The Book of Lost Tales Part I: A Readthrough

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Hardly so. Most of the major characters have exactly the same names as in versions written later: Ilúvatar, Manwë, Varda, Ulmo, Yavanna, Oromë, Mandos, Tulkas, Fëanor, Barahir, Beren, Lúthien, Beleg, Tuor, Huor, Turgon, Idril, Glorfindel, and Elwing, for example. A few characters have smaller changes of name: Melco later becomes Melcor, Ungweliantë later becomes Ungoliant, Tinwë Linto later becomes Thingol, Dairon later becomes Daeron, Meglin later becomes Maeglin, Eärendel later becomes Eärendil, Sorontur later becomes Thorondor, Glorund later becomes Glaurung, Kosomot later becomes Gothmog and so forth.

I was more talking about places and things, not characters. However, some of the Valar did undergo name changes. Mandos was Vefantur, Nienna was Fui. I know a number of people who actually skip pages (despicable) and they find themselves lost, because you only get told once who these people are.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

I was more talking about places and things, not characters.

Your original post does not indicate this. But I still fail to take your point. Fomendacil, quite rightly, in my opinion, indicates that Tolkien’s change of Teleri from the first kindred of the Eldar to the third, combined with his change of the names of the other two kindreds, is potentially confusing to a reader familiar with the published Silmarillion.

But such switches are rare. Indeed I think that this switch in the meanings to Teleri is almost unique in Tolkien’s writing.

However, some of the Valar did undergo name changes. Mandos was Vefantur, Nienna was Fui.

The word some indicates more than two or three in most people’s idiolect. And the so-called name changes are not complete name changes.

The Vala Mandos, is first introduced on page 66 of The Book of Lost Tales, Book One, in the statement:

… and those brethren the Fánturi, Fantur of Dreams who is Lórien Olofántur, and Fantur of Death, who is Véfantur Mandos, …

Thereafter in the The Book of Lost Tales he is mostly called Mandos, as normally he is in the published Silmarillion, though in a few places in The Book of Lost Tales he is simply Véfantur. The corresponding statement in the published Silmarillion is somewhat longer and clearer:

The Fëanturi, masters of spirits, are brethren, and they are called most often Mandos and Lórien. Yet these are rightly the names of the places of their dwellings, and their true names are Námo and Irmo.

Nienna is also introduced for the first time on page 66 of The Book of Lost Tales, Part One as Fui Nienna. Admittedly the name Fui by itself, explained as properly the name of her dwelling, is more commonly used in the Book of Lost Tales and not used at all in the published Silmarillion. And in the Book of Lost Tales Fui/Nienna is the wife of Mandos, not his sister as she is in the published Silmarillion. But otherwise they are almost the same character.

This is, in my opinion, less confusing than the various names of the Hobbits who take part in the Quest for the Ring in early versions of the Lord of the Rings. And there is an index of names to help the reader who needs it.

Mandos and Nienna are indeed called Mandos and Nienna in the Book of Lost Tales. The change in names for Mandos is from Véfantur to Námo and Nienna has only an additional name of Fui which is later dropped.

I believe totally that the Book of Lost Tales confused you but can’t figure out what you found so confusing when the Book of Lost Tales was presented as an earlier version of Tolkien’s Silmarillion and Christopher Tolkien continually in his notes points out the differences. That the work was different from the published Silmarillion was the main reason for its being published. What you find confusing is to those who like it one of the main reasons for being delighted with the work being published.

I know a number of people who actually skip pages (despicable) and they find themselves lost, because you only get told once who these people are.

That Tolkien does not explain everything fully is a persistent complaint about The Lord of the Rings also. Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings early introduces dozens of hobbits, most of whom are never mentioned again. Some find the geographic names frightful. The reader is apparently expected to remember them all, when any of them are encountered later.

When I find myself confused in similar fashion, say in a book of Irish mythology or history that is unfamiliar to me, I might also shut the book. But I don’t blame the book for my ignorance, as Tolkien presents Rúmil as enraged when a bird happens to sing a song he does not already know.

[Findegil]

jallanite, I second your point that it is normally not very difficult to recognise the characters even so some names are slightly changed. But nonetheless you should moderate your tone as long as you does not have your own facts straight: the later Hour, Tuor's father has a different name in the Lost Tales: Peleg.

