Providence, Fate, and Luck

Lord Lórien

Valar

Status: Offline

Posts: 140

Date: Sep 14, 2006

Providence, Fate, and Luck	Permalink

I am moving all further discussion about the issue of Providence, luck, and Fate in Middle-earth here. This has some Advanced discussion potential and will be continued here. To catch up on the discussion that took place in another thread, here is what the topic will be about: Celethil wrote: TM - In addressing your earlier comments you seem to draw a line in the sand. From everything that I have read, Tolkien's world appears to be monotheistic. If we assume his world is monotheistic then I am not sure that I understand your point of view. Eru is not like Zeus or Odin, the head of a pantheon of Gods. That would be Manwe who takes that role. Instead Eru is outside of the world and above all things in creation, which fits with the idea of monotheism. It has been said several times that Eru causes Gollum to fall. Could someone provide the quote that states this? I get the feeling that is an interpretation of Tolkien's words but not actually what was said. Glorfindel1235 wrote: Here you are Celethil: "Frodo deserved all honour because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named." - 192 From a letter to Amy Ronald 27 July 1956 Celethil wrote: Thank you. It's exactly as I speculated. The quote is being interpreted as referring to Eru/God. The other power / writer of the story or that person who is ever present and never named is simply the narrator. It's a literary device. If you assume that the narrator of the story is Eru, then you have to apply that to the entirety of Tolkien's work, which I do not believe was his intent. I think that Tolkien was implying that fate was at work in the destruction of the ring since Frodo was incapable of completing the task. I would add that this is futher intimated by Gandalf in the LoTR: "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it." I can't find the other quote right now, but I believe Gandalf also mentions that Gollum has another role to play before the end. Another literary device, foreshadowing. Lord Lórien wrote: I think that Tolkien was implying that fate was at work in the destruction of the ring since Frodo was incapable of completing the task.~Celethil Fate is something that's present in the Lord of the Rings, but I would call the term best used for Eru's intervention as luck. Not just from Letter 192, but several other letters (181, 191, and 246) all point out that Eru had caused Gollum's fall, destroying the Ring. 'Providence' (fate, chance, or predestined) however you want to put it, is something that Tolkien did not mention a lot. Providence only shows up a few select times in Tolkien's letters. And there are some things from his works where we can see fate is prevalent...Gandalf says Bilbo was meant* to find the Ring, and not by it's maker.* So, there is an element of providence, or fate, but I think that 'luck' would be a better way of describing things. Tolkien says in a BBC Radio Interview: "I have always been undeservedly lucky at major points." And I think this luck shows in his books. As remarked by Professor Tom Shippey: However, ‘chance’ was not the word which for Tolkien best expressed his feelings about randomness and design. The word that did is probably ‘luck’....to ‘change their luck’, and can in a way say ‘No’ to divine Providence ~The Road to Middle-earth I think there are moments of fate, chance, and predestiny, but I think the big one is luck. Because through free will, the free will given to Eru's children they have a chance to change their luck, and change their fate. Letter 192 doesn't get it's full meaning unless these 2 quotes are with it: ''Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence) and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest could be achieved. His humility (with which he began) and his sufferings were justly rewarded by the highest hounour; and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained him Mercy: his failure was redressed.''~Letter 246 ’'But at this point the ’salvation’ of the world and Frodo’s own ’salvation’ is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him , and could rob him in the end. To ’pity’ him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time. He [Gollum] did rob him and injure him in the end- but by a ’grace’ that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing anyone could have done for frodo! By a situation created by his ’forgiveness’ , he was saved himself, and relieved of his burden."~Letter 181 It was Frodo's previous act of Pity and Mercy toward Gollum that won him his salvation. His failure had been redressed, Frodo's own salvation by Eru was because of his previous act of pity to Gollum. So, eventhough if there are moments of fate and providence, the biggy is 'luck.' And people can change their fate, by the choices they make with the free will that they all possess. Eru just didn't cause Gollum to fall because it was fate and it had to happen. He did it because Frodo had pitied and mercied Gollum (with his own free will) and that earned Frodo his own salvation to where Eru 'relieved him of his burden,' and 'redressed his failure.' Celethil wrote: Lord Lorien - As usual, you bring a wealth of information and coherent argument. Whether you choose to use the term luck, fate, chance, predestination, or any other synonym is irrelevant as they are interchangable for this discussion. However, ‘chance’ was not the word which for Tolkien best expressed his feelings about randomness and design. The word that did is probably ‘luck’....to ‘change