Is it possible: 1 Silmaril found: The Arkenstone - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Stoatly Grimes · 07-05-2008, 05:07 PM

I have read most of the posts relating to this idea of the Arkenstone being a Silmaril. I am surprised at how many of you people seem to entertain this clearly false idea. I feel I need to step in to bring some sense to the table.

I genuinely am shocked at how Tolkien's language is misunderstood in this particular debate. I understand that in the Balrog wings debate / Elf ear-shape debate etc. his ambiguous language serves to fuel debate and provides ammunition for both sides, but on this Arkenstone matter you are fooling yourselves. You are looking for evidence that is not there, and re-wording or re-interpreting Tolkien's language in order to make it fit. Have you heard of Occam's Razor? At a certain point you must step back and realise that the argument in favour of the proposition is extraordinarily cumbersome and full of holes.

Don't get me wrong, full respect to Gwaihir for that interesting article about volcanoes etc. I'm not having a go at him; I fear the talons immensely.

The idea that a Silmaril could be tossed aside (as it is when Thorin dies) is ridiculous and anyone with an understanding of the Silmarillion should realise this. The entire story is based upon the covetous nature the gems instill in beings and the years of terrible deeds that result.

It is possible that another gem existed in Arda. Wow! Think about that. In fact the Hobbit quite clearly explains that this stone was discovered in uncut form and worked by the dwarves.

Not everything in Tolkien has to be tied in and interlinked.

(Though I did read an interesting theory recently - tongue-in-cheek of course - that Bombadil and the Witch-king are the same person)

07-05-2008, 05:07 PM	#32
Stoatly Grimes Newly Deceased Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Harbour's edge Posts: 7	Come off it, team. I have read most of the posts relating to this idea of the Arkenstone being a Silmaril. I am surprised at how many of you people seem to entertain this clearly false idea. I feel I need to step in to bring some sense to the table. I genuinely am shocked at how Tolkien's language is misunderstood in this particular debate. I understand that in the Balrog wings debate / Elf ear-shape debate etc. his ambiguous language serves to fuel debate and provides ammunition for both sides, but on this Arkenstone matter you are fooling yourselves. You are looking for evidence that is not there, and re-wording or re-interpreting Tolkien's language in order to make it fit. Have you heard of Occam's Razor? At a certain point you must step back and realise that the argument in favour of the proposition is extraordinarily cumbersome and full of holes. Don't get me wrong, full respect to Gwaihir for that interesting article about volcanoes etc. I'm not having a go at him; I fear the talons immensely. The idea that a Silmaril could be tossed aside (as it is when Thorin dies) is ridiculous and anyone with an understanding of the Silmarillion should realise this. The entire story is based upon the covetous nature the gems instill in beings and the years of terrible deeds that result. It is possible that another gem existed in Arda. Wow! Think about that. In fact the Hobbit quite clearly explains that this stone was discovered in uncut form and worked by the dwarves. Not everything in Tolkien has to be tied in and interlinked. (Though I did read an interesting theory recently - tongue-in-cheek of course - that Bombadil and the Witch-king are the same person)