Post by Andorinha on Jan 19, 2009 5:47:41 GMT -6
week five - the long defeat
_________________________________________________
Reply
Message 1 of 23 in Discussion
From: megn1 (Original Message) Sent: 5/12/2002 7:46 PM
Yesterday I posted two of the three questions I had planned. Then Real Life intruded monstrously, and I am just now getting back to this. Here is the third question:
At the Council of Elrond, Elrond says "I have seen... many defeats, and many fruitless victories." And somewhere someone refers to "fighting the long defeat." (Help requested - I cannot find this quote, but I remember it. It is Elrond or Gandalf or Denethor or Boromir or Aragorn or or or...)
The first three battles of Beleriand were great victories, though the Eldar failed to capitalize on them. The fourth battle was a terrible loss. And things don't get better from here.
Thinking of all you know of the ages of Middle Earth, are the Eldar (and the men beside them) fighting a "long defeat" with occasional victories? Or is it a long fought victory, with lots of losses along the way? Toward what end is all this leading?
____________________________________________
Reply
Message 2 of 23 in Discussion
From: Karo6
Sent: 5/13/2002 2:50 AM
Megn1:
I think the passage you are looking for is to be found in the FoTR, p. 372 hardback and p. 462 pap. in "The Mirror of Galadriel."
Galadriel speaks: "For the Lord of the Galadrim is accounted the wisest of the Elves of Middle-earth, and a giver of gifts beyond the power of kings. He has dwelt in the West since the days of dawn, and I have dwelt with him years uncounted; for ere the fall of Nargothrond or Gondolin I passed over the mountains, and together through ages of the world we have fought the long defeat."
An interesting passage considering it is Galadriel who exhibits the greater Elven wisdom here, and the chief gifts given to the Fellowship come from her hands. And does this passage also reveal a subtle "dig" against her husband for not remembering their anniversary? "... dwelt with him YEARS UNCOUNTED..."
The question you pose concerning a long defeat vrs a long-coming victory is very intriguing; I'll spill more ink on this topic after others have a chance at it. ›
__________________________________________________
Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far)
Message 3 of 23 in Discussion
From: DaleAnn Sent: 5/13/2002 6:47 AM
Karo6 wrote:
Galadriel speaks: "For the Lord of the Galadrim is accounted the wisest of the Elves of Middle-earth, and a giver of gifts beyond the power of kings. He has dwelt in the West since the days of dawn, and I have dwelt with him years uncounted;
An interesting passage considering it is Galadriel who exhibits the greater Elven wisdom here, and the chief gifts given to the Fellowship come from her hands. And does this passage also reveal a subtle "dig" against her husband for not remembering their anniversary? "... dwelt with him YEARS UNCOUNTED..."
"He IS the wisest when he listens to me, but really a screw up when he doesn't. And since I do all his gift shopping for him, you had better believe I'm the one to hand them out, otherwise the gifts would go to the wrong people. I've stopped counting the years I've been married to him because if I counted them, I'd kill myself. Can you imagine being married to the same guy for thousands of years? He snores all night and thinks a romantic evening is watching football together." That's what Galadriel really means by this passage.
_________________________________________________
Reply
Recommend
Message 4 of 23 in Discussion
From: Pherquarewen
Sent: 5/13/2002 7:14 AM
Dale Ann,
Lol--Maybe the gift of a short life to the children of Men is really Iluvater's gift to women.
________________________________________________
Reply
Message 5 of 23 in Discussion
From: DaleAnn
Sent: 5/13/2002 7:31 AM
Wen, you must be right about that: the gift to women.----DA
_______________________________________________
Reply
Message 6 of 23 in Discussion
From: Stormrider
Sent: 5/13/2002 10:31 AM
No....you have it wrong! The gift to women in this case is the gift of DIVORCE! Haven't we all been tempted to use this gift at least once in our married lives?
Stormrider
____________________________________________
Reply
Message 7 of 23 in Discussion
From: Azurite
Sent: 5/13/2002 2:53 PM
I laughed out loud at the Celeborn comments. Years (and anniversaries) uncounted, indeed.
As for 'the long defeat'.... I'm not sure but I it seems to me that a differentiation could be made here between military victories and moral victories. In military terms, the Elves have succeeded in defeating and driving back Melkor and his forces. In moral terms, evil forces spring up continuously and constantly, shifting from one enemy to another, and that is the true 'defeat' because it is the fallibility of living creatures that is the real enemy - the capacity for corruption.
Or you could look at is at the failure of the Elves to live and thrive in Middle-earth, the home of their birth - by the beginning of the Fourth Age they have pretty much left "these shores".
namaste,
Azurite
___________________________________________________
Reply
Message 8 of 23 in Discussion
From: DaleAnn
Sent: 5/14/2002 3:40 PM
I have always thought that the long defeat had a double meaning. The military meaning as already been mentioned. The second meaning for me is the long defeat against change, against the coming dominion of Man.
