[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

It is a fact that Turgon's Gondolin was doomed to fail. That is part of the tragedy. I find it interesting that he was bidden to build the place and keep it secret even though it would be destroyed along with everyone in the realm apart from a handful of survivors. Was this Eru/the Valar extracting a 'price' from Turgon for being part of the rebellion? I think so. None of the Noldor who left Valinor ultimately succeeded in Middle-earth, even Galadriel was forced eventually to give up her dreams of power and 'diminish'.

I can't see it as a 'price' being exacted in that sense at all. The creation & survival of Gondolin was essential to the ultimate destruction of Morgoth, both in the fear & uncertainty it created in his mind & in the fact that it provided a safe haven for Tuor & Idril to marry & have Earendel.

Gondolin was vital. Turgon knew this, & if he over-reacted (which is questionable), he certainly ensured the downfall of Morgoth. If he had been in any sense a 'dictator' we know that he would have been replaced - we only have to look at the situation that developed in Nargothrond to see that there was no sense of 'divine right of Kings' which could leave an unpopular leader in power. The fierce loyalty Turgon inspired shows that he was in no way considered unreasonable or unfair by his people.

I merely mentioned that Turgon refused to listen to him. And that is Turgon's main fault. He does not listen. He approaches the situation incorrectly. His pride takes over and he 'decrees' an order to Eol, who is not one of his people. Turgon lacks diplomacy skills in this situation. It's an age old story and one that occurs elsewhere in Tolkien's work - how Pride Comes Before A Fall.

I can't see that Eol was all that deserving of respect or of being listened to - he was a thoroughly unpleasant piece of work who showed no respect to others, & started laying down the law to Turgon. If 'pride does come before a fall' I think that would apply more to Eol (in more ways than one )

Those Elves who did not go to Valinor and live under the Light of the two trees are not any less moral than those who did. In fact the story of the Noldor rebellion and the Kinslaying shows that the Noldor really are no more 'moral' than those who never went to Valinor. An Elf's natural 'place' is in Valinor, but the fact of having been there does not mean that an Elf is any better morally.

I'm not sure its a question of 'moral superiority' of the elves who went into the West. Its that they went. The point, I think, is that they chose the Light over the Darkness. The Avari & the Sindar rejected the chance of the Light & choose to remain in the Darkness. The rebelling Noldor may have 'fallen' but where did they 'land'? Well, right alongside the Sindar & Avari. The Sindar & Avari may not have 'fallen' in the same way but that's because they had never 'risen' in the first place - because they refused the chance.

Originally Posted by Raynor

I think you are confusing Eldar with the elves of the light; the first are those who set out on the march; the second are those who actually saw the light of the Trees; the sindar are, therefore, of the elves of darkness, with Thingol the exception.

thingol is an interesting case. He did see the Light, but rejected it. Effectively (a point Flieger makes) he chose the 'reflected' light in the face of Melian over the direct light of the Trees. He is called 'Greycloak' after all.