Respectfully
Findegil

P.S.: Sorry, I couldn't resist to point that out, even so I think the discussion is worthless. The point should be taken on both sides: The names bear some potential for confusion, but it is less the changes made compared to later versions than the pure number of them.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Findegil

But nonetheless you should moderate your tone as long as you does not have your own facts straight: the later Hour, Tuor's father has a different name in the Lost Tales: Peleg.

Indeed, my list of names that are the same in The Book of Lost Tales and The Silmarillion was wrong in three places, because I simply put down forms that I remembered as being the same in both, and did not actually check, which is just asking for trouble.

I think my addition of Huor instead of Peleg was a stupid slip when I should have posted Túrin (and also possibly have posted other names from the chapter “Turambar and the Foalóke”, namely Brodda and Mîm, though I was not intending to list every name that was the same in the Book of Lost Tales and the published Silmarillion). But I don’t really know how Huor wrongly slipped in. I fully admit this as an inexcusable error.

Another error was my listing of Barahir in the list where Christopher Tolkien quite clearly states that Barahir only appears as a change in a late retelling of the “The Tale of Tinúviel”. In the main account Beren’s father is named Egnor.

Also, the form Tinwë Linto which I gave for Thingol is a rare variant. The most common name for the character in the Book of Lost Tales is Tinwelint.

Sorry, I couldn't resist to point that out, even so I think the discussion is worthless. The point should be taken on both sides: The names bear some potential for confusion, but it is less the changes made compared to later versions than the pure number of them.

Here I very much disagree. Tar-Jêx originally posted: “… the name are all different, very few the same.” The names are not all different from those in the published Silmarillion. Most of them are the same or at least very close to the versions which appear in the published Silmarillion, unless Tar-Jêx is possibly including forms that appear only very seldom in the Book of Lost Tales and were soon changed by Tolkien to more familiar forms within the Book of Lost Tales.

I do not take Tar-Jêx’s point, because I do not see the point. Tar-Jêx excused himself by claiming that he “… was more talking about places and things, not characters.” But he does not explain by indicating what persons and places in the Book of Lost Tales so confused him, instead pointing out two supposed personal name changes and he gets that wrong also.

My own suspicion is that Tar-Jêx does not now clearly recall what turned him off the Book of Lost Tales, only vaguely that some of the changes in the nomenclature were involved. But this has led him to statements that are quite untrue concerning the extent of the name changes.

The name changes he claims are mostly either non-existent, or very minor. They are at least no more than one might expect in a work published as an early version of Tolkien’s Silmarillion. One surely ought to expect some differences in plot and names from the published Silmarillion.

To complain that differences between the Book of Lost Tales and the Silmarillion are confusing to the point that the reader finds the works unreadable suggests to me that that reader must be very easily confused.

I fully admit Tar-Jêx’s right not to like the Book of Lost Tales but the reasons he presents for doing to do not make sense to me.

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by jallanite

The name changes he claims are mostly either non-existent, or very minor. They are at least no more than one might expect in a work published as an early version of Tolkien’s Silmarillion. One surely ought to expect some differences in plot and names from the published Silmarillion.

To complain that differences between the Book of Lost Tales and the Silmarillion are confusing to the point that the reader finds the works unreadable suggests to me that that reader must be very easily confused.

I fully admit Tar-Jêx’s right not to like the Book of Lost Tales but the reasons he presents for doing to do not make sense to me.

While I admit that I was wrong in saying that all of the names were different, there are still a great deal, and some of the more important ones. The renaming of the Solosimpi and Teleri can be quite a confusing one. After going back through the book, scanning for name changes, I noticed with the Valar that after the initial name changes, they still don't have just one name. Many of them have multiple different forms of their name, or just multiple names entirely. Melkor is an example. He was Melko, then Melkor, also known as Morgoth, Bauglir, Morgoth Bauglir, the Dark Lord, and other various 'evil' titles. This is also true for what I was referring to, the places. A great deal of them don't undergo name changes, but are called different things every other page.

We seem to have a misunderstanding, though, as I personally really enjoy BoLT. I was stating that a reader can be turned off and become disinterested when every place or item is being referred to by a different name every second page. A number of people I know that have tried to read BoLT found the name switching to be confusing, and never knew what was being referred to.

[Formendacil]

Time to move the discussion on! Well, time to post something for the next chapter, anyway. The topic of shifting names remains a major on-display feature of Chapter III, which picks up immediately from Chapter II (CT notes there is no textual break between the two and their Links). Compared with the later, published Silmarillion, this chapter is part "Valaquenta," part "Of the Beginning of Days," and 100% unlike both of them.