_________________________________________________
Reply
Message 9 of 23 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameIarwainBen-adar1
Sent: 5/15/2002 7:35 PM
I had taken it to heart regarding the "long defeat" that it was in regards to the oath taken so many year previous. From the begining the Noldor were doomed to defeat in their war against Melkor, for he was of the Vala and far greater than Feanor percieved. From this thinking I tend to follow the Oath itself is a part of this defeat, as Galadriel would be well aware of. Once the oath was spoken it bound all the Noldor to it and they no matter where they went would eventually have to have to make atonement. This very atonement was of the footsteps of doom for any happiness for the Noldor in Middle Earth and without the Noldor, greatest and wisest of all the Eldar the races of the Sindar and Teleri in Middle Earth to give leadership and insight to these lesser races they would/will soon diminish. Remember the Eldar do not die unless the are severely injured, they only grow weary of life. In the Undying Lands/ Valinor that is where the Eldar could find peace and healing from their weariness. So all this said the Eldar would finally have to come to terms with the fact that their time was passing and the time of the Edan was at hand, Hence truely the defeat. To have to give into the hand lands of Middle Earth to a lesser race. There never was any hope of their staying.
Namarie,
Iarwain
__________________________________________________
Reply
Message 10 of 23 in Discussion
From: megn1
Sent: 5/15/2002 9:52 PM
Thank you, Karo, for finding that quote. Galadriel wasn't even one of my guesses...
Reading what people have written here, I think I understand her point better. The Noldor left Valinor to recover the Silmarils, but also to establish kingdoms in what they thought were wide, free lands. We're told that Galadriel's motives had nothing to do with the Silmarils, but that "she yearned to see the wide unguarded lands and to rule there a realm at her own will." This she achieved, but for a time that is fleeting in the eyes of the elves. From the beginning she probably knew it could not last - only Valinor is eternal, time in Middle Earth MUST flow on. She used the power of her ring to stay time, for a while. But the reappearance of the One Ring signals the downfall of her realm. There is no outcome that will result in it remaining.
Yet does the "Long Defeat" refer only to the waning of the elves? Whose will be the final victory?
_______________________________________________
Reply
Message 11 of 23 in Discussion
From: Karo6
Sent: 5/16/2002 12:47 PM
There is a passage in Letter # 144, pp. 176-177 which I think supports the statements here that interpret the concept of "long defeat" as pertaining to the Elven "Exiles" and their foredoomed struggle against the "fading" that comes as a function of the passage of time in Middle-earth:
"The High Elves met in this book [LOTR] are Exiles, returned back over Sea to Middle-earth, after events which are the main matter of the Silmarillion, part of one of the main kindreds of the Eldar: the Noldor (Masters of Lore). For the Silmarillion and the First Age ended with the destruction of the primeval Dark Power (of whom Sauron was a mere lieutenat), and the rehabilitation of the Exiles, who returned again over Sea. Those who lingered [Galadriel among them] were those who were enamoured of Middle-earth and yet desired the unchanging beauty of the Land of the Valar. Hence the making of the Rings; for the Three Rings were precisely endowed with the power of preservation, not of birth. Though unsullied, because they were not made by Sauron nor touched by him, they were nonetheless partly products of his instruction, and ultimately under the control of the One. Thus, as you will see, when the One goes, the last defenders of High-elven lore and beauty are shorn of power to hold back time, and depart."
While I would agree with all the statements above that "long defeat" refers most immediately to the situation of the Elves facing their inevitable loss of Middle-earth, I am wondering if the concept may be usefully applied elsewhere?
Much of Tolkien's entire universe is organized around the theme of Time. In the Ea-Arda unit we have a definite beginning, a long sequence of events played out as the history of this realm, and from the Ainulindale the knowledge that the realm will eventually end and a new creation, less flawed, will replace the old. In this sense I see the playing out of the "life" story of Ea-Arda as a sort of "long defeat" in itself. The whole created "Let it Be" existence is gradually dwindling in its "fading" the further the streams of time carry it from its point of highest energy and potential, the moment of its creation.
Because of the discordance introduced at the time of creation, this is a flawed universe and so cannot run on forever. Once put in motion, however, this flawed Ea-Arda is allowed to run its course, to degenerate naturally according to its own laws of physics. It must "use up" all the great energies that had been sung into it at its birth, but then -- foredoomed as a flawed creation -- it must be corrected, cleared away so that perfection may be achieved in the next Singing. For all of Ea-Arda then, the passing of time is simply the extended tale of the "long defeat" of this entire, flawed universe.
_____________________________________________________
Reply
Message 12 of 23 in Discussion
From: megn1
Sent: 5/16/2002 9:22 PM
Karo,
So is the ultimate defeat a victory of evil, or simply a winding down. Sounds like you are describing the latter, and the final victor is time. Of course, one of the "Riddles in the Dark" points out that time is the one power able to conquer all things. I think you're on to something here!
________________________________________________
Reply
Message 13 of 23 in Discussion
From: rivers
Sent: 5/17/2002 3:28 AM
I agree with Karo on the inevitable victory of Time. Neither good nor evil can win against time. As far as the elves go not only was time defeating them as a race and preserver of ME as they knew it but also it was a personal battle for each of them. All they had to do was sail to Valinor or give up and go to the Hall of Mandos they knew exactly what was going to happen to them in the future its just a matter of how long you want to fight against time. In the case of Galadriel it was the destruction of te one ring that in turn destroyed her little peace of Eden so to speak and for her as well as all the elves there could be no victory. It would be diffucult to assist the very thing which would destroy everything you loved and send you away to return to a place you left under less than honorable conditions.Oh well got carried away must be something to do with agreeing with Karo I'll have to limit that.
