On Tolkienian Eucatastrophe: A Reply to Adam Roberts

This morning, I stumbled across a piece by Adam Roberts about the concept of Eucatastrophe:

https://medium.com/adams-notebook/two-thoughts-on-eucatastrophe-e2fc62f97a3c

Roberts argues that Tolkienian Eucatastrophe – defined as a victory for Good against all odds, in the face of inevitable disaster – is a mistaken way of thinking about the universe. Essentially, he argues that such a concept encourages delusional thinking, or complacency that a given crisis will conveniently resolve itself when all is darkest. The Real World does not operate like that, Roberts argues, but we have fallen victim to the lure of this all-too common story structure, as imbibed through our media.

I feel Roberts misunderstands and misapplies the concept. Hence today’s post.

The key is this: Tolkienian Eucatastrophe requires something more than victory against hopeless odds. A victory for your favoured political faction or sports team – or even something as monumental as the Allied Victory in the Second World War – is not Eucatastrophe. Eucatastrophe is Something Higher. Something that cannot be relied upon, or predicted. Something that says something about the universe in a much more profound and mystical sense, and which is arguably not a matter of mere human action.

(It may, of course, be argued that Tolkien’s conception of Eucatastrophe is really about how he viewed the Fairy Story, as an artistic form. That is true enough – except that Tolkien was also adamant that the Fairy Story was not a matter of mere artificial entertainment, but rather something that spoke to how we as human beings operate. That is, Fairy Stories are not simply “lies breathed through silver,” as the famous Lewis line goes, but of genuine real-world applicability. Tolkien’s own cited example of Eucatastrophe was the Resurrection).

Consider for example, the two great Eucatastrophes of Tolkien’s fiction – the successful Voyage of Eärendil in the First Age, and the Destruction of the Ring in the Third. Neither is a matter of complacent expectation that “it will all come out in the wash.” Neither is about instilling arrogant righteousness in its beneficiaries. And neither is the Hollywood-style Happy Ending so criticised by Roberts.

No, both are the culmination of countless individual efforts, and countless individual choices. The Silmaril and its bearers have their own tangled history, as does the One Ring. And yet neither episode are the pure product of our protagonists’ blood, sweat, and tears. These are, after all, desperate pilgrimages – with the associated Divine overtones in their fulfilment. They are abnormal events, by any stretch of the imagination.

What is truly “normal” here is covered by an equally famous Tolkienian phrase, noticeably missing from Roberts’ article – the notion of the “long defeat.” For Tolkien, the Fallen nature of the world meant that things will get worse over time, in much the same way that entropy increases. And this, of course, shows up in his fiction.

The narratives leading up to the respective Eucatastrophes are unrelentingly bleak, and not merely in the sense of elevating the stakes. From the Dagor Bragollach until the War of Wrath, Morgoth sees victory after victory. Even the apparent bright spots (Beren’s retrieval of the Silmaril. Húrin’s brave defiance) appear to only serve Morgoth’s interests, as they contrive to bring down one Elven realm after another… until there is virtually nothing left but a few vagabonds with ships. The Nirnaeth Arnoediad did not earn its name by chance. As for the Third Age, our heroes might triumph upon Pelennor Fields for a day, but they also realise that it actually counts for nothing if Frodo cannot achieve the impossible. And in the end, he actually can’t achieve the impossible… whereupon Something Else gets involved.

In short, as Túrin or Denethor might tell you, it is Catastrophe and not Eucatastrophe that is the natural order of things in the world. And as Elrond might tell you, Eucatastrophe, when it does appear, is a fleeting thing. Which is all very depressing and decidedly not after the manner of Hollywood.

So what to make of this in the face of Roberts’ objections?

I would simply suggest that he is wrong to apply Tolkienian Eucatastrophe in this manner. To my mind, any honest application of Tolkien’s ideas suggests that we should not sit back and expect victory in the struggle against Climate Change. Rather, the emphasis should be on doing something because it is the right thing to do… while not actually expecting to see any positive developments. Just ask the dead of the Nirnaeth Arnoediad (or the Fall of Gondolin) about their Happy Ending. Similarly, sitting around and waiting for Inevitable Fate to save us – because of a mistaken grasp of how the world works – ignores so much of Tolkien’s story. Frodo fails at the last, yes, but it is not through lack of trying, and the Quest ultimately succeeds because of what he, and others, have done to get there. All anyone can really do is try and hope… while recognising that all one’s heroic efforts might only wind up like Húrin’s. That’s a decent enough thematic message to my mind, and far from the naivety implied in the article.

(Meanwhile, chest-beating nonsense about an election victory is just that – nonsense. As though the election of one politician over another can meaningfully represent something as thematically massive as what Tolkien was actually talking about).

• November 1, 2021
• Reading, Tolkien essays
• 3 Comments