A reader sent this comment to me privately, and given that it corrects an error of fact in the article I requested her permission to post it publicly here. I have corrected the main article and appended a footnote pursuant to this comment.
Mel Dunay says:
Coming from an author who is, IIRC, a nonbeliever, that is a surprisingly respectful take on and dissent from Tolkien's values, but some paid subscriber needs to straighten him out on the origins of eucatastrophe: eu (good/positive in Greek) + catastrophe (what it says on the tin), not Eucharist+catastrophe. The characterization of eucatastrophe as inherently "deus ex machina" is also possibly misleading; it's been a while since I read the essay where Tolkien talks about it, but I remember it as being basically any shocking but positive plot development. The main character in the Searchers not killing his niece is eucatastrophe. The Man With No Name showing up to referee the duel at the end of For a Few Dollars More is eucatastrophe. The cauterization scene in Brides of Dracula is eucatastrophe. Freddie showing up with a marriage license in his pocket at the end of Cotillion, to help his cousin elope with the cousin's love interest so the cousin can get away from his evil mother, is eucatastrophe.
I disagree with Mel on the nature of eucatastrophe--the mechanic she's talking about (sudden luck, shocking positive surprise, etc.) is as old as literature and didn't require a new term. Tolkien was trying to do something a bit different, at least as far as I can tell from reading his letters (especially). He is a bit more modest in On Fairy Stories, but even there, I think my read works a little better than hers.
I'll admit I need to think on this one as it is a different interpretation than I have. My explanation for that scene has less to do with the Ring and more to do with Frodo as a Christ figure, specifically having two natures and the free will to act on either with the "divine" taking an insurance policy against "the human" (both in quotes to signify that Frodo might be a Christ figure I'm not seeing him as the Christ, that is the embodied son of Illuvatar).
This no doubt reflects my Protestant upbringing and, to a lesser degree, my later conversion to Orthodoxy without having been a Catholic much less in complete embrace of Catholic theology.
A reader sent this comment to me privately, and given that it corrects an error of fact in the article I requested her permission to post it publicly here. I have corrected the main article and appended a footnote pursuant to this comment.
Mel Dunay says:
Coming from an author who is, IIRC, a nonbeliever, that is a surprisingly respectful take on and dissent from Tolkien's values, but some paid subscriber needs to straighten him out on the origins of eucatastrophe: eu (good/positive in Greek) + catastrophe (what it says on the tin), not Eucharist+catastrophe. The characterization of eucatastrophe as inherently "deus ex machina" is also possibly misleading; it's been a while since I read the essay where Tolkien talks about it, but I remember it as being basically any shocking but positive plot development. The main character in the Searchers not killing his niece is eucatastrophe. The Man With No Name showing up to referee the duel at the end of For a Few Dollars More is eucatastrophe. The cauterization scene in Brides of Dracula is eucatastrophe. Freddie showing up with a marriage license in his pocket at the end of Cotillion, to help his cousin elope with the cousin's love interest so the cousin can get away from his evil mother, is eucatastrophe.
I disagree with Mel on the nature of eucatastrophe--the mechanic she's talking about (sudden luck, shocking positive surprise, etc.) is as old as literature and didn't require a new term. Tolkien was trying to do something a bit different, at least as far as I can tell from reading his letters (especially). He is a bit more modest in On Fairy Stories, but even there, I think my read works a little better than hers.
Nonetheless, thank you, Mel, for the correction!
I'll admit I need to think on this one as it is a different interpretation than I have. My explanation for that scene has less to do with the Ring and more to do with Frodo as a Christ figure, specifically having two natures and the free will to act on either with the "divine" taking an insurance policy against "the human" (both in quotes to signify that Frodo might be a Christ figure I'm not seeing him as the Christ, that is the embodied son of Illuvatar).
This no doubt reflects my Protestant upbringing and, to a lesser degree, my later conversion to Orthodoxy without having been a Catholic much less in complete embrace of Catholic theology.
Glad you found it thought-provoking :-)