_____________________________________________________
Reply
Message 14 of 23 in Discussion
From: rivers
Sent: 5/17/2002 5:10 AM
After thought on the passing of time it reminded me of one of my favorite poems on the subject.
Ozymandias
I met a traveler from a distant land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
" My name is Ozymandias, king of kings;
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains, Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Percy Bysshe Shelly (1792-1822)
Sorry guys just thought this was appropriate hope you liked it.
_________________________________________________
Reply
Message 15 of 23 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 5/17/2002 7:10 AM
Yes, that was a good addition to the discussion.
Okay, I can agree up to a point that Time is the 'winner', over both good and evil, but underneath it all, in the final analysis, I think the world/universe began from an impulse for life, for goodness.
I would say God/Godess/Creator started with pure goodness, and then added evil to make things more interesting, to shake things up, to give goodness a challenge.
The dwindling of the elves is very sad, but eventually humans may well experience dwindling also, and another species or race step forward. What if the Hobbits are merely waiting in the wings, ready to come forth when we fade?
Zaube
___________________________________________________
Reply
Message 16 of 23 in Discussion
From: Karo6
Sent: 5/17/2002 12:18 PM
There is indeed an "evil" impulse that dogs all my steps upon this site, that takes my thoughts and twists them from the simple-true, so that a single posting will not serve at all, and I needs must scribble reams as though caught in the grip of some tyranic obsession... LOL.
Megn1 asks: "So is the ultimate defeat a victory of evil, or simply a winding down?"
In extending the concept of "long defeat" beyond the plight of the Elven Exiles I think that it transcends "Good and Evil" altogether. For me "Good and Evil" even in Tolkien's works are always secondary, relative conditions. If Melko had been allowed by a gracious Eru to make his own universe, it would contain no "Evil" at all. It would have been fully concordant with itself, a reflection solely of his mind, his feelings, his intentions. Evil can, I think, only be perceived by contrasting it with something else, something that conflicts with it, "Good." Likewise "Good" only exists if there is "Evil" to use as a defining standard of comparison and contrast. Thus "Good and Evil" are forever paired, take away one and you reduce the other to an indistinguishable uniformity. (You cannot have "Hot" without the availability of its opposite "Cold.")
When I suggest, metaphorically, that the "running down" of the flawed creation of Ea-Arda is a "long defeat" in itself, I think I am trying to convey no victory of "Good," no victory of "Evil," merely the neutral, though necessary process of removing that which is fatally flawed so that a new start may be made (as promised by Eru in the Ainulindale). Here, whether one sees this "removal process" -- effected by the inexorable passage of Time, and the gradual fading into the nothingness of "uncreation" -- as a good or an evil, as a "long defeat" or a "long victory," depends solely upon one's relative point of view. For those still living in this first, flawed universe, especially the very long-lived Elves, the Maiar and the Valar, it might -- from their perspective -- appear to be the "final defeat" of all. For even Valinor, which is not perfect itself -- conflicted with such things as Melkor's wrath and Ungoliant's brooding presence, and who knows what else yet lurks in the shadows of its mountains upon the margins of the void? -- will eventually be swept away. (page 4, Silmarillion)
From the perspective of Eru, perhap this would appear a "long victory" the final clearing of the slate so that a new and perfected universe might be drawn there replacing the first, uncertain attempts made in creation. Will a redeemed Melkor, having a full understanding of his place and role in this new task be a happy, willing, and concordant participant in the realization of this perfected cosmos? I would like to think so, to think that gods can rise above the persisting grudges that prove so fatal to human beings, that Melko and Manwe will meet again as brothers.
Zauber: I would say God/Godess/Creator started with pure goodness, and then added evil to make things more interesting, to shake things up, to give goodness a challenge."
Zauber, having reconciled HER own conflicted gender questions for us (I think Karo's gender was once a debated item as well...) is quite right to point out that from our flawed, and limited human perspective, Tolkien's as well, it is chiefly the discordant mingling of opposed philosophies -- "Good versus Evil" -- that enlivens Middle-earth and makes its histories so entertaining. In the "second" universe, the "perfect" one, by definition it will have a single, guiding philosophy, an unconflicted mandate of existence. Here the true thought and desire of Eru will be expressed through all the Ainur and the "Children" (secondarily created characters with a soul or spirit of their own). Here, all the beings, high and low, will understand their individual places in the scheme of this second creation, the Orcs will be redeemed, restored to their original Elven statuses; Feanor will work his own sub-creative magics with no jealous possessiveness, and share with ALL the wonders of his hand and mind; Men, fully informed of the meaning of the "Gift of Iluvatar," will not fear the paltry transitions of a temporary death, will not lust after the insubstantial and irrelevant "immortality" of the Elves; Melkor will join a happy Ungoliant in knitting up great wonders of cosmic macreme and both will give away their storied webs, exulting not only in the act of creation, but even more so in the act of sharing what is made.
Here, there will be no appreciation of the passage of Time, no need to divide the days of equal wonder one from the other, no teleologic path to follow towards some cataclysmic Day of Judgement and the wrecking of the world, no "long defeat" no "long victory" just the simple ever-continuing, perfect act of Being...
