Relative Powers

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Where are you getting this that Feanor is mentally weak, Sauce?

I never said that Feanor was mentally weak. I said that he had a mental weakness which should be taken into account when assessing his relative power.

But you concerted defence of him does illustrate another problem inherent in trying to come up with this kind of a list. It will always, as far as certain characters are concerned, be highly objective. Lmp recognises this and so retains for himself the final word. But there will always be disagreement over the placing of favourite characters.

One further point that has been bothering me. Why are Radagast and the Blue Wizards so low? They were Maiar, albeit subject to the restrictions imposed upon the Istari. As such, they should be an a par (if slightly lower, perhaps) than Saruman the White and Gandalf the Grey. They may not have used their power to great effect in the overall scheme of things, but they would undoubtedly have had a similar "level" of power.

And are Aiwendil, Alatar and Pallando on the list? I don't recall them being there. If they are not, they should be placed similarly, relative to Olorin and Curumo.

[the phantom]

I never said that Feanor was mentally weak. I said that he had a mental weakness which should be taken into account when assessing his relative power.

Ah, I understand what you mean. Thanks for pointing that out. But my response to that would be that every single being besides Eru had some sort of mental weakness from Manwe down to the common orc. Feanor's only showed through the way it did because he was specifically marked and attacked by the most powerful being in all of Arda (and a couple of unfortunate events and a blunder or two by the Valar didn't help).

But you concerted defence of him does illustrate another problem inherent in trying to come up with this kind of a list. It will always, as far as certain characters are concerned, be highly objective. Lmp recognises this and so retains for himself the final word. But there will always be disagreement over the placing of favourite characters.

Quite right.

On the subject of "favourite characters", I readily admit that I absolutely love Feanor, but at the same time I think my approach to him is far more factual than emotional. Indeed, it was ignoring emotion and taking into account facts that made me a huge fan of Feanor in the first place.

When one reads the Silmarillion, it is natural to come away from it not liking Feanor. He is not treated with as much sympathy as he could've been- he is not treated like a hero. Feanor's actions are never remotely excused, and the Valar are never said to have made a mistake in their dealings with him. If I had just read the book, I probably would think Feanor was an out of control, egotistical, evil jerk, and that the Valar were practically perfect.

But I didn't just read. I considered the facts apart from the way in which they were presented. I thought, "Hmm, Feanor couldn't possibly hope to remain unaffected by Melkor if Melkor was trying to influence him. After all, Melkor obviously was capable of fooling Manwe. Given that, it appears Feanor is being banished from his home for not doing the impossible. The primary objectives after discovering Melkor's evil should have been to catch Melkor and to undo his evil words. But instead, the first thing the Valar do is give Feanor a punishment that reinforces Melkor's lies. Wow. That is, without a doubt, the worst possible decision they could've made."

So, as I hope you can see, my pro-Feanor stance grew from my examination of events, not from the way the events were presented. Surely that counts for something, and puts my opinions in a better light than some others who fanatically support one character or another.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by the phantom

When one reads the Silmarillion, it is natural to come away from it not liking Feanor.

Well, I could not honestly say that I "like" Feanor. He did too may heartless things, and unnecessarily so, to garner my affection. The burning of the ships, forcing the remaining Noldor to brave the Hellcaraxe, for example. That said, I nevertheless find his story fascinating and he undoubtedly contributes hugely to the tale. For that, I can admire and respect him as a character.

Yes, others had various weaknesses that affect their "power". But Feanor's mental weakness was hugely detrimental to his own well-being, that of his entire line and most of those who came into contact with him.

So, as I hope you can see, my pro-Feanor stance grew from my examination of events, not from the way the events were presented.

I can understand that. But I still think that, in your admirable defence of him, you err on the side of ignoring his negative qualities.

[littlemanpoet]

Regarding the Translator Conceit, play with it if you like, or not. It matters not to me. I think there may be more to it than I have so far cared to think. However, it can also render itself to such efforts as this thread no better than a confounding befuddlement bearing no useful results.