The Link:

The Link here is short and CT does not separate it, as he did the longer on in "The Music of the Ainur" from the main tale. This is again told by Rúmil, though we're back in the Hall of Fire.

Originally Posted by Of the Coming of the Valar and the Building of Valinor

"Then [said Rúmil] with the leave of Lindo and of Vairë I will begin the tale, else will you go on asking for ever; and may the company have pardon if they hear old tales again." But Vairë said that those words concerning the oldest things were far from stale yet in the ears of the Eldar.

I quote this because this could almost be the Downs' motto: "I will discuss the topic, else will you go on asking forever, and may the company pardon if they heard old tales again." But, said the Downers, those words concerning Tolkien things were far from stale yet.

There's a lot going on in this chapter, but the thing that stood out for me first and foremost--possibly because of the ongoing discussion in this thread--is all the information revealed about the Valar. The names and how much they've stayed the same (though there HAVE been some changes) leap immediately to mind, but there's more than that. The comparison to the Valaquenta is apt, because we have more than one "list of the Valar" here--we have about three, I'd say: an initial one, when they enter the world, an update as they go through the earliest days, and finally--and most extensively--the list of their houses.

The Maiar have yet to appear--at least named as such. There are countless spirits in the train of the Valar and there is no clear distinction between the great Valar and their followers--and in the cases of Ossë and Ónen (Uinen) and Salmar, figures who would later be Maiar are here clearly called Valar. But the big difference from the later legendarium--at least if you want my opinion--is that, in the BoLT conception, the Valar could have children. Most importantly, Oromë is the son of Yavanna and Aulë. (He clearly takes after his mother, it seems.)

On this last point, it says of Oromë and his lands in Valinor: "Much indeed he loves those realms yet is he very often in the world without; more often even than Ossë and as often as Palúrien." The special care that Oromë and Yavanna had for the Great Lands would persist into the published Silmarillion, where they seemed to be somewhat randomly chosen to have similar interests. We see here, though, why they originally had such closely related concerns: the god of hunting was the son of the goddess of nature.

And speaking of gods and goddesses, the Valar having children is but one feature demonstrating how the BoLT version of the Valar feels more like the real-world pantheons they represent. Unlike the more clinical (or is it compressed?) Valar of the later Silm, the list here trails off a bit more (what do we really know about Omar, the youngest of the Valar?), includes more rogues (Makar and Meássë), and more generations. To me, this made the entire chapter feel a lot like Hesiod's "Theogony," and I noted in the margins that the halls of Makar and Meássë seemed to remind me more of Valhalla than anything in the later Silm--though Tolkien does not glorify it at all.

We get more geography in this chapter, and although Tolkien would not create a map of the kind we fans grew familiar with from The Hobbit, the LotR, etc, there's a clear geography here on the large scale: Valinor and the Great Lands with the Magic Isles and the Twilit Isles set between--and in the ancillary information in the commentary, CT reproduces two "maps" in a looser sense, showing his father's conceptions of the cosmological structure of the world, as it then stood. The terminology shifted a bit and elements were refined, but this is the germ of early Silmarillion-contemporary "Ambarkanta." In other words, this is already close to the cosmology of the published Silmarillion.

(But with a caveat! Tolkien did not ever manage to rework the Silm so that it was "always round Earth," but he did want to.)

Even so, the information given here is more detailed and precise than most of what comes in the published Silm, and at least when I first read it--before I encountered the Ambarkanta a few volumes later--it seemed to fill in some of the questions the later text prompted.

To give an idea of how much is covered here, in his commentary, CT breaks down the chapter into sections for discussion, and I will list them off:

I. The Coming of the Valar and their encounter with Melko
II. The earliest conception of the Western Lands, and the Oceans
III. The Lamps
IV. The Two Trees
V. The Dwellings of the Valar
VI. The Gods of Death and the Fates of Elves and Men

Some minor notes I made, more or less in the order I encountered them:

1. "[The Valar] chose certain of their number to seek out the wrongdoer, and these were Mandos and Tulkas, Mandos for that of his dread aspect was Melko more in fear than of aught else save it were the strength of Tulkas' arm, and Tulkas was the other."

Melkor's special bitterness for Tulkas would remain, but I can't remember another reference to having a concern or fear where Mandos was concerned. It's the sort of thing that would be in-character, not least given the later imprisonment he would suffer in the halls of Mandos, but I can't recall the later Melkor ever giving the Doomsman of the Valar second pause.