Zauber is right, BORING!!! But only boring to the present, "Good and Evil" conflicted minds we have at present! We, like the Men of Middle-earth (and all its creatures) are flawed, living in a flawed and therefore "mortal" universe, our present perceptions molded, and twisted to handle the sorrows of the conflicting philosophies that rule this existence. In the next one, Men would not need to replace Elves, nor Hobbits replace Men, all would, I suppose, have their places and their roles assigned and understood, and all would share in the act of living together this new, and fully harmonious order.
LOL - yes, even I grow weary of my words, vacation approaches...
Oooo! "Ozymandias," very appropriate, Rivers!
Calico Cat? I thought Zauber was trying to let us know that the dreaded awful "Sushi" was "her" favorite snack....
___________________________________________________
Reply
Message 17 of 23 in Discussion
From: Glorfindle
Sent: 5/17/2002 10:59 PM
Karo6......very intense idea:
If Melko had been allowed by a gracious Eru to make his own universe, it would contain no "Evil" at all. It would have been fully concordant with itself, a reflection solely of his mind, his feelings, his intentions
Part of being a fully fleshed out deity, in our limited conscousness, is motivation. My theory involves an Illuvitar motivated out of love to create another of himself to be a happy joined partner, with the free will to become an exquisite partner and not a carbon copy. A god creating god thing. Giving of the whole, to create and give. Melkor, has none of these good qualities or motivations. He is enamored of himself, with the motivation to create what satisfies him, for no loftier reasons. He seeks to be the singular head of the known universe, and probably would remain alone and seperate in his bid for power.
You are somewhat right in theory that if he was not challenged, most of his works would come across as good, and at least start out that way. But vain-glorious intentions would undermine him. His aloneness would eventually eat away at him, and he would not understand the unselfishness it takes to dissuage that condition and fully reside as the creator of a universe.
For what god wishes such power over all that he is alone? A good deity would not wish aloneness, but power and rule through compassion and enlightenment.
I would appreciate some more of your thoughts along this matter.
Glor
______________________________________________________
Reply
Message 18 of 23 in Discussion
From: rivers
Sent: 5/18/2002 1:29 AM
Karo you continue to say flawed Arda I don't understand. Arda was altered by the Karo (evil) of Melkor but just as when Eru was creating the song of creation and Melkor tied to mess it up he only made more beauty. Just as when he brought the Noldor such grief they also created many beautiful things which otherwise would never have existed such as Nargothrand and the Havens so I dont see that things were flawed just altered. Please remember there can be no Karo (evil) without Dale Ann (good). And who is to say that if Melkor acted in the manner Eru wished one of the others my have slipped onto your side such as Aule or Ulmo. Because when you change one factor others also change so it is impossible to predict any other Arda without knowing the factors which affect that particular time and space. Please enlighten me with your pearls of wisdom so instead of just seeing them glisten I can understand thier beauty.
_____________________________________________
Reply
Message 19 of 23 in Discussion
From: Karo6
Sent: 5/19/2002 3:28 PM
Glorfindle: Here I think we are sadly missing a separate format for a "relgious/ belief systems" discussion, as your comments, and some of mine before them, lead us naturally into other topics than the title element of discourse posed here by Megn1 where we were to follow the implications of the term "long defeat."
Could you please open up a suitable topic heading along whatever lines you think would cover the situation, perhaps something that would be broad enough to include the variety of matters most likely to be touched upon if we do decide to investigate this subject further? Certainly something that might contain Rivers' thoughts, and questions as well. Cosmology of Middle-earth, theosophy? Beats me!
Thanks!
_____________________________________________________
Reply
Message 20 of 23 in Discussion
From: Karo6
Sent: 5/19/2002 3:51 PM
RE Rivers: "Please enlighten me with your pearls of wisdom so instead of just seeing them glisten I can understand thier beauty."
I am often uncertain how to enlighten myself, Rivers, so how could I ever hope to bring such a miracle to any other? The enormity of the task far outstrips my limited means, and even runs beyond my immagination. If we really seek wisdom, surely each must make his own? Borrowed images and thoughts picked up simply because they glisten are like the baubles of the Jackdaw, their true values vastly cheapened when used only as household decorations.
What I can ATTEMPT if we establish a suitable place and covering topic, is the further detailing explanation of my thoughts and opinions, perhaps more with my self-education in mind than any thought of usurping that function as it may regard others. Simultaneously you might then explain your system of understanding as well, to the great advantage of all readers? Looking forward to the continued process of learning all I'm able!!
Reply
______________________________________________________
Message 21 of 23 in Discussion
From: sparrow
Sent: 5/26/2002 8:38 PM
In another discussion I explored the possibility that whether something is "good" or "evil" could depend on its context. I spoke of this in terms of balance. Others gave a more satisfying explanation that Melkor's leaning toward evil came from his being incomplete and failing to harmonize with others. What I am getting around to saying is that some things are just plain evil, and I agree with Glorfindle that Melkor's unchallenged world might at first appear good, but would ultimately undermine itself. Melkor is evil, and anything he could create would be tainted by his evil, and evil destroys itself.
Reply
______________________________________________________
Message 22 of 23 in Discussion
From: DaleAnn
Sent: 10/9/2002 4:09 PM
Bumping this discussion back to the top so that people from the FotR study may find it easily. ---DA
_______________________________________________________
Reply
Message 23 of 23 in Discussion
Sent: 11/7/2002 10:12 AM
This message has been deleted by the author.