their luck’, and can in a way say ‘No’ to divine Providence ~The Road to Middle-earth That quote clearly states that divine providence is unlikely. Although I will admit that I have no clear definition for fate, if not to say it is the same as divine providence. Which I guess is the whole point of this discussion. That is to say: Is fate the hand of Eru, or is it something woven into the design of the world that Eru has no direct influence over though he did impart it to the world? The quote you supplied from letter 192 implies that Tolkien believed that the gift of free will had an influence on luck / fate, which would further imply that fate is not the hand of Eru at work but rather something that Eru imparted to the world in its creation. I would also note that the quote you supply from letter 181, is merely a statement of fact and that you later add Eru into the equation through interpretation. Tolkien is not stating that Frodo or the world is saved by Eru, but that because Frodo chose to take pity on Gollum and show mercy, he and the world were saved because of the role Gollum played in the destruction of the ring. The quote from letter 246 is an abbreviated version of the same sentiment. In order to come to a logical conclusion we first need to decide on the answer to my earlier question. If you decide that fate is the hand of Eru then yes he did directly influence the destruction of the ring. If you decide that fate is a mechanism imparted to the world by Eru that can be influenced by free will, then no Eru did not directly intervene. I welcome your rebuttal. Note: My response to Glorfindel was in no way malicious, but rather a statement of fact. I try to avoid statements of right or wrong that are not supported by concrete evidence. The Might wrote: good posts Celethil and Lord Lorien, indeed an interesting topic I think that Celethil summoned it up, it is as he said a subjective matter, depending on the way you view fate/luck in Tolkien's works. I personally...dunno what to say one example of fate is a quote from UT (can someone perhaps post it). The quote is in "The Journey of Erebor", and it is an explanation Gandalf gives as to why things happened the way they happened. he says that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, just as Frodo was meant to bring it to mount Doom, and just as he (Gandalf) was meant to guide both of them. it is of course a very complex topic, but as I said it is very subjective and things can be interpreted in many ways Lord Lórien wrote: That is to say: Is fate the hand of Eru, or is it something woven into the design of the world that Eru has no direct influence over though he did impart it to the world?~Celethil There's the key, and I agree with TM in that it's a matter of interpretation, and could be taken a variety of ways. For a little note on Providence, the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as: 3. The foreknowing and beneficent care and government of God (or of nature etc); divine direction, control or guidance; 4. Hence applied to the Deity as exercising prescient power and direction I think fate and chance can be interchangeable words here. In which case if Tom Shippey is right these words wouldn't be the best to describe what's in Tolkien's books. Shippey has the same interests in Anglo-Saxon myth, and is one of the more well respected and better studiers of Tolkien, yet just like anyone one of us, he's offering his opinion and it could be someone disagrees with him. As TM points out, I think there is this element of fate, as remarked that Bilbo was meant to find the ring. I also don't think it's a coincidence that Tolkien tells us during this time only Frodo had the strength of will to get the Ring to Mount Doom (no coincidence in the fact that Bilbo gets the Ring who happens to be Frodo's heir, who happens to be the only person at this time that had the strength to get the Ring to Mount Doom). And a note upon luck, which I think Tolkien would have been aware of from his background in Anglo-Saxon history, is that it was believed an 'unlucky' person was so because the God(s) willed it. Just as the God(s) willed 'luck' upon someone, and that person therefor got 'lucky.' So, those with the favor of the God(s) were 'lucky' while those who weren't were unlucked. Shippey seems to argue that within LOTR someone can change their luck, therefor change their fate (destiny, however you want to put it). Frodo had won his salvation because of his Pity towards Gollum. Now again this is Shippey's interpretation, as it all boils down with how you would interpret it. Perhaps there are other examples people can think of, besides the Frodo situation? Celethil wrote: I would suggest to the Ainur that they move everything after Anduril's post to the analytical forum, since we are waaaaaaaay off topic. Its a great discussion, just in the wrong place. That said, I would like to be clear in stating that I am not opposed to the thought that Eru caused Gollum to fall in Mount Doom. I simply asked for quotes to support that theory, as it appeared to me from other threads and posts that said theory was written by Tolkien somewhere. From the discussion that ensued, I cannot find that the writings of Tolkien support such a theory unless you first accept that fate / chance / luck is in actuality the hand of Eru directly working in the world. Lord Lorien- Are you looking for examples of salvation caused by pity or of other causal relationships within Tolkien's work? Without further ado, let the Discussion continue here. __________________ I am Lórien, Lord of Dreams, my true name is 'Irmo' in Quenya.