2. A case of inconsistent characterization? "It was the rede of Aulë and of his wife Palúrien, for they were the most grieved by the mischief of Melko's turmoils and trusted his promises not at all," it says of them on the bottom of page 68 in my text, and then halfway through page 69, it says "Aulë suaded Melko to build two towers to the North and South," setting up Melko's ice-as-"an imperishable substance of great strength" deception.

3. "Then Ossë, for Ulmo was not there, gathered to him the Oarni, and putting forth their might they dragged that island whereupon stood the Valar westward from the waters till they came to Eruman"--why would Ulmo object? I know he and Ossë never see eye-to-eye, but did I miss what the difference of philosophy was in this matter?

4. Lórien and Vána share more of the glory with Yavanna here for the creation of the Two Trees and this how things roll in the BoLT--they will also play a more prominent role in the BoLT creation of the sun and moon.

5. On page 73, Tolkien calls Palúrien "mother of magic." I wonder what Sam and Galadriel would make of this--though Lothlórien does feel like somewhere Yavanna would be held in high regard.

6. Regarding the Two Trees, one of the most intriguing differences between the BoLT and the later legendarium is the order of the Trees' creation. Later, the silver tree would come first and the moon like it; here, it was Laurelin first and also the sun. The change to the later version predates The Lord of the Rings and thus predates the famous "consciously Catholic in the revision" moment Tolkien claimed to have had with that text; nonetheless, I note that change makes the legendarium more congruent with the Bible: "there was evening and there was morning"--in that order. I am not going to argue that there's enough evidence to say Tolkien was making the legendarium more Catholic-congruent, but it would track with the more "pagan" feel of the BoLT giving way to the more "angelic" Valar of the later legends, who are not "gods."

Finally, this chapter comes with a poem included in the commentary: "Habbanan beneath the Stars." My sole comment here is wonderment at the third line: "There is a sound of faint guitars."

The only mention of guitars in all the matter of Middle-earth? I certainly cannot think of another. Maybe it's just me, but I find it a bit jarring.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

He was Melko, then Melkor, also known as Morgoth, Bauglir, Morgoth Bauglir, the Dark Lord, and other various 'evil' titles. This is also true for what I was referring to, the places. A great deal of them don't undergo name changes, but are called different things every other page.

Yes the same person is called Melko in The Book of Lost Tales, and other names in later works, principally Melkor and Morgoth. But the name Melko is very close to the name Melkor and the name Morgoth is only mentioned once in The Book of Lost Tales (other than in Christopher Tolkien’s commentary), which should make the Book of Lost Tales less confusing than the published Silmarillion. The forms Dark Lord and Bauglir do not even appear in The Book of Lost Tales. You would seem to indicate that the published Silmarillion is more confusing than Book of Lost Tales, which I do not think was your intention.

As to place names, name even one place name in The Book of Lost Tales, that is “called different things every other page.” Name even a single name that is mentioned “every second page” throughout the work. Gross exaggeration does not convince me.

We seem to have a misunderstanding, though, as I personally really enjoy BoLT.

The misunderstanding, if it is a misunderstanding, comes from you own statement: “I will admit, I did close my book gently, but firmly, in frustration of these ‘silent changes’”. Is this true?

I was stating that a reader can be turned off and become disinterested when every place or item is being referred to by a different name every second page. A number of people I know that have tried to read BoLT found the name switching to be confusing, and never knew what was being referred to.

Name a single case in The Book of Lost Tales where “every place or item is being referred to by a different name every second page”.

I have less understanding of what you are talking about the more you try to explain. I can understand a reader being slightly confused on occasion by differences in the Book of Lost Tales and the published Silmarillion, or in either book by itself, but I see place names changing only sometimes, not “every second page” throughout the Book of Lost Tales.

Continual use of gross exaggeration undercuts the points you are trying to explain, suggesting to me that you cannot support your points by simple statements, either because you are clumsy in your writing or because you simply can’t support them at all.

Yes, the Book of Lost Tales is sometimes confusing in its changing of names. Any stronger statement is gross exaggeration, in the same way the a complaint that the published Silmarillion is sometimes confusing with its similar names: Finwë, Fingolfin, Finarfin, Fingon, and Finrod. This is true. Possibly the changes in the Book of Lost Tales can be even more confusing to some people. Personally, I find it somewhat less confusing. Neither work is so confusing that I closed either book gently, but firmly. Both books were interesting enough that I read them in enjoyment, despite occasional confusion, as with many books.

