Many tales end with triumph and a happily-ever-after, such as Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings (LOTR), where the destruction of the ring leads to the fall of Sauron. I have loved LOTR from the moment I first saw it. It captured my imagination and my desire to see justice prevail. After that I have come to know that Tolkien is a brilliant and prolific writer, even inventing languages for his middle earth.
Yet, my admiration for Tolkien deepened after reading The Children of Húrin. What impressed me most was not his technical mastery of prose but his courage in exploring a theme that few dare to confront: the vindictiveness of evil. While many stories focus on the grand battles between good and evil, Tolkien delves into the aftermath. He looks into the lingering malice of the evil opponent and its relentless ill will towards the hero.
The book brings to our attention some thing we often ignore: that evil is vindictive and that sometimes the good looks the other way. One of the novel’s strongest aspects is its exploration of elemental hatred/anti-grace and free will. At the heart of the story is Húrin, a mighty warrior and lord of the House of Hador, whose defiance of the dark lord/angel Melkor (I prefer to use the name Eru gave him) sets the stage for the tragedy that unfolds. After fighting valiantly in battle, Húrin is captured by Melkor and brought to the fortress of Angband. There, Melkor, unable to break Húrin's will, curses him and his family, condemning them to lives of suffering and despair. Bound to a seat atop a high mountain peak, Húrin is forced to watch the slow unraveling of his children’s lives under the weight of the curse. His son is called Túrin. Despite Túrin's attempts to shape his destiny, the curse of Melkor casts a long shadow over his life, leading to misunderstandings and tragic missteps that ultimately seal Túrin's doom. Their story embodies the themes of defiance, and the tragic cost of standing against overwhelming evil. Perhaps it also embodies the theme of stupidity since Húrin, a man, did not stand a chance against a world making Vala and should have perhaps just capitulated.
We see this theme in real life as well. One is with John the Baptist in the bible. He was Jesus's cousin who prepared the way for the ministry of Jesus. He was ultimately imprisoned and beheaded because of what his defiance toward Herod, the ruler of Galilee. John had publicly condemned Herod for marrying his brother's wife, Herodias, which was considered unlawful. Herodias held a grudge against John and sought an opportunity to have him executed. Eventually, during a feast, Herod's step daughter danced for the king and pleased him so much that he promised to grant her any request. Prompted by her mother, she asked for the head of John the Baptist on a platter and her wish was granted. Of course Christians believe that John the Baptist is a saint who is now in heaven but from a materialist viewpoint he was an unconsoled victim of vindictive evil. Another example from more recent history is Patrice Lumumba, the first Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Lumumba's outspoken stance against colonial exploitation and his push for true independence made him a target of Western powers. After being deposed in a coup, he was arrested, brutally tortured, and executed in 1961 with Western help. It is quite the foreshadowing that Patrice's original surname means "heir of the cursed".
A common critique of religious perspectives is that they often understate the gravity of tragedy. The problem of evil and the arguments levied against it using free will or God's absolute authority will be a topic for another day, but it suffices to say that most religious people do not accept tragedy as a terminal or even serious story in human history. If some calamity befell someone or some people, most religious people believe that they somehow deserved it and that it was somehow for the greater good.
Granted, there are exceptions to this. Despite coming from a starkly different culture, I appreciate Norse mythology because of its consideration for cosmic and terminal tragedy. Norse mythology presents a unique perspective on fate and destiny, portraying a universe where even the gods are not immune to inevitable destruction. The concept of Ragnarök, the prophesied end of the world, reflects a deep acceptance of doom with courage and dignity. This worldview emphasizes resilience in the face of adversity, highlighting the value of honor, loyalty, and perseverance despite an unavoidable end. I suspect that Tolkien's knowledge of Norse myths inspired The Children of Húrin.
For Christians, the historical examples we saw earlier do not constitute true tragedy because in Christianity God too is vengeful and will ultimately not let any ግፍ go unaccounted for. But for many others and especially for skeptical people, this tragedy inflicted by a vindictive evil is potentially final. I believe this is why Machiavelli tells the prince to destroy his opponent completely lest he/she retaliate tomorrow. This is also why most sane people will wound evil only if they know they can fully destroy it and are otherwise docile around it. Because, even if God's vengeance is true it is typically at a different time scale or in the imaginary parts of the complex plane. In Tolkien's story Eru had the final say by having Túrin finally meet his phantom pursuer at the end times of middle earth.