mouth of sauron

Samwise Gamgee - rank 9

Status: Offline

Posts: 2372

Date: Sep 14, 2006

Permalink

Beforew I go deep into this discussion I would frst like to comment on a point Celethil made:

Celethil wrote:

The other power / writer of the story or that person who is ever present and never named is simply the narrator. It's a literary device.

What do you mean??? It cannot be the narrator Tolkien is refering to as Tolkien says explicitedly:

"...the Writer of the Story (by which I do NOT mean myself)..."

Therefore if it is not the narrator Tolkien is refering to, the only other likely candidate is Eru, The One of the story.

__________________

My Master Sauron the Great bids thee Welcome....

The Might

Witchking of Angmar - Rank 10

Status: Offline

Posts: 3118

Date: Sep 14, 2006

	Permalink
I agree with mos here indeed it is a literary device, but I doubt this is what Tolkien was trying to use I think it makes more sense if you consider the other power as Eru, and not as the narrator __________________ Honor, Freedom, Fatherland

Celethil

Royal Guard of Menegroth - Rank 5

Status: Offline

Posts: 619

Date: Sep 14, 2006

Permalink

I already addressed this, but I will again. It is a literary device. In this case its called a Third Person Omniscient Narrator, which you can feel free to type into any search engine for a definition. This narrator is the writer of the story, NOT the author, as Tolkien states.

MOS chooses to leave out the rest of the quote which is:

..."that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named."

If you as the reader choose to attribute the narration of the story to God/Eru, that is entirely up to you, but that is not usually the intent of the author, nor do I believe it to be the case in Tolkien's work. As an example I would just submit that Ainulindale would have been written in the First Person.

__________________

Therefore I say that we will go on, and this doom I add: the deeds that we shall do shall be the matter of song until the last days of Arda

The Might

Witchking of Angmar - Rank 10

Status: Offline

Posts: 3118

Date: Sep 14, 2006

Permalink

Celethil wrote:

If you as the reader choose to attribute the narration of the story to God/Eru, that is entirely up to you, but that is not usually the intent of the author, nor do I believe it to be the case in Tolkien's work.

you just admitted it is once again a subjective topic, and it depends on the way you see this quote
you see it as a literary device
I and MOS see it was a way to reffer to Eru

-- Edited by The Might at 19:35, 2006-09-14

__________________

Honor, Freedom, Fatherland

Lord Lórien

Valar

Status: Offline

Posts: 140

Date: Sep 14, 2006

Permalink

I think the full quote from Letter 192 will make it clearer. There are a few footnotes to the Letter that makes some importance:

’Frodo deserved all honour because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was sufficient to brig him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), ’that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named,* (as one critic has said).

* Actually referred to as ’the One’ App.A 111 p.317L.20. The Numenoreans (and Elves) were monotheists

That one 'ever-present Person...etc' is referred to as 'The One'. He notes that both the Numenoreans and the Elves were, monothesists, and monotheists are those who believe in One god, one deity, one supernatural entity, whatever you want to put it. So, I think with a look at the footnote, I agree with MoS, and TM, that clearly Tolkien is referring to Iluvatar. Who took over and saved Frodo because of his previous acts of Mercy towards Gollum, it won Frodo's own salvation.

