Epiloge 1: Akallabéth

[Wayfarer]

While it is true that Aman was the most beautiful place in the world, I don't think that the rest of ME had no joy in there or beauty.

I don't think that the Elves of Middle Earth were completely deprived of joy.

You're both right, of course... people in Middle Earth were never deprived of joy - and it's often seemed to me that living in middle earth would be more blissful than living in valinor.

But the question isn't whether the Valar succeeded in monopolizing all goodness for themselves, it's the fact that they seem to have tried.

Let me make a rather dangerous parallell - Light. The Valar were entrusted with all of Arda. When they first entered it, they decided it needed light, and set up the two lamps, which would illuminate the entire world. Melkor foiled that plan, so their next recourse was the two trees - however, this time they only bothered to light the very small portion of the world where they were staying, and (If I remember aright) only the loud insistance of certain parties kept them from completely shutting that light off from the rest of the world.

Of course, the third time they got it right, with the Sun and the Moon which gave light to everyone in more or less equal share.

I see a rough trend towards the same thing in terms of goodness. Like so:

The valar were charged with making the world good. At first, they were out and about, hard at work with the task - the Spring of Arda. When Melkor started to cause trouble, they ran away and hid in Valinor - now almost all of their efforts, all of their work, seems to be concentrated on that one area. So, when the elves awoke their first action was to drag them all to valinor. I do not think this is right. Why did the valar not come out into middle earth and make it as beautiful as they had made Valinor? Is it not their responsibility and the Elves' birthright?

I have always found the contrast between the actions of the Valar and Eru with repsect to the Morgoth threay and the Ar Pharozon threat very strange.

Actually, I think can quite understand what happened. You have to at first notice that the Valar made no specefic requests of Eru. They simply called on him and laid down their guardship.

"Hey! Come deal with these kids of yours!"
"Um, yeah... I know we /said/ we'd watch them, but they're getting out of hand, so if you could just step in..." ];-)

I see it as a difference in approach between the Valar and Eru. The Valar pussyfooted around and dithered, letting evil get a foothold, because they didn't want to hurt their friends and they didn't fully understand the depth of the evil that had taken them.

Eru, on the other hand, knows all. He steps in and takes action because he knows it's nescessary.

The thing that strikes me as unfair is that Men never got to see Valinor.

What strikes me as the most unfair is what the Numenoreans phrase like this:

"Why should we not go even to Tol Eressea, and visit our friends there?"

This was said by those who had not rebelled against the Vlar, and who were still friends with the elves. The Noldor came to visit them often, bearing gifts why could they not reciprocate in kind?

Also, I would venture a guess that a possible reason for the difference between the way the Valar and Eru handled the Morgoth wars and the Treason of Numenor, was that the Numenorians, who were origionally happy little elf-friends, suddenly became worshipers of the dark who sacrificed living people in worship of Sauron and Morgoth, and they basically publicly told Eru and his Valar to go something something something, so it was personal.

I agree it was personal - but more personal than Melkor, who was their brother, turning against them? And while Morgoth never built a fleet to attack them, you must admit that what attacks he did make were far more effective than anything Ar Pharazon could have mustered.

[Beren3000]

I agree with you, Wayfarer. But I don't think that the Valar were actually defensive in attitude or anything. I think that they prefered to stay in Valinor and let things in Middle-Earth run themselves because of the Music of the Ainur. When they sang and Melkor ruined the song, Eru explained to the rest of the Ainur that He is to derive more good of the evil that Melkor wrought. (Like when he explains to them that Melkor's invention of clouds would bring about rain to refresh the earth). So, the Valar knew well the importance of Morgoth to the fate of Arda and feared (IMO) to interfere with the plans of Eru. As to why they called on Eru during the Ar Pharazon campaign, I guess it's just as you said: "take care of your children, they've done it this time!"

[Maedhros]

I agree with you, Wayfarer. But I don't think that the Valar were actually defensive in attitude or anything. I think that they prefered to stay in Valinor and let things in Middle-Earth run themselves because of the Music of the Ainur.

