Elves and Ringwraiths

[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?

[Ivriniel]

I'm not sure quite how to assemble the various references in the books, both tacit, implied and explicit, about racial and trait differences into anything really simple. However, I would not be so sure a Ringwraith is quite the comparison to make here to the Eldar. Ringwraiths were beings imbued with Sauronic will, sorcery, evil, fortification and purpose. They had a Ring of Power bolstering and warping the underlying essence of their mortal being.

Tolkien often made specific reference in concepts ranking Elves and Men. Certain of the Eldar and Men are ranked against each other, and compared in specific ways. Those went beyond superlatives and implied, often but not always, inborn traits or capacities, though he also noted environmental impacts on the achievement of greatness, such as the Light of Aman and how it changed the Elves. Numenoreans were altered, it was sometimes implied and stated, by the Isle of Numenor's proximity to Valinor.

Amongst specific traits and concepts cited in this ranking, Feanor for example, (notwithstanding his unfortunate personality--narcissism) was described, specifically

"For Fëanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind: in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and subtlety alike: of all the Children of Ilúvatar, and a bright flame was in him." ― The Silmarillion, Of the Sun and Moon and the Hiding of Valinor.

He was clearly different and distinct in other ways. His mother, Miriel spent herself, somehow during her gestation, and imbued Feanor with this greatness. She passed on and was off to the Halls of Mandos (or was it Gardens of Lorien--Valinor not Middle Earth) after birthing Feanor. His Spirit burned more hotly. His body was consumed by burning fire when he was slain in the first Great Battle (I forget its name) between the Elves and Morgoth in Beleriand during the First Age.

There were references to greatness of heroism (Beren) and those of 'fairest' form (Luthien, whose likeness it was repeatedly said in the third age, lived in Arwen), and then Galadriel, in her blended Noldorin (half-cousin to Feanor through Finarfin), Vanyar (Indis was her grandmother) and Telerin (through Earwen, of Olwe) heritage

"Very tall [Galadriel and Celeborn] were, and the Lady no less tall than the Lord; and they were grave and beautiful. They were clad wholly in white; and the hair of the Lady was of deep gold… but no sign of age was upon them, unless it were in the depths of their eyes; for these were keen as lances in the starlight, and yet profound, the wells of deep memory." ― The Lord of the Rings, "The Mirror of Galadriel"

and often referred to, also, as fairest of all the Elves, both in Aman and Middle Earth.

Greatness in Men has particular emphases in certain traits, such as with Aragorn who had the "foresight of his people" (Numenoreans, as stated several times in The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen), as did Gilraen his mother. When he was clad in raiment of, I think it was green and silver (Tale of Aragorn and Arwen), in Lothlorien, where he pledged his troth to Arwen at Caras Caladhon after, I think it was 40 years adventuring, travelling, and fighting. He first saw Arwen when he was new to manhood, around 20, in Rivendell. He was seen by Arwen, again, after his honing in the wild, and upon return, seemed as a great lord in the impression he conveyed, mighty amongst even the Eldar. We're also told this many times about particular members of The Followers, such as of Tuor in his approach to Gondolin (I dunno, all that flowing golden hair and stuff that he had--sounds a bit liker a surfer dude to me ) and in his likeness to the Eldar, and successful courtship of even Idril Celebrindil, daughter of the then High King of the Noldor, Turgon, who was only two generations down from Finwe, High King of all the Noldor. We're also told that in the First Age, Elves and Men approached each other in stature, greatness and heroism.

Tolkien, not always, compared races on height/stature. Often he referred to presence or greatness in bearing, but also more, as he often cited light in the eyes of the Eldar (not really so of the Elves who never went to Aman). That 'light' he also attributed to Numenoreans (again whose stature was greater, though their wisdom, potency, and vigour/constitution was also greater). About vigour, an example is the Eldar who did versus did not succumb to cold during the crossing of the Heclaraxe. Resistance to sickness seemed to vary in the races and Elves did not struggle with mortal afflictions. I never heard of the Plague periods affecting Elves, though it decimated the Numenoreans in Exile, particularly in Arnor. Was it King Ondoher and, I think all seven of his children, who perished in the Plague that came out of the Morgul Vale? They were Men of the Westernesse, not your average, ole human of normal lifespan.

Implications were also drawn about capacity to resist evil. Men were more able to be influenced by the Yoke of Morgoth, who, I remember reading, could continue to influence mortals from even beyond the Doors of Night, in the Void, where he had been cast after the War of Wrath that ended the First Age. This relative vulnerability to evil, for example, by perversion through Sauronic influence was often attributed to Men (Boromir, Isildur and the Ring).

Tolkien also noted that there was something in the fibre or sinew of Hobbits more resistant--tougher--somehow in their capacity to tolerate the evil presence of Sauron through the ring. The same is implied about Sméagol and his near 900 year (or was it 400, I always forget) proximity to the Ring and failure to succumb to wraith form. Again, there is reference to this relative capacity to resist Wraith-ick transfiguration in the Dwarves who never became wraiths through possession of a Ring of Power.

There was also Ghan Buri Ghan, which is another oddity in the mythology, where, through reference to an unsullied or untainted laugh, Tolkien notes something different about this strain of human. Although not 'greatness' as Tolkien often cast it (like he never counted Ents amongst the 'great' in that particular way), Ghan Buri Ghan had something 'special' or 'greater' by way of relative ranking, than others of mortal kind.

All this leads me to conclude that there are specific ways to compare the races that have strong basis in the mythology as Tolkien cast it. Exactly how and where is difficult, exactly, to pinpoint, but comparisons and relative rankings can be drawn for different Ages, races of Men and Elves and in numerous ways.