This isn't the only time we see Eru step in and intervene with the happening of Middle-earth. For he does so again when Gandalf dies:

"For in his condition it was for him a sacrifice to perish on the Bridge in defence of his companions, less perhaps than for a mortal Man or Hobbit, since he had a far greater inner power than they; but also more, since it was a humbling and abnegation of himself in conformity to 'the Rules': for all he could know at that moment he was the only person who could direct the resistance to Sauron successfully, and all his mission was vain. He was handing over to the Authority that ordained the Rules, and giving up personal hope of success.

That I should say is what the Authority wished, as a set-off to Saruman. The 'wizards', as such, had failed; or if you like: the crisis had become too grave and needed an enhancement of power. So Gandalf sacrificed himself, was accepted, and enhanced, and returned. [...]He was sent by a mere prudent plan of the angelic Valar or governors; but Authority had taken up this plan and enlarged it, at the moment of its failure."~Letter 156

Gandalf knew that he was the only of the Istari left that could stay true to his task and direct resistance against Sauron, but now was the big decision he had to face. Of the Fellowship he was the only one who could have defeated the Balrog, and that when Tolkien points out he sacrificed everything, he sacrificed his own personal mission of fulfilling why the Valar (the angels or the governors) had sent him to save Frodo and the Fellowship at that moment. Because he did this, Eru (The Authority) took over and sent him back enhanced to counter Saruman who had become corrupt.

So, there are a few times when Eru intervenes and helps out Middle-earth. But it's not like we have this puppet-like control where Eru is constantly in everything, controlling everything, someone has to do something extremely noble. As was Gandalf's case where he sacrificed his personal success and handed everything up to the 'Authority' to decide what to do. In Frodo's case his act of pity and mercy towards Gollum, where anyone would have told Frodo to kill him, earned his own salvation.

__________________

I am Lórien, Lord of Dreams, my true name is 'Irmo' in Quenya.

The Might

Witchking of Angmar - Rank 10

Status: Offline

Posts: 3118

Date: Sep 14, 2006

	Permalink
thank you Lord Lorien for clearing up this situation I guess it is beyond doubt now what Tolkien was meaning by the quote and indeed...Gandalf is another good example I am not sure if there is any other example of him intervening, perhaps there are __________________ Honor, Freedom, Fatherland

Celethil

Royal Guard of Menegroth - Rank 5

Status: Offline

Posts: 619

Date: Sep 15, 2006

Permalink

For the record... I am in no way saying the quote from letter 192 is subjective. I am saying without a doubt that the literary device being employed is Third Person Omniscient Narration.

The subjectiveness of the topic occurs when we discuss the nature of luck/chance and whether or not it is the hand of Eru acting in the world.

If someone chooses to interpret Eru/God narrating the story, that is their choice, as it is not for me to tell someone else what they may think. If we assume that Eru is the writer of the story then most of the books lose some of the epic quality. Why would the most of the Silmarillion appear to be the history of the Elves as written by the Elves?

In regard to the quote and the footnote in letter 192, I am unsure of and astounded at the use of the footnote, as it is clearly unrelated to the letter and is not from JRR Tolkien but rather the publisher of the letters.

With everything that we know about JRR Tolkien it seems highly unlikely that he would even suggest that the writer of the story is Eru. I doubt that many people who read fiction assume that the Third Person Omniscient is God.

I would add that after reading letter 246 you will find what Tolkien thinks of his own work.

There are, I suppose, always defects in any large-scale work of art; and especially in those of literary form that are founded on an earlier matter which is put to new uses – like Homer, or Beowulf, or Virgil, or Greek or Shakespearean tragedy! In which class, as a class not as a competitor, The Lord of the Rings really falls though it is only founded on the author's own first draft! I think the way in which Gandalf's return is presented is a defect, and one other critic, as much under the spell as yourself, curiously used the same expression: 'cheating'. That is partly due to the ever-present compulsions of narrative technique. He must return at that point, and such explanations of his survival as are explicitly set out must be given there – but the narrative is urgent, and must not be held up for elaborate discussions involving the whole 'mythological' setting.

