tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post6338186976660950973..comments2023-11-07T06:20:12.181-08:00Comments on Tolkien: Medieval and Modern: The Risk of Creation"Tolkien: Medieval and Modern"http://www.blogger.com/profile/04348913969813157482noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-86833644732538199142014-05-26T12:44:08.930-07:002014-05-26T12:44:08.930-07:00I think your post has pinpointed one of the most c...I think your post has pinpointed one of the most crucial motifs in Tolkien’s legendarium--his union or reconciliation of various forms of creation, including divine Creation (Eru creating the Ainur and the latter furnishing Arda), literary creation (Tolkien’s construction of “a Myth of England”, a myth of our Earth in a imaginary time, etc.), artistic creation (crafting nature into art) and even biological creation (reproduction, which we discussed very recently). Indeed Tolkien seems to endorse creation and sub-creation, but he is consistently admonishing us against the greed of possessing our own creatures, for we must recognize, as you said, that they develop a life of their own. <br /><br />While reading your post I was reminded of an additional case of crossing the boundary between creation and possession and losing oneself to greed: Thingol’s reluctance to let go Luthien, which transgressed normal paternal love and becomes excessive obsession over possessing her. In Splintered Light, Flieger makes it explicit, “light is not to be possessed...Thingol’s possessiveness of Luthien is wrongful...Luthien’s light is not his to give. It is hers.” In a very literal sense, one’s creation does acquire its own life, with its own path to tread. Moreover, Creatures are meant to be used by wills independent of its maker in the first place. In the same sense that Roland Barthes wrote “Death of the Author”, one could argue that Tolkien was arguing for “Death of the creator” with his legendarium. <br /><br />Sophie Zhuang"Tolkien: Medieval and Modern"https://www.blogger.com/profile/04348913969813157482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-26841973451561453992011-05-26T19:06:54.285-07:002011-05-26T19:06:54.285-07:00Eloquently written post! When you bring up, howeve...Eloquently written post! When you bring up, however, the conflict between Eru Ilúvatar and Aulë, I wonder to what extent the "risk of creation" applies to the Vala themselves. Surely, it would neatly explain why Aulë is able to create the Dwarves independently of Eru, and why Morgoth is able to wreak such havoc upon Arda, but it does not seem to me to fit in fully with Tolkien's conception of the relationship between Eru and the Vala. It is very clearly stated that Eru "made first the Ainur," (Silmarillion, p. 15) but right after that they were "offspring of his thought" - something that implies that they are not entirely separate from Eru. Is Morgoth then a creation loosed onto the world at large, or is his existence part of the same existence as Eru? Obviously, we discussed the relationship between Eru and the Vala quite a lot in class, but I think its an important question in light of the framework that you're trying to set up here. <br /><br />I don't know that there is a right or wrong answer to that question, but it's definitely food for thought!<br /><br />Taylor Ehlis"Tolkien: Medieval and Modern"https://www.blogger.com/profile/04348913969813157482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-77630911561277526952011-05-02T20:58:31.258-07:002011-05-02T20:58:31.258-07:00I think the aspect of free will is the key element...I think the aspect of free will is the key element here. If not for that, creation cannot be misused. While creations achieve independence from the creator, they do not necessarily have a will of their own. A book that is written may go on to win awards, get banned from schools, serve as the basis for a screenplay, and so on none of which may have been the intent of the author. In that sense it will go places that the author may have never intended. However, the book itself has no self direction in the matter anymore than the silmarils. Its independence is totally circumscribed by the free will or reason of others, by the way in which it is received. So, in a way there is a danger related to the act of creation. But the danger is in us, not creation itself. <br />A lesson to learn may be that creation is by nature universal and an act of sharing. The point of creation is to share something new. Books are written to be read, paintings made to be seen. It is essentially the opposite of consumption which is personal (even selfish) and to some extent an act of deconstruction (or a least transmutation in to a debased form. Wanton consumption, that is consumption for greed and not need, is quite opposite to creation. What we see in Feanor is this struggle, and ultimate lapse into greed. What separates him from Aule, is that Aule had no desire to possess the dwarves, but rather to share them, add them to the creation of Eru. Feanor, long before the trees were destroyed, wished to keep the silmarils to himself. In the end, Feanor was like Ungoliant, wishing to consume the embodiment of the light of the trees originally shared with the world.