favorite Noldo is, without doubt, Fingolfin Nolofinwë, most valiant of all Elf Lords.

Are you familiar with Blind Guardian's "When Time Stands Still (at the Iron Hill)"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aB6CPyO0Ww

Lyrics can be found here: http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/bli...eearth.html#13

I highly recommend it (assuming you have any comfort at all with metal/hard rock).


And from the other perspective, Summoning's "Bauglir"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alvfPdAm3lE