In my opinion, Tolkien was one of the greatest authors of the fantasy genre and as we see from the quotation of from letter 246 was aware of what he perceived as defects in his own work. We also get to see that he is quite aware of his use of narrative technique.

As for the quote from letter 156, I agree completely with Lord Lorien in that Tolkien does clearly express that Authority above the Valar (Eru) intervened in the resurrection of Gandalf, though we should keep in mind that this intervention does not occur within the world but rather outside of it.

To reiterate, I am in no way telling anyone what they should think, but rather that it is incorrect to state those suppositions as fact.

__________________

Therefore I say that we will go on, and this doom I add: the deeds that we shall do shall be the matter of song until the last days of Arda

mouth of sauron

Samwise Gamgee - rank 9

Status: Offline

Posts: 2372

Date: Sep 16, 2006

Permalink

Well the quote has always been taken to mean Eru on most forums I know of. If you think Tolkien is refering to a third person other than Eru thats your business.

Anyway back to the original point of the thread...

I think luck in Tolkien's world is the same as ours - it is simply a variety of circumstances that correspond together creating an unlikely benificial outcome for the person/s involved.

Fate in Tolkien's myth however I think is devised solely by Eru and sometimes spoken allowed by Mandos. I do not think luck has any relation to Eru or the Powers, unlike fate.

__________________

My Master Sauron the Great bids thee Welcome....

Celethil

Royal Guard of Menegroth - Rank 5

Status: Offline

Posts: 619

Date: Sep 16, 2006

Permalink

I ask that you watch the tone of your post or else dont take it ill when I say that making a dismissive statement without actually reading the text I take the time and effort to post is, to use a kind word, annoying. Third Person Omnscient is a "Literary Device", not a magical third person.

If you wish to debate or discuss something with me, then do so. "All the other guy's say so." is not good enough to make an intelligent argument. All the other guys thought the universe was suspended in phlogiston until some oddball came up with gravity.

Perhaps most other forums have members that lack the ability to host a discourse that can properly analyze such things. Maybe few in those forums are aware of literary devices. However I have found this discussion quite enlightening, as I had no idea that there were so many out there that have latched on to this idea.

__________________

Therefore I say that we will go on, and this doom I add: the deeds that we shall do shall be the matter of song until the last days of Arda

mouth of sauron

Samwise Gamgee - rank 9

Status: Offline

Posts: 2372

Date: Sep 16, 2006

	Permalink
Take the tone of my post as you will, but I can see no reason for it to be taken offensively. To my eyes, and most others, it is clear Tolkien is saying that 'The One ever-present person, that is never absent and never named' is Eru, not a third person narrator. __________________ My Master Sauron the Great bids thee Welcome....

The Might

Witchking of Angmar - Rank 10

Status: Offline

Posts: 3118

Date: Sep 17, 2006

Permalink

ok, so I looked on the net for a definition of it and here is what I found:
"Third person, omniscient
An omniscient narrator, as in more limited third-person forms, is also disembodied; it takes no actions and has no physical form in or out of the story. But, being omniscient, it witnesses all events, even some that no characters witness. The omniscient narrator is privy to all things past, present and future - as well as the thoughts of all characters. As such, an omniscient narrator offers the reader a birds-eye view about the story. The story can focus on any character at any time and on events where there is no character."

after reading the first 2 lines I realise all you have said made no sense Celethil
let's do this logically from your point of view:

The third person narrator is the person in the quote
The third person narrator takes no actions
The person in the quote takes action by somehow pushing Gollum in the lava

Sorry Celethil, but you should expect that on an online forum not all people are as smart as you.

__________________

Honor, Freedom, Fatherland

Celethil

Royal Guard of Menegroth - Rank 5

Status: Offline

Posts: 619

Date: Sep 17, 2006

Permalink

Thanks for the compliment (I think

) . At least you are open to discussion TM. It's not about intellect but rather courtesy.

