[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Ummmm.... no. Good is good and bad is bad, and they are not always clear but always constant. And then you have a basketball player and a swimmer: who is stronger? Go figure. How do you even judge or compare them? Or even, let's say, two biathletes - one skis in good weather and makes faster timing, the other skis in a storm and completes the same track in more time. Who is stronger? Dunno, they have a different situation. Maybe the second is naturally slower, or maybe the first wouldn't have been able to complete the track in bad conditions. And to add to that, the Canadian news reporter says that the first biathlete is the strongest of the bunch while the American reporter really praises the second for his superior strength. Who do you trust? Is one lying?

Firstly the popular opinion now is not 'good is good' and 'bad is bad,' but one of relativism. This is something that Eomer is questioning. He is asking does the matter of what is good depend on the time period? Or is good relative to everyone's culture.

People compare sportsman all the time. What do you think the Laureus award is? When you know a sport is quite easy to compare, which athlete is stronger when they raced in different conditions.

Especially when he called most of his characters "great", "strong", "fair", etc at some point or another.

'Great' or 'strong' is not the same as 'greatest' or 'strongest'. When there is a contradiction we can then discuss things, but until then I believe it's best to go with what has actually written, rather than adding our own interpretation into the text. How far do you want to go?

So do I, but I read his word differently. He writes a story, not a code of law. When he says that something or someone was greatest/strongest/fairest/[insert superlative], I understand it to be very great/strong/etc. Luthien, Arwen, and Galadriel all compete for the title of the "fairest" woman in ME (get the axes ready!), but to me that just means they were all quite beautiful in their own ways. One statement does not have to contradict another, and neither has to mean that literally out of the whole legendarium one lady gets the most points for beauty.

So you want to interpret the words of the text differently than they are written. Maybe when it says Finarfin is blonde it really means brunette? How far do you want to go? Luthien, Arwen and Galadriel do not compete for the title of fairest. There is no competition in Tolkien's writing. There is a unanimous winner: Luthing Thingol. In every several different writings she is called the 'fairest' that ever lived. There are too many instances to even begin to quote them.

I myself admire Hurin for his willpower very very very much, but I have a couple problems with your statement:

Firstly it was not my statement, but Tolkien's who knows the characters and their strengths perfectly.

1) You can't compare him with many others since he's one of the extremely few Eruhini who faced Morgoth. You don't know how others would have reacted, since they were never there. A great will won't show itself until it is tested, and he's the only one to get the test. It's like me saying "you are my favourite sister" when I only have one sister. It means that I like her very much. Perhaps she would be my favourite if I had more.

You can compare him with others, who faced a less evil in Glaurung and proved not as strong. However, this is besides the point, because Tolkien told us that this was the strongest a Man's spirit has ever become.

2) Tolkien says this and then spends over a thousand pages marvelling at the strength of will of the hobbits. Sure, they never defeat a Morgoth, but once again, it's relative. Look were Hurin starts out and where they start out. It is quite expected that Hurin would have the strength to resist to a point, while hobbits don't seem to have any strength at all. It's undeniably a great feat to defy Morgoth, but is it not also a great feat to resist Sauron in a Palantir? How many times to Gandalf and Elrond and the rest wonder at Frodo's strength after Weathertop and in general, throughout the journey? Of Pippin with the Palantir? Or Merry and the Nazgul? Feats that greater men could not do? It's subjective.

So you want to take Tolkien's marveling at the strength of Hobbits literally, but not when he says Hurin's strength of Will was greater? Why is it a given that a man, would have the strength of Will to resist the greatest thing ever created when even Manwe initially was daunted by Melkor's eyes?

Just, because Aragorn resisting Sauron in the Palantir is a great feat, does not make it equal with Hurin's. As Tolkien tells us these mental battles are much, much more difficult in person and Aragorn was helped by distance and the Palantir rightfully belonging to him. Hurin on the other hand was up against a much greater foe than Sauron and in person.

Something being 'subjective' to our eyes does not mean there is no way of judging. Is the strength of Will Frodo needed to go on a diet the same as the strength of Will needed to destroy the ring? Both are subjective, but nobody is going to say the former required more mental strength.

3) Tolkien is very liberal with his superlatives. If you take all of them to be literally true, you find yourself in a paradox. Therefore, you must also be liberal in understanding the value of those superlatives - not to diminish the deed or quality, but to understand that it's not really being ranked, just singled out as extraordinary.

Or maybe Tolkien wished to rank certain deeds and we should take him at his word. Where things contradict then we can argue, but where there is no contradiction why reject his words?

4) If everything becomes important based on its rank of superlative, everything just loses the point. Do I care about Hurin because Tolkien described him as the strongest, physically or in will? Do I care about his strength that way? I really don't. What I do care about is that despite the hoplessness of the situation and the superhuman pressure he has to withstand, he does not crack and defies Morgoth. This makes me understand and admire his strength. A superlative statement just confirms my own feelings in ME people. At the same time, I also admire Aragorn's battle of wills with Sauron and Gandalf's battle of wills with the Balrog. I don't admire them less just because they don't have a Morgoth, or because they are not the greatest deeds ever. If you begin ranking events and characters based on pure superlatives, they will soon be reduced to pokemon cards. This one has 400 magic power, that one has 500 strength power...

Why does something loses importance if it is ranked? Please explain this to me? Ranking things does not reduce them to Pokemon cards. Just, because you personally want to look at things one way does not mean others do.

Not all situations are hopeless and some deeds are greater than others. It does not distract from one 'great deed' to know that another was greater. Rather it gives you Sam hope that if Beren and Luthien could triumph 'in a worse place and black danger' than theirs, then they could make it too.

Well, technically...

I had to. Never mind this.

I don't see why you don't take it seriously. When you pick and choose what the author means, despite him repeating an idea then what is next?

'and she (Luthien) was the fairest maiden that has ever been among all the children of this world'-LOTR

'for Luthien was the most beautiful of all the Children of Illuvater'-Silmarillion

Just two of the many, many quotes naming Luthien as the fairest of all the Children of Illuvater in different books. If you can reject something that Tolkien repeatedly writes then what next do you want to reject?