[Tar-Jêx]

Apparently the use of exaggeration makes my points completely invalid.

I think I was quite clear that I was exaggerating. I never said that I didn't enjoy BoLT, rather that I was slightly frustrated at one point. It's like marriage. Anyway, this is basically just getting off topic and stupid. Abort this now meaningless discussion.

Formendacil, in the Silmarillion, it is stated multiple times that Melkor only feared Tulkas, for his physical strength was unmatched. I think Mandos was cut from the podium because of the similarities between him and Melkor. Melkor struck fear and doom into the hearts of many, so why would he fear one who did the same thing?

I believe the Silmarillion removed reference to solely Mandos and Tulkas being sent to seek out Melkor, and just had the whole crew go instead. Manwe came to his door and asked to come in, and Melkor allowed them, but was not pleased with Tulkas' presence. Nothing was mentioned of Mandos, and so he was basically removed from the event, while still being present.

[Orphalesion]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Nienna is also introduced for the first time on page 66 of The Book of Lost Tales, Part One as Fui Nienna. Admittedly the name Fui by itself, explained as properly the name of her dwelling, is more commonly used in the Book of Lost Tales and not used at all in the published Silmarillion. And in the Book of Lost Tales Fui/Nienna is the wife of Mandos, not his sister as she is in the published Silmarillion. But otherwise they are almost the same character.

Sorry, but no..... no two characters could be further apart from each other than Fui Nienna from the BOLT and Nienna from the Silmarillion.

Fui Nienna is a spirit of death and despair, almost evil: she is Qualme-Tari, the Queen of Death and Heskil, who brings winter. She judges the souls of dead men ( humans) in her dark hall and throws those she finds wanting to Melco to be his slaves in Angamandi. She weaves dark clouds that float into the world and descend upon people as grief and suffering and unspeakable despair. She and Mandos are explicitly said to "have no warm feelings for any living thing"
In this phase she was the crone, the life-taker in complete opposite to her (back then) sister Vana, Tári- Laisi the Mistress of Life and goddess of spring and sunlight (who was a far mightier entity than Vana the Everyoung in the Silmarillion, CT explicitly points out in the BOLT how Vana lost importance in the later legendarium, while Nienna gained it)

Nienna in the Silmarillion? She is the incarnation of Compassion and wisdom gained from great suffering. Her tears are life giving, as she waters the hill upon which Yavanna grows the two trees with them and later weeps upon the dead stumps to clean them of Morgoth's and Ungoliant's corruption.
She was Gandalf's teacher from whom he learned much wisdom and compassion and she is so gentle and soft hearted that she even speaks in favour of Melkor's appeal, even while she is weeping over every ill he has ever done and every hurt he has ever caused. She often journeys to Mandos to counsel the spirits of the dead Elves there, helping them to turn their pain and suffering into wisdom.

Fui Nienna and "our" Nienna are complete opposites!

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Orphalesion

Sorry, but no..... no two characters could be further apart from each other than Fui Nienna from the BOLT and Nienna from the Silmarillion.

Do you mean that Fui Nienna in The Book of Lost Tales is more evil than Melko, or Ungweliantë, or Tevildo King of Cats, or than many Orcs and Balrogs? Then I disagree. That Fui Nienna is “almost evil” is not I think, ever said by Tolkien. As a critical reader I therefore may not accept at its face value what seems to me to be gross exaggeration.

Fui Nienna is indeed the spirit of death (of Men) in The Book of Lost Tales, but is she indeed totally the spirit of despair? Neil Gaiman’s endless who is called Despair, in his series The Sandman, seems to me a far grimmer and darker being, while Neil Gaiman’s endless Death is, as a person, far more cheerful and understanding. Even in The Book of Lost Tales Mandos and Fui Nienna remain ranked among the Valar, and while relating what might be thought to be dreadful things of them, he voices no criticism. Both remain among the Valar in Tolkien’s later writing whereas the war deities Makar and Meássë are to some degree sneered at by Tolkien and neither is mentioned beyond The Book of Lost Tales.

In this phase she was the crone, …

Tolkien himself says nothing about this. Vui Nienna’s counterpart in Norse myth would be the godess Hel, whose apparent age is not mentioned in existent texts. Similarly in the Sumerian/Babylonian tales the death goddess is Ereskigal, the elder sister of Inanna/Ishtar, who corresponds most closely to Tolkien’s Vána, but otherwise there is no mention of Ereshkigal’s apparent age. In the Norse Prose Edda the god Thor is defeated by the allegorical figure of Old Age (Elli), who appears in the guise of an old woman. This is the closest I can come to fitting a mythological pattern to your interpretation of Tolkien.