The supposition is that the quote from letter 192 states for a fact that "someone" pushes Gollum into the Cracks of Doom. Keeping in mind that the topic of this thread is Providence, Fate, Luck; I will deviate slightly from this oddly hotly debated point.

I hate to quote myself but I think it is necessary at this point for those who are only reading select excepts from my posts.

With everything that we know about JRR Tolkien it seems highly unlikely that he would even suggest that the writer of the story is Eru. I doubt that many people who read fiction assume that the Third Person Omniscient is God.

Although I will admit that I have no clear definition for fate, if not to say it is the same as divine providence. Which I guess is the whole point of this discussion.

That is to say: Is fate the hand of Eru, or is it something woven into the design of the world that Eru has no direct influence over though he did impart it to the world?

My argument to this point has been that the narration of the story is Third Person Omniscient, BUT due to the quote in letter 192, it appears that Tolkien is intimating that Eru's hand is at work in the world. Which begged the question of whether or not Eru does work directly within the world. Regardless of what my intellect may or may not be, I easily recognize JRR Tolkien to my superior in literary skill and so if you think my argument makes little to no sense, then imagine my disbelief at the quote from letter 192 which need not be cryptic in the least if Tolkien had actually intended to say 'it was part of the divine plan.'

I would be amazed by anyone who read LotR for the first time and assumed that the story was being narrated by Eru. I would be equally amazed if Tolkien believed that himself.

Did Eru push Gollum into the Cracks of Doom? Depends on how you wish to answer whether or not or how fate intervened. Personally I find it diffucult to answer, but I like to say that I don't know and discuss the issue and hear the thoughts of others rather than hang everything on a single cryptic quote.

Just for you TM

If you follow the logic here... Once Tolkien took himself out of the equation, as in the writer by which he did not mean himself, wasnt he just stating his opinion and no longer fact about his work?

(NOTE: That was humor)

__________________

Therefore I say that we will go on, and this doom I add: the deeds that we shall do shall be the matter of song until the last days of Arda

lomoduin

Rohirrim of Edoras - Rank 4

Status: Offline

Posts: 396

Date: Sep 12, 2011

Permalink

It goes back to the real world question of responsibility and blamelessness. Does G-d rule the line of our lives or are we free to make decisions for ourselves? Do the decisions "we" make become subject to some supreme power? Has our past, present and future already been written and we are just playing them out? Has the song been sung and we just dance our part? How much "control" over our lives do we have? Is this control given to us by a divine being or are we ultimately able to make decisions about who we are individually and how our lives play out? Literarily speaking, in a story so epic as Tolkien's, so encompassing a world and varied an inhabbitation, there is really very little choice to tell the entire thing without some sort of omniscence. To understand the thought and process of the creator of the work and world of Tolkien would, in my opinion, be only possible to understand the author's mind processes more than the author.

__________________

The winds of heaven do not blow gentle.

lomoduin

Rohirrim of Edoras - Rank 4

Status: Offline

Posts: 396

Date: Sep 15, 2011

Permalink

As far as narrator goes, and maybe I'm being very niave about this, I assumed the narrator was the character the information was gathered from. Bilbo, Frodo, Aragorn, Gimli Legolas, Arwen, Eowyn, (my fave) Eomer, Galadriel, etc., etc.,. Any thoughts any ideas?? And, we forget the mirror of Galadriel. What did she say about what was seen in it? Frodo and Sam saw.

__________________

The winds of heaven do not blow gentle.

lomoduin

Rohirrim of Edoras - Rank 4

Status: Offline

Posts: 396

Date: Sep 15, 2011

	Permalink
also, I love Bilbo's poem about watching your feet when you step out your door. __________________ The winds of heaven do not blow gentle.

Bear

Lord Elrond of Rivendell - Rank 9

Status: Offline

Posts: 2960

Date: Sep 15, 2011

	Permalink
lomoduin, I love that poem too! Bear __________________ Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit *Called or uncalled, God is present*

Topic: Providence, Fate, and Luck