There is a part somewhere in HoME probably volume X, that states that the Valar were defensive in attitude when they raised the Pélori to the current height to have in Aman a place of heaven if you will apart from the rest of ME.

[Beren3000]

But it makes no sense...what would the Valar have to fear? They're immortal after all; and you'd guess they're not subject to pain or illness, either. So why be defensive?

[Maedhros]

But it makes no sense...what would the Valar have to fear? They're immortal after all; and you'd guess they're not subject to pain or illness, either. So why be defensive?

Simple really. From Morgoth's Ring: Myths Transformed

The Valar 'fade' and become more impotent, precisely in proportion as the shape and constitution of things becomes more defined and settled. The longer the Past, the more nearly defined the Future, and the less room for important change (untrammelled action, on a physical plane, that is not destructive in purpose). The Past, once 'achieved', has become part of the 'Music in being'. Only Eru may or can alter the 'Music'. The last major effort, of this demiurgic kind, made by the Valar was the lifting up of the range of the Pelori to a great height. It is possible to view this as, if not an actually bad action, at least as a mistaken one. Ulmo disapproved of it. It had one good, and legitimate, object: the preservation incorrupt of at least a part of Arda. But it seemed to have a selfish or neglectful (or despairing) motive also; for the effort to preserve the Elves incorrupt there had proved a failure if they were to be left free: many had refused to come to the Blessed Realm, many had revolted and left it. Whereas, with regard to Men, Manwë and all the Valar knew quite well that they could not come to Aman at all; and the longevity (co-extensive with the life of Arda) of Valar and Eldar was expressly not permitted to Men. Thus the 'Hiding of Valinor' came near to countering Morgoth's possessiveness by a rival possessiveness, setting up a private domain of light and bliss against one of darkness and domination: a palace and a pleasaunce (well-fenced) against a fortress and a dungeon.

There is an interesting note here concerning the earlier motifs of the Silmarillion:

Overt condemnation, strongly expressed, of the Valar for the Hiding of Valinor is found in the story of that name in The Book of Lost Tales (I.208-9), but disappears in the later versions. Of the old story I noted (I.223) that 'in The Silmarillion there is no vestige of the tumultuous council, no suggestion of a disagreement among the Valar, with Manwë, Varda and Ulmo actively disapproving the work and holding aloof from it', and I commented:
It is most curious to observe that the action of the Valar here sprang essentially from indolence mixed with fear. Nowhere does my father's early conception of the fainéant Gods appear more clearly. He held moreover quite explicitly that their failure to make war upon Melko then and there was a deep error, diminishing themselves, and (as it appears) irreparable. In his later writing the Hiding of Valinor remained indeed, but only as a great fact of mythological antiquity; there is no whisper of its condemnation.
The last words refer to the actual Silmarillion narratives. Ulmo's disapproval now reappears, and is a further evidence of his isolation in the counsels of the Valar (see p. 253 note II); cf. his words to Tuor at Vinyamar (having spoken to him, among other things, of 'the hiding of the Blessed Realm', though what he said is not told): 'Therefore, though in the days of this darkness I seem to oppose the will of my brethren, the Lords of the West, that is my part among them, to which I was appointed ere the making of the World' (Unfinished Tales p. 29).

[Beren3000]

So let me get this straight; Tolkien first condemned the Valar's actions and then he came to accept it and gave up on the idea of condemning them as "fainéant". Right?
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to post these quotes, Maedhros; they were truly enlightening

[Wayfarer]

Since I can't remember offhand what fainéant means, I'm looking it up.

Fainéant (From the French)
adj - Given to doing nothing; idle. (lazy)
n. - An irresponsible idler; a sluggard.


Okay. It seems that tolkien was accusing the Valar of... well, of shirking their duty. So the answer to Valandil's question is 'Yes, at least in the initial conception'

Now, since their overall behavior changes very little, I think it stands to reason that Tolkien either a. decided their behavior wasn't so bad after all (which I think is unlikely) or b. Decided to make the condemnation more subtle and less implied.

It also might have something to do with the framework of the Silmarillion - the elven 'authors' of that work might not have been informed of any dissent by the valar, or of any debate that might have gone on, and only been told of the end result - the Hiding of Valinor.