As to Fëanor, my further reading in the Sil has pointed up something rather critical to understanding him and his fellow Noldor:

(p. 104: But the dawn is brief and the day full often belies its promise; and now the time drew on to the great wars of the powers of the North, when Noldor and Sindar and Men strove against the hosts of Morgoth Bauglir. To this end the cunning lies of Morgoth that he sowed of old, and sowed ever anew among his foes, and the curse that came of the slaying at Alqualondë, and the oath of Fëanor, were ever at work.

There are three things at work here, then, dooming the Noldor: (1) the lies of Morgoth (2) the oath of Fëanor (empowered by Eru since his name is invoked in it) (3) the curse that came of the slaying at Alqualondë (at the bidding of Manwë). Now, this curse affected the offspring of Fingolfin as much as it did the sons of Fëanor; whereas the children of Finarfin (Finrod & Galadriel for example held themselves aloof from it. Only Fëanor and his sons swore the oath. Morgoth's lies affected many: all and sundry. So the oath is the most specific and most powerful being from Eru; the curse less powerful and less specific, being from Manwë; the lies are the most far flung, and only as powerful as those who heard them allowed them to be, which reflects back upon the oath and curse. One thing more should be said. Being Eldar does not remove choice. It sets a doom, but within that doom are many choices, for which every Eldar is accountable. There is therefore a limit to the "determinism" some would read into the doom of the Eldar.

Sauc'sy point as to Fëanor is an interesting one. Tolkien goes to great trouble to establish the psychological (as it were) roots of Fëanor's character, what with his mother leaving the body after giving birth, leaving him a sort of orphan and then Finwë's resulting favoritism which caused its own problems. Loss of a parent is a rather obvious treatment in the Legendarium, repeated over and over again, with varying results depending upon the character. That Fëanor's character is so rash and, well, fiery, seems to be a powerful intrinsic aspect, complicated further by his orphanhood. A more self-absorbed character most of us have never met. So is Saucy right? And if so, what do we make of it?

Originally Posted by the phantom

lmp, since this is your thread why don't you tell me, would a good description of what you are looking for be sheer amount of knowledge, strength of will, number of skills, strength of skills, ability to impact mind and matter, and ability in battle?

All of it and then some probably. Who had the ability to affect Middle Earth the most, and who did so?

This has been a fascinating discussion on many levels, but I find myself most intrigued by the current (halted) discussion between the phantom and the saucepan man in regard to Fëanor. Very well argued on both sides.

(p66) For Fëanor was driven by the fire of his own heart only, working ever swiftly and alone; and he asked the aid and sought the counsel of none that dwelt in Aman, great or small, save only and for a little while of Nerdanel the wise, his wife.

(p69)High Princes were Fëanor and Fingolfin, the elder sons of Finwë, honoured by all in Aman; but now they grew proud and jealous each of his rights and his possessions.

Then the lies of Morgoth about Fingolfin's supposed ambitions reach Fëanor's ears - - - and he chooses to believe them. Why? Because the seeds of pride and jealousy had already been sown in his heart. By Morgoth? No.

Fëanor began to love the Silmarils with a greedy love, and grudged the sight of them to all save to his father and his seven sons; he seldom remembered that the light within them was not his own.

It's not a mental weakness that is the primary failure in Fëanor. Rather, it's the "will to hording" that Tolkien frequently wrote about, which comes of loving a thing more than it deserves. So misplaced love is Fëanor's greatest character flaw, and as Tolkien indicated, this was because he loved things of his own making too much. I suddenly see a lot of what Tolkien feared in himself, in Fëanor.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by lmp

So is Saucy right? And if so, what do we make of it?

I think he is, and I think what we make of it goes back to earlier observations that the list has little merit without some context.

If the context is simply that two given characters go into a cage and fight to the death, then you can sort out the beginnings of a list rather easily (I expect that's mostly what drives the current rankings, with a few notable exceptions). A theme of Tolkien's is that evil choices lead to self-defeat, whereas self-sacrificing choices lead to victory. Consequently, while evil or deeply flawed characters bring more ability and/or will to project raw power onto the field, in practice they are not as "powerful" as they might seem since their attitudes towards power and its use and the choices they make ultimately leave them vulnerable.

