Tolkien was fascinated by the idea of sub-creation, and thought deeply about it. But we don't have to, since we are not the sub-creators, but the recipients of the result. If Tolkien had loosened up and let go, the Silmarillion might have been as lively as the Lost Tales were, and as the Iliad and the Odyssey and the Eddas are. Not that the Silmarillion is entirely dull, but the 'gods' keep their distance in an odd and unsatisfying way; to my mind they are one of the weakest aspects of the entire project and I attribute that to Tolkien's own inability to separate his author role from his reader role.

Tolkien refers to different “races” in Middle Earth. That, presumably, means that they are all the same “species”. We think of race as a difference in geographical origin, physical characteristics, ethnicity, etc. But think of that in terms of the the “races” of ME. Was he saying, just by his word choice, that they are all of the same species? Elves, Dwarfs, Men all from a common ancestor, evolving into “races”. He tells us the story of how each came to be, so why pick the word “race”?
Two things come to mind - one is what Brethil has already mentioned - JRRT was trying to get at the legends of prehistory. He wanted to tell us “how we got here”. So all his beings inevitably remind us of Man. The origin stories of each Race in ME could be thought of as the evolution of each race, with the natural selection coming not from the pressure of each experimental new being in nature but of the experimentation of the Valar.

That's a great point about the use of the word 'races'...he states that Elves and Men are biologically one species...Dwarves are another matter. So I wonder then, if what he is getting at with the uniting term is the races = Children of God. In that sense it would remove them from the other 'critters' we have arising: the Orcs, the darker Maiar and subcreative spirits that descended into Arda (presumably creating such lovely things as giant spiders and dragons)?

It’s my opinion that he was referring to, with that quote about “mode of talking”, his intention in creating a pre-history for England. I think he still had that on his mind. He makes the distinction in the letter between his “elves and dwarfs” and those of the bedtime stories, fairy tales and legends of the time. Those representations are merely stories told to children - his are meant to be seen as a true prehistory of the race of Man. He wanted people reading his work to realize that when he referred to Elves and Dwarfs, he didn’t want them to be bogged down by preconceptions of Snow White’s dwarfs or Shakespeare’s elves. He was creating them anew and giving them qualities that would explain how we, as Man, came to be.

Absolutely - I do think that the 'legendary mode of talking' is that part of him that wanted *his* Elves and Dwarves to be quite different than the cartoonified, or the Gnomish ideal for small creatures in hedges (so to speak). I wonder too, of the point about the difference of the Elvish sensibilities in modes of talking are a sign of his duality while writing...as Bombadil said, having the cake and eating it too: one voice as the 'recorder' and reporter of legend, and the other voice the creator, the author?
The other is something more related to what I see as a thread of “truth” that he weaves through the stories - there is beauty, courage, intelligence and strength in all of us, each in varying degrees but present nonetheless. By creating beings that seem to have a commonality, he allows for different “races” to have more of one quality or a distinct deficit of another. He plays on these strengths and weaknesses to set up his conflict, but at all times, at least to me, he comes back to that common factor. We could all be Thorin, with the inherent love of riches, putting our lives on hold waiting for a time when everything was “as it should have been” all along. We could all be Bilbo - comfortable enough in our Hobbity life but with that little itch to do something more. We could all be one of the Elves, existing day-to-day but never really going anywhere. We relate to a dwarf or one of the elves because we see a little bit of us in them. And we can be warned or inspired because of that relation. The literary mode that the races can call to certain aspects of humanity. And I agree, in very different races, I suppose the overlap may still be there, in the sense of identifying with more than one group? Which I think may speak to his ability to draw representations of 'peoples' that feel quite real to us. They also have the ability I think to polarize the audience - with readers being able to identify strongly with one or another of the groups (as we see in the fandom itself.) Inspiring: how true Ioreth!

I would agree with what has been said. The instruments that he has employed are not perfect, far from it. The choices in creating his pantheon were not the 'best' if we considered the aim of great literature. However, I can appreciate them personally. Agreed Rem!