_________________________________________________
Reply
Message 1 of 23 in Discussion
From: megn1 (Original Message) Sent: 5/12/2002 7:46 PM
Yesterday I posted two of the three questions I had planned. Then Real Life intruded monstrously, and I am just now getting back to this. Here is the third question:
At the Council of Elrond, Elrond says "I have seen... many defeats, and many fruitless victories." And somewhere someone refers to "fighting the long defeat." (Help requested - I cannot find this quote, but I remember it. It is Elrond or Gandalf or Denethor or Boromir or Aragorn or or or...)
The first three battles of Beleriand were great victories, though the Eldar failed to capitalize on them. The fourth battle was a terrible loss. And things don't get better from here.
Thinking of all you know of the ages of Middle Earth, are the Eldar (and the men beside them) fighting a "long defeat" with occasional victories? Or is it a long fought victory, with lots of losses along the way? Toward what end is all this leading?
____________________________________________
Reply
Message 2 of 23 in Discussion
From: Karo6
Sent: 5/13/2002 2:50 AM
Megn1:
I think the passage you are looking for is to be found in the FoTR, p. 372 hardback and p. 462 pap. in "The Mirror of Galadriel."
Galadriel speaks: "For the Lord of the Galadrim is accounted the wisest of the Elves of Middle-earth, and a giver of gifts beyond the power of kings. He has dwelt in the West since the days of dawn, and I have dwelt with him years uncounted; for ere the fall of Nargothrond or Gondolin I passed over the mountains, and together through ages of the world we have fought the long defeat."
An interesting passage considering it is Galadriel who exhibits the greater Elven wisdom here, and the chief gifts given to the Fellowship come from her hands. And does this passage also reveal a subtle "dig" against her husband for not remembering their anniversary? "... dwelt with him YEARS UNCOUNTED..."
The question you pose concerning a long defeat vrs a long-coming victory is very intriguing; I'll spill more ink on this topic after others have a chance at it. ›
__________________________________________________
Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far)
Message 3 of 23 in Discussion
From: DaleAnn Sent: 5/13/2002 6:47 AM
Karo6 wrote:
Galadriel speaks: "For the Lord of the Galadrim is accounted the wisest of the Elves of Middle-earth, and a giver of gifts beyond the power of kings. He has dwelt in the West since the days of dawn, and I have dwelt with him years uncounted;
An interesting passage considering it is Galadriel who exhibits the greater Elven wisdom here, and the chief gifts given to the Fellowship come from her hands. And does this passage also reveal a subtle "dig" against her husband for not remembering their anniversary? "... dwelt with him YEARS UNCOUNTED..."
"He IS the wisest when he listens to me, but really a screw up when he doesn't. And since I do all his gift shopping for him, you had better believe I'm the one to hand them out, otherwise the gifts would go to the wrong people. I've stopped counting the years I've been married to him because if I counted them, I'd kill myself. Can you imagine being married to the same guy for thousands of years? He snores all night and thinks a romantic evening is watching football together." That's what Galadriel really means by this passage.
_________________________________________________
Reply
Recommend
Message 4 of 23 in Discussion
From: Pherquarewen
Sent: 5/13/2002 7:14 AM
Dale Ann,
Lol--Maybe the gift of a short life to the children of Men is really Iluvater's gift to women.
________________________________________________
Reply
Message 5 of 23 in Discussion
From: DaleAnn
Sent: 5/13/2002 7:31 AM
Wen, you must be right about that: the gift to women.----DA
_______________________________________________
Reply
Message 6 of 23 in Discussion
From: Stormrider
Sent: 5/13/2002 10:31 AM
No....you have it wrong! The gift to women in this case is the gift of DIVORCE! Haven't we all been tempted to use this gift at least once in our married lives?
Stormrider
____________________________________________
Reply
Message 7 of 23 in Discussion
From: Azurite
Sent: 5/13/2002 2:53 PM
I laughed out loud at the Celeborn comments. Years (and anniversaries) uncounted, indeed.
As for 'the long defeat'.... I'm not sure but I it seems to me that a differentiation could be made here between military victories and moral victories. In military terms, the Elves have succeeded in defeating and driving back Melkor and his forces. In moral terms, evil forces spring up continuously and constantly, shifting from one enemy to another, and that is the true 'defeat' because it is the fallibility of living creatures that is the real enemy - the capacity for corruption.
Or you could look at is at the failure of the Elves to live and thrive in Middle-earth, the home of their birth - by the beginning of the Fourth Age they have pretty much left "these shores".
namaste,
Azurite
___________________________________________________
Reply
Message 8 of 23 in Discussion
From: DaleAnn
Sent: 5/14/2002 3:40 PM
I have always thought that the long defeat had a double meaning. The military meaning as already been mentioned. The second meaning for me is the long defeat against change, against the coming dominion of Man.
