Elves and Ringwraiths

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

It was funnier the other way.

As far as the subject, I've come to the conclusion that for every statement you can quote from Tolkien, there is an equal and opposite contradictory reply. Like the elves, Tolkien says both yes and no.

So, whichever side of a discussion you wish to be on, there are plenty of quotes to cull. Except, of course, for Balrog's wings, which were an undeniable certainty.

Not when you take things into context.

For example Tolkien might call Galadriel a 'queen' in a letter to a friend outlining the story. He is not being literal here, because in the story we know she is not a 'queen' and in a more detailed letter he goes into it.

The same with Arwen being an 'elf'.

I think there is this great desire to dismiss the consistency in the work, even when there are no contradictions.

[Galadriel55]

The thing is, half the major characters are praised half as well as they deserve, and less than half are praised half as much, and they are never told to line up and run a race or something. How do you compare Sam with any other hero? Or even a more similar twain, Aragorn and Turin? How do you tell who had the greater will, physical strength, or greatness of character? LOTR provides the solution: get a sword and call for an axe.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

The thing is, half the major characters are praised half as well as they deserve, and less than half are praised half as much, and they are never told to line up and run a race or something. How do you compare Sam with any other hero? Or even a more similar twain, Aragorn and Turin? How do you tell who had the greater will, physical strength, or greatness of character? LOTR provides the solution: get a sword and call for an axe.

Tolkien was not a relativist.

'Good and evil have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among elves and dwarves and another among Men.'

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Tolkien was not a relativist.

'Good and evil have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among elves and dwarves and another among Men.'

That has nothing to do with anything. Please mark that I am not discussing the nature of good and evil but the "strength" of the characters. Last time I checked strength is not some transcendent quality but is very subjective; it depends on many considerations and conditions. Moreover, no one is put through the same task at the same time with the same situation. People do different strong and heroic things. How do you determine which is the more heroic, or who is stronger? You don't, you just appreciate both as much as they deserve and don't compare. It's not like they are competing for points for ranking.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

That has nothing to do with anything. Please mark that I am not discussing the nature of good and evil but the "strength" of the characters. Last time I checked strength is not some transcendent quality but is very subjective; it depends on many considerations and conditions. Moreover, no one is put through the same task at the same time with the same situation. People do different strong and heroic things. How do you determine which is the more heroic, or who is stronger? You don't, you just appreciate both as much as they deserve and don't compare. It's not like they are competing for points for ranking.

Strength is as subjective as good and evil. Can we determine with certainty what is always 'good' and what is always 'evil'? No. However, as the Aragorn quote says we have a choice to make.

The same way we cannot always determine who had the greatest strength, but we can still use our opinion to make a judgement call. Fortunately for us we don't always need to use our own judgement, but can rely on what Tolkien said.

When Tolkien tells us that Luthien and Beren stealing a Silmarillion was the greatest deed accomplished, then I take him for his word.

When Tolkien said Hurin had the greatest strength of 'will' ever when he defied Morgoth, once more I take him at his word.

The same way I take him at his word when he tells me that Finwe was the father of Feanor or Arathorn was the father of Aragorn.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Strength is as subjective as good and evil. Can we determine with certainty what is always 'good' and what is always 'evil'? No. However, as the Aragorn quote says we have a choice to make.

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?

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The same way we cannot always determine who had the greatest strength, but we can still use our opinion to make a judgement call. Fortunately for us we don't always need to use our own judgement, but can rely on what Tolkien said.

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

Originally Posted by cellurdur

When Tolkien tells us that Luthien and Beren stealing a Silmarillion was the greatest deed accomplished, then I take him for his word.

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.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

When Tolkien said Hurin had the greatest strength of 'will' ever when he defied Morgoth, once more I take him at his word.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The same way I take him at his word when he tells me that Finwe was the father of Feanor or Arathorn was the father of Aragorn.

Well, technically...

I had to. Never mind this.

[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?

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Not when you take things into context.