[arathorn]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

I'm not sure quite how to assemble the various references in the books, both tacit, implied and explicit, about racial and trait differences into anything really simple. However, I would not be so sure a Ringwraith is quite the comparison to make here to the Eldar. Ringwraiths were beings imbued with Sauronic will, sorcery, evil, fortification and purpose. They had a Ring of Power bolstering and warping the underlying essence of their mortal being.

Tolkien often made specific reference in concepts ranking Elves and Men. Certain of the Eldar and Men are ranked against each other, and compared in specific ways. Those went beyond superlatives and implied, often but not always, inborn traits or capacities, though he also noted environmental impacts on the achievement of greatness, such as the Light of Aman and how it changed the Elves. Numenoreans were altered, it was sometimes implied and stated, by the Isle of Numenor's proximity to Valinor.

Amongst specific traits and concepts cited in this ranking, Feanor for example, (notwithstanding his unfortunate personality--narcissism) was described, specifically

"For Fëanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind: in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and subtlety alike: of all the Children of Ilúvatar, and a bright flame was in him." ― The Silmarillion, Of the Sun and Moon and the Hiding of Valinor.

He was clearly different and distinct in other ways. His mother, Miriel spent herself, somehow during her gestation, and imbued Feanor with this greatness. She passed on and was off to the Halls of Mandos (or was it Gardens of Lorien--Valinor not Middle Earth) after birthing Feanor. His Spirit burned more hotly. His body was consumed by burning fire when he was slain in the first Great Battle (I forget its name) between the Elves and Morgoth in Beleriand during the First Age.

There were references to greatness of heroism (Beren) and those of 'fairest' form (Luthien, whose likeness it was repeatedly said in the third age, lived in Arwen), and then Galadriel, in her blended Noldorin (half-cousin to Feanor through Finarfin), Vanyar (Indis was her grandmother) and Telerin (through Earwen, of Olwe) heritage

"Very tall [Galadriel and Celeborn] were, and the Lady no less tall than the Lord; and they were grave and beautiful. They were clad wholly in white; and the hair of the Lady was of deep gold… but no sign of age was upon them, unless it were in the depths of their eyes; for these were keen as lances in the starlight, and yet profound, the wells of deep memory." ― The Lord of the Rings, "The Mirror of Galadriel"

and often referred to, also, as fairest of all the Elves, both in Aman and Middle Earth.

Greatness in Men has particular emphases in certain traits, such as with Aragorn who had the "foresight of his people" (Numenoreans, as stated several times in The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen), as did Gilraen his mother. When he was clad in raiment of, I think it was green and silver (Tale of Aragorn and Arwen), in Lothlorien, where he pledged his troth to Arwen at Caras Caladhon after, I think it was 40 years adventuring, travelling, and fighting. He first saw Arwen when he was new to manhood, around 20, in Rivendell. He was seen by Arwen, again, after his honing in the wild, and upon return, seemed as a great lord in the impression he conveyed, mighty amongst even the Eldar. We're also told this many times about particular members of The Followers, such as of Tuor in his approach to Gondolin (I dunno, all that flowing golden hair and stuff that he had--sounds a bit liker a surfer dude to me ) and in his likeness to the Eldar, and successful courtship of even Idril Celebrindil, daughter of the then High King of the Noldor, Turgon, who was only two generations down from Finwe, High King of all the Noldor. We're also told that in the First Age, Elves and Men approached each other in stature, greatness and heroism.

Tolkien, not always, compared races on height/stature. Often he referred to presence or greatness in bearing, but also more, as he often cited light in the eyes of the Eldar (not really so of the Elves who never went to Aman). That 'light' he also attributed to Numenoreans (again whose stature was greater, though their wisdom, potency, and vigour/constitution was also greater). About vigour, an example is the Eldar who did versus did not succumb to cold during the crossing of the Heclaraxe. Resistance to sickness seemed to vary in the races and Elves did not struggle with mortal afflictions. I never heard of the Plague periods affecting Elves, though it decimated the Numenoreans in Exile, particularly in Arnor. Was it King Ondoher and, I think all seven of his children, who perished in the Plague that came out of the Morgul Vale? They were Men of the Westernesse, not your average, ole human of normal lifespan.

Implications were also drawn about capacity to resist evil. Men were more able to be influenced by the Yoke of Morgoth, who, I remember reading, could continue to influence mortals from even beyond the Doors of Night, in the Void, where he had been cast after the War of Wrath that ended the First Age. This relative vulnerability to evil, for example, by perversion through Sauronic influence was often attributed to Men (Boromir, Isildur and the Ring).

Tolkien also noted that there was something in the fibre or sinew of Hobbits more resistant--tougher--somehow in their capacity to tolerate the evil presence of Sauron through the ring. The same is implied about Sméagol and his near 900 year (or was it 400, I always forget) proximity to the Ring and failure to succumb to wraith form. Again, there is reference to this relative capacity to resist Wraith-ick transfiguration in the Dwarves who never became wraiths through possession of a Ring of Power.

There was also Ghan Buri Ghan, which is another oddity in the mythology, where, through reference to an unsullied or untainted laugh, Tolkien notes something different about this strain of human. Although not 'greatness' as Tolkien often cast it (like he never counted Ents amongst the 'great' in that particular way), Ghan Buri Ghan had something 'special' or 'greater' by way of relative ranking, than others of mortal kind.

All this leads me to conclude that there are specific ways to compare the races that have strong basis in the mythology as Tolkien cast it. Exactly how and where is difficult, exactly, to pinpoint, but comparisons and relative rankings can be drawn for different Ages, races of Men and Elves and in numerous ways.

Very good post and like I said the strongest and tallest of men are those who are more similar to the Eldar Noldor.