Elves and Ringwraiths

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

' and he sought to daunt him (Hurin) with his yes.

But he just said "No".

Ummm...sorry. Too much coffee not to comment.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

But he just said "No".

Ummm...sorry. Too much coffee not to comment.

I have corrected that mistake now.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

I have corrected that mistake now.

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.

[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.

[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.