For example Tolkien might call Galadriel a 'queen' in a letter to a friend outlining the story. He is not being literal here, because in the story we know she is not a 'queen' and in a more detailed letter he goes into it.

With respect to the sources, as far as I recall Gimli refers to Galadriel as a Queen in The Lord of the Rings, as does the narrator of Of The Rings Of Power And The Third Age [a Queen of the Woodland Elves]. Of course the latter wasn't published by JRRT himself, but since it does not disagree with the story published by the author I see no reason for Christopher Tolkien to edit this.

And yes, later Tolkien seems to have changed his mind here: in the 'Zimmerman letter' for example, JRRT explained that Artanis was not in fact a Queen, and in a relatively late text in Unfinished Tales he notes that she and Celeborn took no title of Queen and King, despite that they took up rule there.

Anyway, if we are talking about consistency, you characterizing your reference as not literal is, to my mind, you trying to explain a seeming inconsistency. And if we look at only what Tolkien himself chose to publish, in my opinion we have a different perspective concerning this matter.


Since Feanor is mentioned...

In the 1930s Tolkien wrote: 'Of these Feanor was the mightiest in skill of word and hand, more learned in lore than his brethren; in his heart his spirit burned as flame. Fingolfin was the strongest, the most steadfast, and the most valiant. Finrod was the fairest, and the most wise of heart.' Quenta Silmarillion


And then in the early 1950s Tolkien writes (Annals of Aman): 'For Feanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind: in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and subtelty alike: of all the Children of Eru, and a bright flame was in him.'

But yet in the early 1950s Tolkien keeps the first passage I quoted, even changing Finrod to Finarfin and extending the last sentence (so we know he simply didn't overlook this) -- thus if Feanor is the mightiest 'in valour', how then is Fingolfin the most valiant? Or if 'in strength' why then is Fingolfin the strongest? Or if 'in beauty' why then is Finarfin the fairest?

Maybe this is a matter of authorship and opinion: The Annals of Aman were said to be written by Rumil in the Elder Days, and held in memory by the Exiles, and parts remembered were set down in Numenor before the Shadow fell upon it. Could it be that Rumil esteemed Feanor so highly while another author rather noted the greatness of Fingolfin and Finarfin in certain areas?

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

In any event, here's what Tolkien added (and thus published himself) to the second edition of 1965 (in Appendix A): 'Feanor was the greatest of the Eldar in arts and lore, but also the proudest and most self-willed.'

Of course this might be attributed to brevity, if Feanor was really the great-est in more than arts and lore.

[Galin]

-Galin, I think that physical description of the Eldar in the "Return of the King" appendices may indeed refer to those of Middle-earth only- if you assume the point is to describe the Eldar as Men knew them (in which case the appearance of the Vanyar isn't relevant).

By the way thanks for commenting on this Nerwen. I've planted the idea at other sites but no one ever agreed or disagreed [that I recall], or commented, and I wondered if anyone thought I was reaching here [here's your invite, as if you need one, to any who think I am reaching and care enough to say so].

I would say the footnote alters the natural interpretation of this passage, and it at least seems like a correction anyway, but it's really only there due to an attempt to find consistency with a description Tolkien himself never published in any case. Granted, the idea of the golden Vanyar is well attested in later texts and appears in the constructed Silmarillion...

... but still. I mean the reader of The Lord of the Rings is not aware that this passage is arguably problematic with something Tolkien had written in his private papers -- which are no longer private obviously, but this is not due to the Subcreator himself.

Just to note it, 'but still' is a very compelling argument It's also somewhat versatile.


Sorry. I'll shaddap now. Especially since no one is arguing with me about this [yet]...

... but still

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

With respect to the sources, as far as I recall Gimli refers to Galadriel as a Queen in The Lord of the Rings, as does the narrator of Of The Rings Of Power And The Third Age [a Queen of the Woodland Elves]. Of course the latter wasn't published by JRRT himself, but since it does not disagree with the story published by the author I see no reason for Christopher Tolkien to edit this.