_________________________________________________
Reply
Message 9 of 23 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameIarwainBen-adar1
Sent: 5/15/2002 7:35 PM
I had taken it to heart regarding the "long defeat" that it was in regards to the oath taken so many year previous. From the begining the Noldor were doomed to defeat in their war against Melkor, for he was of the Vala and far greater than Feanor percieved. From this thinking I tend to follow the Oath itself is a part of this defeat, as Galadriel would be well aware of. Once the oath was spoken it bound all the Noldor to it and they no matter where they went would eventually have to have to make atonement. This very atonement was of the footsteps of doom for any happiness for the Noldor in Middle Earth and without the Noldor, greatest and wisest of all the Eldar the races of the Sindar and Teleri in Middle Earth to give leadership and insight to these lesser races they would/will soon diminish. Remember the Eldar do not die unless the are severely injured, they only grow weary of life. In the Undying Lands/ Valinor that is where the Eldar could find peace and healing from their weariness. So all this said the Eldar would finally have to come to terms with the fact that their time was passing and the time of the Edan was at hand, Hence truely the defeat. To have to give into the hand lands of Middle Earth to a lesser race. There never was any hope of their staying.
Namarie,
Iarwain
__________________________________________________
Reply
Message 10 of 23 in Discussion
From: megn1
Sent: 5/15/2002 9:52 PM
Thank you, Karo, for finding that quote. Galadriel wasn't even one of my guesses...
Reading what people have written here, I think I understand her point better. The Noldor left Valinor to recover the Silmarils, but also to establish kingdoms in what they thought were wide, free lands. We're told that Galadriel's motives had nothing to do with the Silmarils, but that "she yearned to see the wide unguarded lands and to rule there a realm at her own will." This she achieved, but for a time that is fleeting in the eyes of the elves. From the beginning she probably knew it could not last - only Valinor is eternal, time in Middle Earth MUST flow on. She used the power of her ring to stay time, for a while. But the reappearance of the One Ring signals the downfall of her realm. There is no outcome that will result in it remaining.
Yet does the "Long Defeat" refer only to the waning of the elves? Whose will be the final victory?
_______________________________________________
Reply
Message 11 of 23 in Discussion
From: Karo6
Sent: 5/16/2002 12:47 PM
There is a passage in Letter # 144, pp. 176-177 which I think supports the statements here that interpret the concept of "long defeat" as pertaining to the Elven "Exiles" and their foredoomed struggle against the "fading" that comes as a function of the passage of time in Middle-earth:
"The High Elves met in this book [LOTR] are Exiles, returned back over Sea to Middle-earth, after events which are the main matter of the Silmarillion, part of one of the main kindreds of the Eldar: the Noldor (Masters of Lore). For the Silmarillion and the First Age ended with the destruction of the primeval Dark Power (of whom Sauron was a mere lieutenat), and the rehabilitation of the Exiles, who returned again over Sea. Those who lingered [Galadriel among them] were those who were enamoured of Middle-earth and yet desired the unchanging beauty of the Land of the Valar. Hence the making of the Rings; for the Three Rings were precisely endowed with the power of preservation, not of birth. Though unsullied, because they were not made by Sauron nor touched by him, they were nonetheless partly products of his instruction, and ultimately under the control of the One. Thus, as you will see, when the One goes, the last defenders of High-elven lore and beauty are shorn of power to hold back time, and depart."
While I would agree with all the statements above that "long defeat" refers most immediately to the situation of the Elves facing their inevitable loss of Middle-earth, I am wondering if the concept may be usefully applied elsewhere?
Much of Tolkien's entire universe is organized around the theme of Time. In the Ea-Arda unit we have a definite beginning, a long sequence of events played out as the history of this realm, and from the Ainulindale the knowledge that the realm will eventually end and a new creation, less flawed, will replace the old. In this sense I see the playing out of the "life" story of Ea-Arda as a sort of "long defeat" in itself. The whole created "Let it Be" existence is gradually dwindling in its "fading" the further the streams of time carry it from its point of highest energy and potential, the moment of its creation.
Because of the discordance introduced at the time of creation, this is a flawed universe and so cannot run on forever. Once put in motion, however, this flawed Ea-Arda is allowed to run its course, to degenerate naturally according to its own laws of physics. It must "use up" all the great energies that had been sung into it at its birth, but then -- foredoomed as a flawed creation -- it must be corrected, cleared away so that perfection may be achieved in the next Singing. For all of Ea-Arda then, the passing of time is simply the extended tale of the "long defeat" of this entire, flawed universe.
_____________________________________________________
Reply
Message 12 of 23 in Discussion
From: megn1
Sent: 5/16/2002 9:22 PM
Karo,
So is the ultimate defeat a victory of evil, or simply a winding down. Sounds like you are describing the latter, and the final victor is time. Of course, one of the "Riddles in the Dark" points out that time is the one power able to conquer all things. I think you're on to something here!
________________________________________________
Reply
Message 13 of 23 in Discussion
From: rivers
Sent: 5/17/2002 3:28 AM
I agree with Karo on the inevitable victory of Time. Neither good nor evil can win against time. As far as the elves go not only was time defeating them as a race and preserver of ME as they knew it but also it was a personal battle for each of them. All they had to do was sail to Valinor or give up and go to the Hall of Mandos they knew exactly what was going to happen to them in the future its just a matter of how long you want to fight against time. In the case of Galadriel it was the destruction of te one ring that in turn destroyed her little peace of Eden so to speak and for her as well as all the elves there could be no victory. It would be diffucult to assist the very thing which would destroy everything you loved and send you away to return to a place you left under less than honorable conditions.Oh well got carried away must be something to do with agreeing with Karo I'll have to limit that.
