The Wisconsin cartographer who mapped Tolkien's fantasy world

My favorite parts of the Silmarillion were the ones where I learned the back story of the world: the Valaquenta, the Ainulindalë, and Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age. I don't have my copy here, but if I recall correctly that last section starts with Of old there was Sauron the Maia.... That's the stuff I wanted to know.

I was also impressed by Tolkien's creation myth. I'm not really familiar with the various religions or mythologies, whether invented by a single author or developed over time by pre-scientific societies, but his is the only one I know of where the creation was based on music.

It's a really great analogy for how God can allow his creations free will without it messing up His Work. Melkor uses his free will to try and make his own "music" discordant from Eru's but Eru just incorporates it into His music and makes the whole song better.

You might be familiar with another musical creation story written by Tolkien's friend C.S. Lewis. In The Magician's Nephew, Aslan sings the land of Narnia into existence.

So you're saying that Eru and Miles Davis are one?

It's the most satisfying creation myth I've ever come across. Makes more sense to me than any other "real" culture's idea of how the world / cosmos began. I'd like to live in a world where it is true. (Yes, I know: Tolkien, Catholicism; sure, fine. I specifically think Ainulindalë is better than the Bible, and I don't care if anyone, including Tolkien, would think me a heretic for saying so.)

But Lewis story is a flat- carbon copy, with just characters appearance replaced /enhanced with fantasy elements. Its basically a fanfiction bible painted over.

The Bible, like any “real” mythology is full of inconsistencies and contradictions and unanswered questions. In contrast, a literary “mythology” created by a single author can be logically and tonaly consistent.

I think Tolkien appeals to people because it has the feel of mythology, legend and ancient history, but still is a literary creation which satifies modern need for logic and modern morality.

It's a mistake to look at the creation narratives in the Bible and talk about inconsistencies and contradictions. There's an implicit assumption when you go down that route that we're discussing a single text. We don't do the same thing with, say, the ancient Egyptians, who had at least four distinct creation traditions. We only do this with the Biblical creation narratives because the redactors of Genesis started out with one creation narrative and then followed with another. (And let's not forget about the other creation traditions found in Psalm 104 and Job 38-42, which are quite different from those in Genesis!) But notably, the redactors didn't rationalize those distinct traditions into a single, consistent narrative. That's a later reading. If we try to venture into the minds of the redactors, they probably saw value in preserving these distinct traditions.

I'd never thought of that, but yes now that you mention it, I think that's exactly what I'm saying