Catching Up to the Sil Discussion: Chapter 9

[Athrabeth]

You and Ath aren't going to start throwing crockery at each other again, are you?

I have to get the materials for my pique assiette projects somehow, you know.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I had to look up "pique assiette".

Now back to your regularly scheduled Sil discussion, already in progress.

[Primula Baggins]

I think "so it is doomed" does mean "decided." It certainly does in that one line at the Council of Elrond—a line I've always secretly loved because it goes "clunk" with real brio: "That is the doom that we must deem." If they can deem the doom, the doom isn't foreordained.

[Alatar]

So if that line was in the movie would "the Doom we must Deem" be underscored by a strong Dum-dum-Duuum!

Deeming Doom sounds dumb, but this doom thus holds dominion. Or so I deem.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think "so it is doomed" does mean "decided." It certainly does in that one line at the Council of Elrond—a line I've always secretly loved because it goes "clunk" with real brio: "That is the doom that we must deem." If they can deem the doom, the doom isn't foreordained.

Námo (Mandos) was not at the Council of Elrond. It is (IMHO) very different when he says "so it is doomed" then when Elrond (or any other character) says something similar.

[Primula Baggins]

So if Mandos says, "I'll have a ham sandwich," that's foreordained, whereas if Elrond says it, the Elven-maid from the kitchen can still say, "Ham's off, luv."

I suppose you're right.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

So if Mandos says, "I'll have a ham sandwich," that's foreordained

I wouldn't necessarily say that, but you would never find him saying such a prosaic thing. I find it particularly telling that Tolkien says "Mandos broke his silence', saying: 'So it is doomed." Remember what it says in the Valaquenta:

He forgets nothing; and he knows all things that shall be, save only those that lie still in the freedom of Ilúvatar.

I don't think that Tolkien would have emphasized that Mandos was breaking his silence if he was simply reiterating that the Valar had decided, and not expressing his foreknowledge of what shall be.

[Cerin]

I don't think there is any question that the Valar erred in summoning the Quendi to Valinor. It is particularly noteworthy that Ulmo, who had the deepest understanding of the Music, was against the summons.

If the summons was according to the plan (will) of Ilúvatar, then I don't think it can be said that the Valar erred.

But if the Valar erred, it was not out of selfishness or petty concerns, but out of Love and reverence for these beings that were beyond their comprehension.

But I don't think we err out of (true) love. If it was an error, then I would say it was some sort of corruption of love, it involved some wrong motivation: Loving too much (idolatry), loving with self interest, loving without trust, loving wanting to possess, etc.

What does that mean, "So it is doomed"? In the context of the construct that Tolkien set up, that can only mean that it was according to (for lack of a better word) the "plan" of Ilúvatar, can it not? As such, the Valar really did not have any choice in the matter, did they. In the end, weren't they (and the Eldar as well) just Eru's puppets?

I don't think that Tolkien would have emphasized that Mandos was breaking his silence if he was simply reiterating that the Valar had decided, and not expressing his foreknowledge of what shall be.

But mere foreknowledge does not puppets make. The Valar were in the process of making a decision; perhaps Mandos knew beforehand what the outcome of their council (and its consequences) would be, but that doesn't mean it was pre-determined; that is, that doesn't mean they were bound to make that decision and not free to decide otherwise. If not, why the charade of a meaningless council?

There is also this written of Mandos: He is Doomsman of the Valar, but pronounces his dooms and judgments only at the bidding of Manwë.

If Mandos only pronounces doom at the bidding of Manwë, then it seems the situation is thus: the Valar make this fateful decision, then Mandos pronounces the doom born of their decision, presumably at Manwë's bidding and apparently knowing what the consequences will be (not a gift I'd be keen on having).

While as I understand your view, Voronwë, Mandos is saying, 'Thus it was bound to be, by the will of Eru'.

However, in other places thus far we've seen that it is Manwë who seeks the will of Eru and then tells it to the other Valar. So it doesn't seem in keeping that it would be Mandos who would be declaring the will of Eru to the others here.

So put another way, I'm reading it as,

'And so it is doomed' (by our deciding thus),

whereas you're reading it as,

'For so it is doomed' (and was ever doomed by Eru).

I think it must all come down to how we understand the singing, its relationship to Ilúvatar, its relationship to the vision, and the vision's relationship to the Arda that eventually came to be.

[Alatar]

But I don't think we err out of (true) love. If it was an error, then I would say it was some sort of corruption of love, it involved some wrong motivation: Loving too much (idolatry), loving with self interest, loving without trust, loving wanting to possess, etc.

Sorry, I can't let that one go. Everybody has erred out of love at some time or another. And it's not corrupt love, it's simply making a mistake.

You seem to suggest that any mistake a parent or lover makes is made out of flawed love. It's just not so.

[Cerin]

Speaking of us, I think we make mistakes because we aren't perfect. Our love isn't perfect, nothing about us is perfect. Everything about us is flawed, in my view.