_____________________________________________________
Reply
Message 14 of 23 in Discussion
From: rivers
Sent: 5/17/2002 5:10 AM
After thought on the passing of time it reminded me of one of my favorite poems on the subject.
Ozymandias
I met a traveler from a distant land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
" My name is Ozymandias, king of kings;
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains, Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Percy Bysshe Shelly (1792-1822)
Sorry guys just thought this was appropriate hope you liked it.
_________________________________________________
Reply
Message 15 of 23 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 5/17/2002 7:10 AM
Yes, that was a good addition to the discussion.
Okay, I can agree up to a point that Time is the 'winner', over both good and evil, but underneath it all, in the final analysis, I think the world/universe began from an impulse for life, for goodness.
I would say God/Godess/Creator started with pure goodness, and then added evil to make things more interesting, to shake things up, to give goodness a challenge.
The dwindling of the elves is very sad, but eventually humans may well experience dwindling also, and another species or race step forward. What if the Hobbits are merely waiting in the wings, ready to come forth when we fade?
Zaube
___________________________________________________
Reply
Message 16 of 23 in Discussion
From: Karo6
Sent: 5/17/2002 12:18 PM
There is indeed an "evil" impulse that dogs all my steps upon this site, that takes my thoughts and twists them from the simple-true, so that a single posting will not serve at all, and I needs must scribble reams as though caught in the grip of some tyranic obsession... LOL.
Megn1 asks: "So is the ultimate defeat a victory of evil, or simply a winding down?"
In extending the concept of "long defeat" beyond the plight of the Elven Exiles I think that it transcends "Good and Evil" altogether. For me "Good and Evil" even in Tolkien's works are always secondary, relative conditions. If Melko had been allowed by a gracious Eru to make his own universe, it would contain no "Evil" at all. It would have been fully concordant with itself, a reflection solely of his mind, his feelings, his intentions. Evil can, I think, only be perceived by contrasting it with something else, something that conflicts with it, "Good." Likewise "Good" only exists if there is "Evil" to use as a defining standard of comparison and contrast. Thus "Good and Evil" are forever paired, take away one and you reduce the other to an indistinguishable uniformity. (You cannot have "Hot" without the availability of its opposite "Cold.")
When I suggest, metaphorically, that the "running down" of the flawed creation of Ea-Arda is a "long defeat" in itself, I think I am trying to convey no victory of "Good," no victory of "Evil," merely the neutral, though necessary process of removing that which is fatally flawed so that a new start may be made (as promised by Eru in the Ainulindale). Here, whether one sees this "removal process" -- effected by the inexorable passage of Time, and the gradual fading into the nothingness of "uncreation" -- as a good or an evil, as a "long defeat" or a "long victory," depends solely upon one's relative point of view. For those still living in this first, flawed universe, especially the very long-lived Elves, the Maiar and the Valar, it might -- from their perspective -- appear to be the "final defeat" of all. For even Valinor, which is not perfect itself -- conflicted with such things as Melkor's wrath and Ungoliant's brooding presence, and who knows what else yet lurks in the shadows of its mountains upon the margins of the void? -- will eventually be swept away. (page 4, Silmarillion)
From the perspective of Eru, perhap this would appear a "long victory" the final clearing of the slate so that a new and perfected universe might be drawn there replacing the first, uncertain attempts made in creation. Will a redeemed Melkor, having a full understanding of his place and role in this new task be a happy, willing, and concordant participant in the realization of this perfected cosmos? I would like to think so, to think that gods can rise above the persisting grudges that prove so fatal to human beings, that Melko and Manwe will meet again as brothers.
Zauber: I would say God/Godess/Creator started with pure goodness, and then added evil to make things more interesting, to shake things up, to give goodness a challenge."
Zauber, having reconciled HER own conflicted gender questions for us (I think Karo's gender was once a debated item as well...) is quite right to point out that from our flawed, and limited human perspective, Tolkien's as well, it is chiefly the discordant mingling of opposed philosophies -- "Good versus Evil" -- that enlivens Middle-earth and makes its histories so entertaining. In the "second" universe, the "perfect" one, by definition it will have a single, guiding philosophy, an unconflicted mandate of existence. Here the true thought and desire of Eru will be expressed through all the Ainur and the "Children" (secondarily created characters with a soul or spirit of their own). Here, all the beings, high and low, will understand their individual places in the scheme of this second creation, the Orcs will be redeemed, restored to their original Elven statuses; Feanor will work his own sub-creative magics with no jealous possessiveness, and share with ALL the wonders of his hand and mind; Men, fully informed of the meaning of the "Gift of Iluvatar," will not fear the paltry transitions of a temporary death, will not lust after the insubstantial and irrelevant "immortality" of the Elves; Melkor will join a happy Ungoliant in knitting up great wonders of cosmic macreme and both will give away their storied webs, exulting not only in the act of creation, but even more so in the act of sharing what is made.
Here, there will be no appreciation of the passage of Time, no need to divide the days of equal wonder one from the other, no teleologic path to follow towards some cataclysmic Day of Judgement and the wrecking of the world, no "long defeat" no "long victory" just the simple ever-continuing, perfect act of Being...