Yet, when I posted, “otherwise they are almost the same character”, I overspoke. I ought perhaps to have posted something like, “but even the Nienna of the published Silmarillion is in some of her features still relatable to the Fui Nienna of The Book of Lost Tales.

Fui Nienna and "our" Nienna are complete opposites!

This is where I find you exaggerating. What does complete opposite mean? Both Fui Nienna and the later Nienna are of the same species. They are Valar. They are of the same gender, female. Both bare the same name. Both are connected with weeping and sorrow. Both are connected with Mandos. They seem to me to not be complete opposites.

Perhaps one ought to ignore species, in which case one my find counterparts among the Ainur in Arda. If one does not ignore gender, then Melkor is arguably the counterpart to Varda, otherwise he is the counterpart to Manwë. But who would be the counterpart to Ulmo, some spirit of the dry dessert? Who would be the counterpart to Oromë? Some non-riding, non-archer, spirit of sloth? Who would be the counterpart of Aulë or Yavanna or Lórien or Estë?

[Orphalesion]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Do you mean that Fui Nienna in The Book of Lost Tales is more evil than Melko, or Ungweliantë, or Tevildo King of Cats, or than many Orcs and Balrogs? Then I disagree. That Fui Nienna is “almost evil” is not I think, ever said by Tolkien. As a critical reader I therefore may not accept at its face value what seems to me to be gross exaggeration.

Declaring them to be basically the same character seems to me a gross exaggeration.

Okay I might have oversimplified, you might have oversimplified, I will explain how I came to my conclusions.

I should have called her perhaps sinister, but she does have elements in her character that can be interpreted as evil (I'll explain later). The difference between characters like Fui, Makrar and Measse (thanks for bringing them up) is that their "evil" is still worked within the dominion of Manwe, they never rebel against him whearas Melko and his ilk did.
How did you conclude that I said Fui was more evil than Melko? Do you suggest that Nienna from the Silmarillion is "more good" than Morgoth is evil? Then you should see how far removed she is from Fui.

Fui Nienna is indeed the spirit of death (of Men) in The Book of Lost Tales, but is she indeed totally the spirit of despair? Neil Gaiman’s endless who is called Despair, in his series The Sandman, seems to me a far grimmer and darker being, while Neil Gaiman’s endless Death is, as a person, far more cheerful and understanding.

Fui Nienna is a spirit of despair, she weaves dark clouds that settle upon the world as "despairs and hopeless mourning, sorrows and blind grief" settling upon people like "lightless webs" (BOLT Part 1, Chapter she creates these things, not Melko and is responsible for them.
In this early stage the idea of salvation (or even of Arda Marred) has not yet entered the mythology and the world of BOLT is a much darker place than Arda would eventually become.

Neil Gaiman's Death and Despair have no relevance to the discussion, a completely different mythology, a completely different writer. I know you wanted to make the point "Spirit of Death does not necessarily equal Spirit of Despair" but in this case Fui Nienna is both the Goddess of Despair and the judge of dead mortals.

Mandos and Fui Nienna remain ranked among the Valar, and while relating what might be thought to be dreadful things of them, he voices no criticism. Both remain among the Valar in Tolkien’s later writing whereas the war deities Makar and Meássë are to some degree sneered at by Tolkien and neither is mentioned beyond The Book of Lost Tales.

Makar and Measse I think were an experiment by Tolkien that did not work out, especially not with the later mythology.
Fui Nienna doesn't really do anything in the story, she never takes action, she just sits in her hall unleashing the emotions of despair and sorrow upon the world. She would not have worked in the later mythology either
She did remain a Vala, but only after being completely overhauled by Tolkien, can you imagine Silmarillion Nienna sitting in a hall with a ceiling made of bat wings, sending the souls of men to be tortured by Morgoth and then unleashing her black nets of despair upon Middle Earth?
And on a similar note, can you imagine Gandalf learning wisdom and compassion from a hag like Fui?

She had to be turned into the exact opposite direction to work in the new mythology.
Tolkien could have easily done that with Makar and Measse, making them guardians and heroic slayers of Melkor's creations, but chose not to do so, possibly because the Valar already "noble" warriors in the form of Tulkas and Orome.

Compare the whole transformation process with characters like Yavanna, Orome, Tulkas or even Varda, who changed much less in the transition.