Once Tolkien introduced the Valar as 'gods', he created a million problems for himself. He wanted to keep Eru as the ONE, but have the action on he side of the Valar. He wanted to divorce power from authority, if only indirectly. He wanted the sweep of the pagan epics, wih the colorful deities and their struggles, without the polytheism invoked. He was in he inexhorable cake eating situation. The race of the Ainu is also more removed from us than Elves, or any other free people. They are higher species, of more power and knowledge, but, alas, still imperfect. With great power comes the possibility for gigantic mistakes. They 'gods' then, as imperfects would need, by necessity to make these mistakes over the vast history of Arda, but still they retain their authority and power. I think that is what we dislike, these supremely powerful beings, who just give up. They don't even seem to try to do anything, and as the flawed being we know them to be, they don't even try to lash out in power to reassert their position. Instead they take an impossibly steep moral mountain, and vow to not interfere. They are either perfect or flawed, and Tolkien couldn't decide which, or how to reconcile it with his personal faith. All great points above. I do see the incomplete reconciliation here, especially in the incidents when the Valar seem almost childlike and incapable of decisive action. The ancient polytheistic pantheons had elements of that too, but without a 'higher' and parental authority their actions are more complete (even when flawed) and within their character depths. Almost like dancing with versus without a net. The netless performance may reflect more peril, and may lend versmilitiude to choices made; whereas the all-knowing net perhaps restricts the cardinal choices and makes for a lack of true jeopardy? (And that having cake and eating it metaphor just never gets old does it?)

Or else the lesser beings would be left with nothing but a corner. Perhaps we could have been told more about the deeds of the Valar before Elves and Men came... but afterwards? They should be left in their lofty aloofness, from where they can give sense of distant greatness and mysticism to the tales more close to mortal lands. Also, I've never liked the pagan European gods... they're disappointing, because they're nothing but humans with more power. But the Valar function as a doorway to another reality, or more like they're objects brought from another reality, and whom the Elves can look and talk with about that great Other place where the great Other being dwells. And then the Elves in turn fulfill the same role for the mortals, by being objects brought from another time and place and mindset, and in their faces we see the light of that mysterious place. Descending to Men in distance from Eru...fitting to the ultimate view of a rather distant Eru lost in time and myth. I like your equation of Elves:Men as Valar:Elves. The Elves were a flawed set of teachers - and on their turn so are the Valar. The link to the mysterious Other-ness being the minds of Manwe and Mandos...neither of which is sharing any of those mysteries any time soon.

I'm not an expert on Roman-Catholicism, but the Eru-Valar-Eldar-Men link reminds me of people praying saints to act as mediators between them and God - as opposed to a direct connection of prayer between every individual human and God.

*waits for someone to correct her horrendously incorrect assumptions*

I agree that the Valar should be taken as literary creations.
However I´m slightly confused by your seeming admiration for the treatment of the Norse and the Greek gods and gods who are very actively involved.
Is it for instance the gods and their functions and personalities/attributes that make the Iliad or the Oddysey interesting? Or is it mainly the fates of the human heroes within the stories and the particular creatures/dangers they encounter? Most of the time the Greek gods are just moving the odds perceptibly this way and that, interfering constantly in the story with simple motivations of revenge and jealousy. How interesting are these kind of properties in gods, when the same attributes can just as well be shared by any of the human heroes within the story?
The Norse gods are slightly different and can be quite interesting in themselves, but it´s worth noting that in the Norse myths there´s often hardly room for anyone else but the Gods and their biggest adversaries. The role that Men and other creatures play is often marginal.
Tolkien´s universe by comparison seems like a more diverse and balanced universe, where there´s room for specific stories and focus on selected gods, but where the lesser beings occupy most of the attention with the hint of the influence of other powers in the background. ***The fact that the gods keep their distance I attribute to Tolkien´s specific view on free will and a different view of the role of the lesser beings within the created world compared to Norse and Greek myth. *** It makes the stories less action-packed, but it makes the interplay between different forces much more interesting to investigate and much less obvious than when you have very active gods IMO.