And yes, later Tolkien seems to have changed his mind here: in the 'Zimmerman letter' for example, JRRT explained that Artanis was not in fact a Queen, and in a relatively late text in Unfinished Tales he notes that she and Celeborn took no title of Queen and King, despite that they took up rule there.

Anyway, if we are talking about consistency, you characterizing your reference as not literal is, to my mind, you trying to explain a seeming inconsistency. And if we look at only what Tolkien himself chose to publish, in my opinion we have a different perspective concerning this matter.


Since Feanor is mentioned...

In the 1930s Tolkien wrote: 'Of these Feanor was the mightiest in skill of word and hand, more learned in lore than his brethren; in his heart his spirit burned as flame. Fingolfin was the strongest, the most steadfast, and the most valiant. Finrod was the fairest, and the most wise of heart.' Quenta Silmarillion


And then in the early 1950s Tolkien writes (Annals of Aman): 'For Feanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind: in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and subtelty alike: of all the Children of Eru, and a bright flame was in him.'

But yet in the early 1950s Tolkien keeps the first passage I quoted, even changing Finrod to Finarfin and extending the last sentence (so we know he simply didn't overlook this) -- thus if Feanor is the mightiest 'in valour', how then is Fingolfin the most valiant? Or if 'in strength' why then is Fingolfin the strongest? Or if 'in beauty' why then is Finarfin the fairest?

Maybe this is a matter of authorship and opinion: The Annals of Aman were said to be written by Rumil in the Elder Days, and held in memory by the Exiles, and parts remembered were set down in Numenor before the Shadow fell upon it. Could it be that Rumil esteemed Feanor so highly while another author rather noted the greatness of Fingolfin and Finarfin in certain areas?

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

In any event, here's what Tolkien added (and thus published himself) to the second edition of 1965 (in Appendix A): 'Feanor was the greatest of the Eldar in arts and lore, but also the proudest and most self-willed.'

Of course this might be attributed to brevity, if Feanor was really the great-est in more than arts and lore.

The example about the sons of Finwe and of course the famous Treebeard/Tom (about who is the oldest) are examples of where Tolkien has gone overboard with superlatives and they contradict each other. It's at times like these where there is a need we have to resort to other measures.

However, this is not the case with say Earendil being the greatest mariner or Luthien being the fairest. The story is very clear and Tolkien consistently praises them as the best with no contradiction as far as I am aware of.

The same with the stealing of the Silmarillion. Tolkien refers to this as the greatest deed of Elves and Men against Morgoth. There is nothing to contradict this.


Now in the case of Finwe's sons, I think originally there is a case that the translations were not completely accurate. Not only was their author bias in the case of Rumil, but there was also 'mistranslation' by the official translator, which led to more mistakes. These 'mistakes' were deliberately left in.

Later as I have said previously Tolkien seemed to move away from this position and wanted a more definitive story most of the time, but certainly not all the time.

In the case of Finwe's sons I tend to favour the interpretation as Fingolfin being the strongest, Finarfin the most handsome and wises, with Feanor the best at crafts and lore. I favour this interpretation, because we see this traits somewhat being inherited by their descendants.

Galadriel and Finrod are the most beautiful and wisest out of the younger descendants of Finwe.

Turgon, Fingon and Argon are all very big men. Turgon and Argon being the two tallest after Thingol.

Then we have Feanor's boys inheriting his powers of persuasion and craft like Curufin and Celebrimbor.

[Galin]

For the record I am not saying [in my last post] that there are no cases where we can say X is 'greatest' based on the text, but I was responding to two examples where there was, in my opinion, more comparative text [the Galadriel as Queen matter, for example]

Later as I have said previously Tolkien seemed to move away from this position and wanted a more definitive story most of the time, but certainly not all the time.

Can you explain what you mean here in more detail, maybe including examples to help mark the external time frame?

If I recall correctly, in general in the old scenario [let's say with the start of the 'Silmarillion', after The Book of Lost Tales and the poetry of the 1920s] Elfwine was to be a studious scribe, trying not to alter the tales as he heard them from Elvish Eresseans. This is more 'direct' than the later scenario.