Tolkien himself says nothing about this. Vui Nienna’s counterpart in Norse myth would be the godess Hel, whose apparent age is not mentioned in existent texts. Similarly in the Sumerian/Babylonian tales the death goddess is Ereskigal, the elder sister of Inanna/Ishtar, who corresponds most closely to Tolkien’s Vána, but otherwise there is no mention of Ereshkigal’s apparent age. In the Norse Prose Edda the god Thor is defeated by the allegorical figure of Old Age (Elli), who appears in the guise of an old woman. This is the closest I can come to fitting a mythological pattern to your interpretation of Tolkien.

Hell is a good counterpart to Fui Nienna and when I read the tet the first time I assumed she was the inspiration for her.

Ereskigal and Inanna/Ishtar are not very good counterparts to Fui Nienna and Vana. Especially the comparison Inanna=Vana does not work. Inanna/Ishtar was the goddess of love and war, a self-indulgent, petty Goddess of Sex who most likely served as inspiration for Aphrodite.
Vana is life and youth incarnate, and the Goddess of Spring, just as Fui Nienna is the Goddess of Winter ("Heskil who breedeth winter")
I admit that jumping from Vana being the goddess of youth and Fui "breeding winter" to the conclusion that Fui is "a crone" was a bit of interpretation. But it is easy to see Tari-Laisi and Qualme Tari as the incarnations of beginnings (birth, spring, youth, joy) and end (death, winter, old age, despair)
She is metaphorically, if not necessarily literally "the Crone" among the primitive Valar, just as Vana is "the Maiden"

Rather than Hell or Elli I was also thinking of Annis the Celtic crone goddess, I know Celtic mythology was not a primary inspiration of Tolkien, still the crone had by that time become part of our collective well of stories.

Yet, when I posted, “otherwise they are almost the same character”, I overspoke. I ought perhaps to have posted something like, “but even the Nienna of the published Silmarillion is in some of her features still relatable to the Fui Nienna of The Book of Lost Tales.

This is where I find you exaggerating. What does complete opposite mean? Both Fui Nienna and the later Nienna are of the same species. They are Valar. They are of the same gender, female. Both bare the same name. Both are connected with weeping and sorrow. Both are connected with Mandos. They seem to me to not be complete opposites.


Perhaps one ought to ignore species, in which case one my find counterparts among the Ainur in Arda. If one does not ignore gender, then Melkor is arguably the counterpart to Varda, otherwise he is the counterpart to Manwë. But who would be the counterpart to Ulmo, some spirit of the dry dessert? Who would be the counterpart to Oromë? Some non-riding, non-archer, spirit of sloth? Who would be the counterpart of Aulë or Yavanna or Lórien or Estë?

Those are the only things they share; being Valar a female gender, a connection to Mandos (however it is wife vs. sister, very different) and a connection to sorrow (however the exact opposite)

You are splitting hairs with that, a opposite to a female character does not necessarily have to be a male (Fui Nienna and Vana were opposites in the primitive mythology after all)

But Neinna and Fui Nienna are opposites in the way that Fui Nienna causes and creates despair and sorrow, which she then inflicts upon others, is connected to death and has "cold to the Eldar as to all else"

Nienna (from the Silmarillion) however is the mourner who takes it upon herself to grieve over every hurt and every wrong in the world out of the compassion of her heart. She helps others (the spirits of the Elves in Mandos) overcome their sorrow with wise counsel and symbolizes the Christian principle that from suffering can come great wisdom.
She even supports Morgoth's pleas for an appeal (as the only of the Valar) and her tears help bring forth the two trees as well as the sun and the moon.

to sum it up

Fui:

Creates sorrow and despair
Inflicts these emotions on others
Begets winter and death
Is cold to all beings
Robs people of the sanity with her lightless nets of blind grief and hopeless sorrow

Nienna:
Turns sorrow and despair into wisdom
Takes it upon herself to mourn all hurts and evil of the world
Helps to create light from dark, joy from sorrow
Is compassionate towards even Melkor
Imparts wisdom and compassion into all that are willing to learn from her, such as Gandalf

Those are some pretty heavy, irreconcilable differences.

Whereas the similarities

Both female (so are Varda, Galadriel, Lobelia Sackville-Baggings and Ungoliant)
Both are Valar (so are Vana, Orome, Manwe and Ulmo)
Both share a name (so do Vaire the Elf and Vaire the Valie)
Both have a connection to Mandos and his halls (however wife and judge vs. sister and counselor)
Both have a connection to sorrow (however, the exact opposite, inflicter vs. healer)

are more common place or only very superficial.