Originally Posted by lmp

I suddenly see a lot of what Tolkien feared in himself, in Fëanor.

Nice insight!

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

A theme of Tolkien's is that '. Consequently, while evil or deeply flawed characters bring more ability and/or will to project raw power onto the field, in practice they are not as "powerful" as they might seem since their attitudes towards power and its use and the choices they make ultimately leave them vulnerable.

I think it could be argued that this is an instance of Tolkien imposing his own beliefs, or hopes, on his creation. Certainly in M-e its true that 'evil choices lead to self-defeat, whereas self-sacrificing choices lead to victory', but is that true in the primary world? Certainly we would all wish it to be the case, but how many of us can say it reflects our everyday experience?

If Feanor was Tolkien's own alter-ego, it seems he was punishing himself for his 'sins' in Feanor's fate. Maybe Tolkien created the world as he felt it 'ought' to be in his Middle-earth. I suppose it could be argued that if the primary world had been as Tolkien felt it should be he wouldn't have bothered to create a 'secondary' one. So, was M-e really a 'reflection' of our world, an attempt to enable us to see things 'as we were meant to see them' (OFS) or was it his attempt to get us to see the world as he felt it ought to be, but plainly was not (in his view)? In short, was M-e truly 'escapist' in the pejorative sense?

Yet this begs a further question - if the 'primary' world is not (as our experience suggests) a place where goodness & compassion ultimately win out, why do we respond so strongly to a world that is so 'out of touch' with our experience? Where does our innate sense that the way things work in M-e is 'right' & the way things seem to be in the 'real' world is wrong or 'faulty' come from?

[Aiwendil]

Certainly in M-e its true that 'evil choices lead to self-defeat, whereas self-sacrificing choices lead to victory', but is that true in the primary world? Certainly we would all wish it to be the case, but how many of us can say it reflects our everyday experience?

Yet this begs a further question - if the 'primary' world is not (as our experience suggests) a place where goodness & compassion ultimately win out, why do we respond so strongly to a world that is so 'out of touch' with our experience? Where does our innate sense that the way things work in M-e is 'right' & the way things seem to be in the 'real' world is wrong or 'faulty' come from?

Interesting questions. However, I don't think that Tolkien would have seen Middle-earth as fundamentally different from the 'primary' world in this regard. It is an over-simplification to say that in Middle-earth 'evil choices lead to self-defeat, whereas self-sacrificing choices lead to victory'. Yes, this is true to an extent - but it does not mitigate the Long Defeat. Self-sacrifice does not always lead to victory, and indeed it seems that the forces of good are doomed to lose in the end - at least within the world.

But insofar as the victory that arises from self-sacrifice is the 'eucatastrophe' of the story, I think Tolkien would say that it does accurately represent the real world. Tolkien thought that the eucatastrophe was a true 'glimpse of the Evangelium'.

[drigel]

I think it could be argued that this is an instance of Tolkien imposing his own beliefs, or hopes, on his creation.

The Feanor story does have something to do with subcreation. I also read it as a tale of the inevitablitly of disaster when children abide with the holy. But it's also about decline, and pride. Feanor isnt all powerfull. He is flawed, like all of us. The power that comes from him is the work he crafted, which was greater than him or any of the other children - well nigh unto the Vala themselves. This sets him apart for me, regardless of physical attributes.

So, was M-e really a 'reflection' of our world, an attempt to enable us to see things 'as we were meant to see them' (OFS) or was it his attempt to get us to see the world as he felt it ought to be, but plainly was not (in his view)? In short, was M-e truly 'escapist' in the pejorative sense?

I dont think that was the intent of the author. It is IMO a reverse reflection, to stay with your analogy. But being of, and about Fairy is beyond conscious human history. Its Europe, not of an earlier time, rather than an earlier imagination (paraphrasing). You can define or describe a reflection, but you cant pick it up, weigh it, or break it apart.