Zauber is right, BORING!!! But only boring to the present, "Good and Evil" conflicted minds we have at present! We, like the Men of Middle-earth (and all its creatures) are flawed, living in a flawed and therefore "mortal" universe, our present perceptions molded, and twisted to handle the sorrows of the conflicting philosophies that rule this existence. In the next one, Men would not need to replace Elves, nor Hobbits replace Men, all would, I suppose, have their places and their roles assigned and understood, and all would share in the act of living together this new, and fully harmonious order.
LOL - yes, even I grow weary of my words, vacation approaches...
Oooo! "Ozymandias," very appropriate, Rivers!
Calico Cat? I thought Zauber was trying to let us know that the dreaded awful "Sushi" was "her" favorite snack....
___________________________________________________
Reply
Message 17 of 23 in Discussion
From: Glorfindle
Sent: 5/17/2002 10:59 PM
Karo6......very intense idea:
If Melko had been allowed by a gracious Eru to make his own universe, it would contain no "Evil" at all. It would have been fully concordant with itself, a reflection solely of his mind, his feelings, his intentions
Part of being a fully fleshed out deity, in our limited conscousness, is motivation. My theory involves an Illuvitar motivated out of love to create another of himself to be a happy joined partner, with the free will to become an exquisite partner and not a carbon copy. A god creating god thing. Giving of the whole, to create and give. Melkor, has none of these good qualities or motivations. He is enamored of himself, with the motivation to create what satisfies him, for no loftier reasons. He seeks to be the singular head of the known universe, and probably would remain alone and seperate in his bid for power.
You are somewhat right in theory that if he was not challenged, most of his works would come across as good, and at least start out that way. But vain-glorious intentions would undermine him. His aloneness would eventually eat away at him, and he would not understand the unselfishness it takes to dissuage that condition and fully reside as the creator of a universe.
For what god wishes such power over all that he is alone? A good deity would not wish aloneness, but power and rule through compassion and enlightenment.
I would appreciate some more of your thoughts along this matter.
Glor
______________________________________________________
Reply
Message 18 of 23 in Discussion
From: rivers
Sent: 5/18/2002 1:29 AM
Karo you continue to say flawed Arda I don't understand. Arda was altered by the Karo (evil) of Melkor but just as when Eru was creating the song of creation and Melkor tied to mess it up he only made more beauty. Just as when he brought the Noldor such grief they also created many beautiful things which otherwise would never have existed such as Nargothrand and the Havens so I dont see that things were flawed just altered. Please remember there can be no Karo (evil) without Dale Ann (good). And who is to say that if Melkor acted in the manner Eru wished one of the others my have slipped onto your side such as Aule or Ulmo. Because when you change one factor others also change so it is impossible to predict any other Arda without knowing the factors which affect that particular time and space. Please enlighten me with your pearls of wisdom so instead of just seeing them glisten I can understand thier beauty.
_____________________________________________
Reply
Message 19 of 23 in Discussion
From: Karo6
Sent: 5/19/2002 3:28 PM
Glorfindle: Here I think we are sadly missing a separate format for a "relgious/ belief systems" discussion, as your comments, and some of mine before them, lead us naturally into other topics than the title element of discourse posed here by Megn1 where we were to follow the implications of the term "long defeat."
Could you please open up a suitable topic heading along whatever lines you think would cover the situation, perhaps something that would be broad enough to include the variety of matters most likely to be touched upon if we do decide to investigate this subject further? Certainly something that might contain Rivers' thoughts, and questions as well. Cosmology of Middle-earth, theosophy? Beats me!
Thanks!
_____________________________________________________
Reply
Message 20 of 23 in Discussion
From: Karo6
Sent: 5/19/2002 3:51 PM
RE Rivers: "Please enlighten me with your pearls of wisdom so instead of just seeing them glisten I can understand thier beauty."
I am often uncertain how to enlighten myself, Rivers, so how could I ever hope to bring such a miracle to any other? The enormity of the task far outstrips my limited means, and even runs beyond my immagination. If we really seek wisdom, surely each must make his own? Borrowed images and thoughts picked up simply because they glisten are like the baubles of the Jackdaw, their true values vastly cheapened when used only as household decorations.
What I can ATTEMPT if we establish a suitable place and covering topic, is the further detailing explanation of my thoughts and opinions, perhaps more with my self-education in mind than any thought of usurping that function as it may regard others. Simultaneously you might then explain your system of understanding as well, to the great advantage of all readers? Looking forward to the continued process of learning all I'm able!!
Reply
______________________________________________________
Message 21 of 23 in Discussion
From: sparrow
Sent: 5/26/2002 8:38 PM
In another discussion I explored the possibility that whether something is "good" or "evil" could depend on its context. I spoke of this in terms of balance. Others gave a more satisfying explanation that Melkor's leaning toward evil came from his being incomplete and failing to harmonize with others. What I am getting around to saying is that some things are just plain evil, and I agree with Glorfindle that Melkor's unchallenged world might at first appear good, but would ultimately undermine itself. Melkor is evil, and anything he could create would be tainted by his evil, and evil destroys itself.
Reply
______________________________________________________
Message 22 of 23 in Discussion
From: DaleAnn
Sent: 10/9/2002 4:09 PM
Bumping this discussion back to the top so that people from the FotR study may find it easily. ---DA
_______________________________________________________
Reply
Message 23 of 23 in Discussion
Sent: 11/7/2002 10:12 AM
This message has been deleted by the author.