My example of Annals of Aman and my conjecturing about Rumil's only possible 'bias' actually reflects the later scenario, with the transmission through Numenor and the Mannish Kindoms down to Imladris, allowing for more 'mistakes' and purposed variations.

I do think there was some intentional variation [compared to QS] in the Annals when they were first revised in the 1950s, that is, when they were still imagined as a variant tradition to Quenta Silmarillion.

But in any case we are essentially dealing with draft texts here: what would Tolkien's Silmarillon contain versus his Annals? It seems as if the existing Annals of the 1950s grew and morphed into another Silmarillion, and thus could be 'absorbed' into the Silmarillion, with The Tale of Years taking over for the Annals -- thus Christopher Tolkien took plenty of passages from the Annals, Aman and Grey, for his constructed Silmarillion.

What was to be intentional inconsistency, when there is plenty of natural inconsistency [Tolkien changing his mind, letting new and different stories flow as they came to him, and so on] in the external evolution of a complex tale, is very hard to say.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

For the record I am not saying [in my last post] that there are no cases where we can say X is 'greatest' based on the text, but I was responding to two examples where there was, in my opinion, missing or comparative text [the Galadriel as Queen matter for example]




Can you explain what you mean here in more detail, maybe including examples to help mark the external time frame?

If I recall correctly, in general the old scenario [let's say with the start of the 'Silmarillion', after The Book of Lost Tales and the poetry of the 1920s] Elfwine was to be a studious scribe, trying not to alter the tales as he heard them from Elvish Eresseans. This is more 'direct' than the later scenario.

My example of Annals of Aman and my conjecturing about Rumil's only possible 'bias' actually reflects the later scenario, with the transmission through Numenor and the Mannish Kindoms down to Imladris, allowing for more 'mistakes' and purposed variations.

But in any case we are essentially dealing with draft texts here: what would Tolkien's Silmarillon contain versus his Annals? It seems as if the existing Annals of the 1950s had grown and morphed into another Silmarillion, and thus could be 'absorbed' into the Silmarillion, with The Tale of Years taking over for the Annals [thus Christopher Tolkien took plenty of passages from the Annals, Aman and Grey, for the constructed Silmarillion].

What was to be 'intentional' inconsistency, when there is plenty of 'natural inconsistency' in the external evolution of a complex tale, is very hard to say.

In one of his earlier letters he mentions the problem with 'translations'. As studious as Elfwine was there was bound to be mistakes.

The change to the myths being Mannish seemed to come from Tolkien's desire to put the myths even more in align with Catholic theology.

An example of this is in the 50's he gets a letter about whether the orcs being irredeemable is heretical. At the time he dismisses the concern and says it is of little importance to his story. Yes later on he definitely changes his mind on the importance of orcs being redeemable. He writes philosophical reasons on what the orcs are and whether they can be redeemed. In the end settling on the notion that the it's possible that Eru could redeem them.

The use of the stories having a Mannish origin is more to clear up things he could not quite translate. The lates 50s when he started making significant edits and the revisions to Quenta Silmarillion is when I noticed a change.

With his desire to write a more 'accurate' cosmology of Arda, seems to have come with it a desire to write a more 'accurate' history. Once you begin to translate the truth about the Two Trees it is inevitable, that you will begin to write about the 'truth' of Feanor.

The use of the Mannish myths seems to be a way of keeping the older stories, which in my opinion were more beautiful.

The essays he writes such as Glorfindel, where he reasons and comes to a conclusion about who Glorfindel was and why he was sent back; look to me like someone trying to find the 'true story.'

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

In one of his earlier letters he mentions the problem with 'translations'. As studious as Elfwine was there was bound to be mistakes.

Which letter please? I need some context here.

(...) With his desire to write a more 'accurate' cosmology of Arda, seems to have come with it a desire to write a more 'accurate' history. Once you begin to translate the truth about the Two Trees it is inevitable, that you will begin to write about the 'truth' of Feanor.

The use of the Mannish myths seems to be a way of keeping the older stories, which in my opinion were more beautiful.

