[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

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.

Relativism with good and bad comes when there is a choice between two or more goods, or two or more evils. I doubt you'd say that the concept of murder is good, regardless of time and culture.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

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.

That's right - people give certain criteria by which to judge. They count up the points, performance, whatever. But that just tells you who scored more points that year, not who is actually stronger.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

'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?

As far as I want to go. Texts are always interpreted. If you choose to interpret everything you read literally, I don't have to follow your choice.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

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.

But that's just your opinion. Neither Gimli nor Eomer fought to defend Luthien's beauty.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

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

Not the statement about Hurin, but your conclusion.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

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?

Did I ever say that I do not take Hurin's greatness literally? I said that I admire his strength of will very very very much. And I don't see why I should not also agree about the hobbits' greatness. What I am liberal in reading are superlatives, because I am hesitant to start ranking people and deeds based on pokemon cards.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

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.

Alright then. Whose will was stronger, Merry's when he stabbed the Nazgul or Pippin's when he looked in the Palantir? Go, judge, rank. Good luck to you.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

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?

So you're that keen on having everything laid out from most to least. Why? Why do you need to rank things? Why can you not just appreciate each for what they are independent of any other?

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Why does something loses importance if it is ranked? Please explain this to me? Ranking things does not reduce them to Pokemon cards.

Then how does this sound to you:

Gandalf - 400 strength -- 550 magic -- 450 mind
Aragorn - 350 strength -- 400 magic -- 400 mind
Boromir - 400 strength -- 300 magic -- 200 mind
Gimli - 450 strength -- 350 magic -- 250 mind

You see what I mean? Do you like LOTR, The Sil, etc when they are laid out like that?

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Just, because you personally want to look at things one way does not mean others do.

That applies to both sides, you know.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

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.

It takes away from the appreciation of the reader to have it all laid out and ranked like Pokemon cards. Oooh, this one is stronger, it has more points!

Originally Posted by cellurdur

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?

Actually, I decided Feanor wasn't the son of Finwe at all, but Miriel had a secret affair with Melkor. This explains everything. She doesn't want to come back from the dead because she's ashamed and afraid. Feanor has skill beyond any other elf. He has quite the character but also quite the charisma. He's so concerned with fighting for his place as Finwe's firstborn son. There's clearly something going on between him and Morgoth when you look at their interactions. Isn't it obvious?

...You realize I'm doing this just for fun, right?

There are some things that are facts. Lorien lies to the West of the Misty Mountains. The Misty Mountains are mountains. Galadriel has golden hair.

There are some things which are opinion-like descriptions. Galadriel is the fairest. Lorien is the fairest. Celeborn is the wisest.

There are some things you take as givens. They are husband and wife. There are some things you take as enhancements of the text and of your understanding. Galadriel is the fairest.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

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?

If you claim that Luthien is the fairest, are you then claiming Tolkien lied about Arwen and Galadriel being the fairest? Because that's what you're suggesting. You are picking your winner based on the number of times her beauty is praised, but that doesn't really erase the other two candidates and the statements that clearly say they are the fairest.

I do not reject Luthien's beauty, or Hurin's willpower. I do not deny that they surpass most others'. But I also value the subjective things - the situation, the effort, the sacrifice - and take them into account. The problem I have with your approach is that in ranking people and things it takes things out of context and diminishes the value of things that are not the "---est". Moreover, I want to ask you, how far do you want to go? What's next? giving points for number of ocrs killed? Tricks performed? Better weapons? I do not and cannot agree to this approach. I have stated my thoughts on the matter, I hope with enough clarity. If you want to continue discussing this, perhaps we can take it to PMs instead of filling this thread with tangential debates.

Originally Posted by Galin

Or something else; perhaps Tolkien just writing, in the moment, enjoying superlatives.

I can completely see this happening.