<br />-Jason A Banks"Tolkien: Medieval and Modern"https://www.blogger.com/profile/04348913969813157482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-6143430084257212762011-04-26T21:01:30.447-07:002011-04-26T21:01:30.447-07:00I'm glad that you addressed the issue of contr...I'm glad that you addressed the issue of control over creation, because it has been in the back of my head since class on Monday. Our discussion, mentioned by you here, about Aulё and his dwarves, especially struck me. The idea that someone brought up in lecture, about the connection between Aulё and Abraham in Genesis, is intriguing. Abraham was called on to give up his only son, and as Kierkegaard argues (in Fear and Trembling)he both gave up the hope of having his son, yet had such a strong faith in God that he believed he would still have Isaac anyway. That is, sacrifice of what is ours requires a leap of faith. I like the connection that the Abraham story raises between creation and children, especially as Men and Elves are the Children of Ilúvatar. Perhaps procreation is yet another facet of sub-creation, and it requires a parental leap of faith to let go of children. Parents do become frustrated with their 'creations' when they act on their own free will, after all.<br /><br />E.Minehart"Tolkien: Medieval and Modern"https://www.blogger.com/profile/04348913969813157482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-39480346932268449302011-04-26T18:29:47.553-07:002011-04-26T18:29:47.553-07:00Beautifully argued! It seems to me that there are...Beautifully argued! It seems to me that there are two very important points here: one, that we do not (cannot) ultimately possess the things that we make; and two, that once we have made them, they take on a life of their own. Perhaps, therefore, it is in the very nature of creatures to have free will: once made, they will act on the world around them, whether as embodied consciousnesses (like Elves, Dwarves or Men) or as artifacts (like jewels or stories). But can stories act on us or is it just we acting on them?<br /><br />RLFB"Tolkien: Medieval and Modern"https://www.blogger.com/profile/04348913969813157482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-41819923496919880682011-04-26T15:27:27.921-07:002011-04-26T15:27:27.921-07:00Your claim that "to create is to lose control...Your claim that "to create is to lose control" struck a chord with me, especially since we've been discussing subcreation so much lately. I don't know that Iluvatar saw the creation of the Valar as losing control, rather he willingly gave them free will. However, you are correct when you say that "once a thing is created, it exists independent of its maker." I wonder then how Iluvatar felt when he saw Melkor's rebellion and fall. Can a divine entity have remorse or feel guilt? Evil though Melkor's intentions may be, they shape the world he and the rest of the Valar are creating, so that even his destruction plays its part in shaping the history of Men. <br /><br />A. Demma"Tolkien: Medieval and Modern"https://www.blogger.com/profile/04348913969813157482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-6569087897913494002011-04-26T06:08:51.926-07:002011-04-26T06:08:51.926-07:00I really liked this post. Your writing is really-w...I really liked this post. Your writing is really-well structured and insightful. I particularly liked your interweaving the Easter narrative; I hadn't thought of that specific thematic link, but it's a good one. This is less of a real "comment" to start a discussion and more of a "wow, hadn't thought of that, nice work!" but I thought it was worth letting you know anyway.Blair Thornburghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01982242466959044114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-79956693501213284872011-04-25T18:32:47.235-07:002011-04-25T18:32:47.235-07:00And of course, I forgot to sign: Sarah Gregory. (S...And of course, I forgot to sign: Sarah Gregory. (Since SAGR is an extremely ugly combination of letters.)"Tolkien: Medieval and Modern"https://www.blogger.com/profile/04348913969813157482noreply@blogger.com