But that means that the 'truth' of the Two Trees is now questionable as a Mannish myth.

The essays he writes such as Glorfindel, where he reasons and comes to a conclusion about who Glorfindel was and why he was sent back; look to me like someone trying to find the 'true story.'

Well, but I don't see how this, or a few examples, necessarily supports the great shift in thinking that you appear to be referencing.

It seems to me that there are always going to be arguable examples of Tolkien working out what he wants to present as 'true' in the sense of 'it exists in the legendarium', but the general scenario -- from older to later as far as The Silmarillion goes -- appears to be a move away from directness of transmission so that the story of the Two Trees can be preserved...

... not the absolute truth that that's how the Sun and Moon really came to be, however.

Now in the case of Finwe's sons, I think originally there is a case that the translations were not completely accurate. Not only was their author bias in the case of Rumil, but there was also 'mistranslation' by the official translator, which led to more mistakes. These 'mistakes' were deliberately left in.

Later as I have said previously Tolkien seemed to move away from this position and wanted a more definitive story most of the time, but certainly not all the time.

You see, here you refer to the 'bias' of Rumil, but I brought that up only as a sheer possibility when we had two variant traditions written at the same time [early 1950s], and within the scenario of the later transmission too, since that allows for more error.

What texts are you talking about with 'originally' here? According to this...

The lates 50s when he started making significant edits and the revisions to Quenta Silmarillion is when I noticed a change.

... I assume it is before the late 1950s.

Maybe I'm confused at this point, but you seem to be saying that Tolkien moved away from 'mistranslation' about the time he began to recharacterize the Silmarillion as largely Mannish, which to my mind allows for more mistranslation and variation that within the Elfwine scenario, Elfwine himself receiving the tales direct from Eressean speakers and putting them into Old English...

... to Tolkien's doorstep I guess.

Still generally speaking.

[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.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

Which letter please? I need some context here.

I am sorry I don't remember. It was something I briefly noticed whilst looking for something else, but I can find it during the weekend.

But that means that the 'truth' of the Two Trees is now questionable as a Mannish myth.

I don't think there is much doubt that Tolkien wanted to remove the 'Two Trees' as a Mannish myth. His problem was how to translate it, into the 'true history.'

Well, but I don't see how this, or a few examples, necessarily supports the great shift in thinking that you appear to be referencing.

It seems to me that there are always going to be arguable examples of Tolkien working out what he wants to present as 'true' in the sense of 'it exists in the legendarium', but the general scenario -- from older to later as far as The Silmarillion goes -- appears to be a move away from directness of transmission so that the story of the Two Trees can be preserved...

... not the absolute truth that that's how the Sun and Moon really came to be, however.

Except he didn't seem particularly keen on preserving the 'Two Trees'. Others urged him to do it, but he described such a cosmology story as absurd and ridiculous for intelligent elves to believe. He sought out ways to write 'true accounts' but in my opinion and others he let read them, they lack the beauty of the 'Two Trees'.

You see, here you refer to the 'bias' of Rumil, but I brought that up only as a sheer possibility when we had two variant traditions written at the same time [early 1950s], and within the scenario of the later transmission too, since that allows for more error.

What texts are you talking about with 'originally' here? According to this...



... I assume it is before the late 1950s.

Maybe I'm confused at this point, but you seem to be saying that Tolkien moved away from 'mistranslation' about the time he began to recharacterize the Silmarillion as largely Mannish, which to my mind allows for more mistranslation and variation that within the Elfwine scenario, Elfwine himself receiving the tales direct from Eressean speakers and putting them into Old English...

... to Tolkien's doorstep I guess.

Still generally speaking.

My point is when he started to disregard previous drafts as Mannish myths, he went about trying to write 'accurate accounts' of the myths.

For example explaining how when the elves were created Morgoth had the world created in a smog, but Manwe blew away the smog during the night and the elves first saw the stars and loved them ever since.

It's around this time he refocuses on things like the Children of Hurin and begins to hammer out things like makeup of orcs.