Speaking of the book, it was said that the decision to summon the Elves was a mistake, and that it was made out of love.

I think if the decision had truly been made out of love, then it would not have been a mistake.

In other words, if the summons was a mistake, then it wasn't truly made out of love (unadulterated, altruistic concern for another's well-being). If the summons was truly made out of love (an unflawed, unadulterated love), then it couldn't have been a mistake.

Or perhaps I'm superimposing my earthly views of love and perfection on the story?

[axordil]

Even the wise cannot see all ends...including the results of decisions born of love.

I don't question that suffering came of the summons to the Quendi. But is all suffering bad? The very best traits of elf and man were only brought out by being in the very worst extremes. But is it worth the cost?

[Alatar]

Ah, but the Valar are no more perfect than us, as you will see later.

[Cerin]

Even the wise cannot see all ends...including the results of decisions born of love.

But the crux of my comment was the suggestion that the summons was a mistake. Perhaps we are not all agreed on that?

Ah, but the Valar are no more perfect than us, as you will see later.

Well, yes, that's just what I'm saying, Alatar. (I think.)

[Primula Baggins]

Sometimes we do the wrong thing out of impeccable love that is not sufficiently tempered by wisdom.

It is also possible to make a mistake without being unwise. The wise choice isn't always the one that turns out to be right. I think we could all point to examples in our own lives. Probably a lot of them!

[axordil]

Yes, I am questioning (though a latecomer to the discussion) whether it's a mistake. There is no question it had some unfortunate and painful repercussions. But in order for it to be a mistake, either those repercussions must be worse than what would have happened otherwise (unknowable) or have no balancing fortunate and joyful repercussions (debatable).

It's that last debatable bit where I think the real argument STILL lies.

[Cerin]

But in order for it to be a mistake, either those repercussions must be worse than what would have happened otherwise (unknowable) or have no balancing fortunate and joyful repercussions (debatable).

I was thinking more in terms of right and wrong. A mistake if incorporating some wrong motive or flawed reasoning, and therefore resulting in painful repercussions.

I've been thinking that the Valar's purpose in the Song and in the later making, was to prepare this habitation for the Children. Yet they seem, after the breaking of the lamps, to have become absorbed in creating a place of beauty and comfort for themselves.

This seems to be the basis for the later mistake (if mistake it is) as well; if they hadn't so thoroughly removed themselves from Middle-earth in order to create an exclusive paradise for themselves, there would have been no such division to overcome through the summons.

I don't know if I'm being clear. They find there is a purpose to all this beauty they've created -- it's to be a habitation. So they go, and it becomes all about them and what they want, rather than about the Children they went there to serve, and the habitation they went there to build.

[Sassafras]

Perfectly clear, and very well said, Cerin.

I agree that the Valar do seem to be ... ah ... lacking in many ways. I find them somewhat naive and more than a bit selfish.

no balancing fortunate and joyful repercussions (debatable).

The ramifications of Noldorian disobedience (the Doom of Mandos) seems quite draconian ... especially since arguably the curse eventually spread to include all of Middle-earth Elves (with the notable exception of Finarfin)and even ensnared Men as we shall later see.

Tears unnumbered ye shall shed; and the Valar will fence Valinor against you, and shut you out, so that not even the echo of your lamentation shall pass over the mountains. On the House of Fëanor the wrath of the Valar lieth from the West unto the uttermost East, and upon all that will follow them it lieth also. Their Oath shall drive them, and yet betray them, and ever snatch away the very treasures that they have sworn to pursue. To evil end shall all things turn that they begin well; and by treason of kin unto kin, and the fear of treason, shall this come to pass. The Dispossessed shall they be for ever.

[Alatar]

I see what you're saying, but I dislike the leap you're making. The Valar may not be perfect, they may have had the wrong reasons to bring the Elves to Aman, but they could still make the decision out of love. The love does not have to be flawed simply because the logic is.

[Primula Baggins]

Thanks for saying it better than I could, Alatar.

[Sassafras]

I'm not saying that the summons was not issued out of love and concern for the welfare of the Elves ... but ... it does seem a little after-the-fact.

After the Valar descend into Middle-earth and shape the vision, they return to Valinor basking in the light of the Trees through the long ages while Middle-earth sky is lit only by starlight. Melkor is left alone to build Angband and he gathered his demons about him and he slept not.

The Elves awaken and time passes before the Valar debate how best to ward the first of Eru's children.

By the time the summons is finally issued, Melkor has already worked his mischief so that Oromë is greeted with fear and suspicion ...if any of the Elves strayed far abroad, alone, or a few together, they would often vanish, and never return; and the Quendi said that the Hunter had caught them, and they were afraid.

So, yes, the Valar loved the Elves; they just dithered a bit too long ... leaving Middle-earth to Melkor when they knew the awakening was imminent seems naive to me.