I don't know how sincere you were with your question about the counterparts of the Valar. In general I think Morgoth would be the counterpart to all Valar in the sense creation/healing/stewardship vs. destruction/corruption/rebellion.

[Tar-Jêx]

When reading through BoLT, Fui Nienna seemed grim, but not evil. The Nienna in the Silmarillion is of a much more cheerful kind, but I don't believe they are opposite at all.

I would explain the difference as a man at a funeral, compared to a man at a park. At the funeral, the man is grim, as someone has died, but he is still the same person as the one at the park, just feeling different emotions.

All that Tolkien seemed to have changed was the attitude and level of grimness.

[Orphalesion]

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

When reading through BoLT, Fui Nienna seemed grim, but not evil. The Nienna in the Silmarillion is of a much more cheerful kind, but I don't believe they are opposite at all.

I would explain the difference as a man at a funeral, compared to a man at a park. At the funeral, the man is grim, as someone has died, but he is still the same person as the one at the park, just feeling different emotions.

All that Tolkien seemed to have changed was the attitude and level of grimness.

Perhaps the difference is really the Pagan idea of suffering against the Christianized idea of suffering.

Pagan suffering, especially in the Germanic/Nordic sphere: a hurt, something 100% negative, something that has been inflicted on you and can never be healed expect maybe through revenge.

Christian or at least Catholic suffering: Still negative but more in the way of growing pains as you gain wisdom from it. According at least to the doctrine of the Catholic School I went to as a kid it was only because of Satan/the fallen state of the world that suffering caused us pain and despair.

Same thing, but I'd say 100% opposite way of looking at it.

I wouldn't call Nienna in the Silmarillion cheerful, but good.

As I wrote, Fui Nienna creates suffering, Silmarillion Nienna dispels it and helps turning it into wisdom.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Orphalesion

Declaring them to be basically the same character seems to me a gross exaggeration.

I never posted that. I posted only that “otherwise they are almost the same character” and later withdrew it as overspeaking.

Neil Gaiman's Death and Despair have no relevance to the discussion, a completely different mythology, a completely different writer. I know you wanted to make the point "Spirit of Death does not necessarily equal Spirit of Despair" but in this case Fui Nienna is both the Goddess of Despair and the judge of dead mortals.

They have as much relevance as Hel, Ereshkigal, and Elli. I wished to point out the differences of Despair and Death in a different mythology. So, point out where Tolkien actually calls Fui Nienna the “Goddess of Despair”. Fui Nienna sets many of her mortal prisoners free to dwell in Arvalin to the sound of their guitars to await the Great End. A smaller number she turns over to Nornorë, to dwell with the Valar until the Great End. So Fui Nienna is not only a Goddess of Despair. Blackening Fui Nienna by ignoring what Tolkien does say about her and exaggerating what he does not say is unconvincing.

And on a similar note, can you imagine Gandalf learning wisdom and compassion from a hag like Fui?

Gandalf took on the earthly form of an old man. Why should it matter if his teacher had the fana of an old woman? Tolkien makes no comments, so far as I am aware, on what appearance Fui Nienna or Nienna took?

Especially the comparison Inanna=Vana does not work. Inanna/Ishtar was the goddess of love and war, a self-indulgent, petty Goddess of Sex who most likely served as inspiration for Aphrodite.

Yes Ishtar/Inanna corresponds to the Greek Aphrodite, the Latin Venus, and the Norse Freyja, more or less. Tolkien naturally removes the self-indulgent and petty and adulterous qualities from his Vána. The name itself may reflect theories that the Norse Vanir were etymologically related to the Latin goddess Venus. In short, I thank Inanna/Ishtar/Aphrodite/Venus/Freyja=Vána works better than other comparisons with real mythological figures that I can think of. Inanna is the cloest counterpart to Tolkien Vána in Sumerian mythology. Most of Tolkien’s Valar are based mainly on divine figures from real mythologies, but modified to his own tastes.

I admit that jumping from Vana being the goddess of youth and Fui "breeding winter" to the conclusion that Fui is "a crone" was a bit of interpretation.

It is an interpretation not indicated by anything that Tolkien wrote.

Rather than Hell or Elli I was also thinking of Annis the Celtic crone goddess, I know Celtic mythology was not a primary inspiration of Tolkien, still the crone had by that time become part of our collective well of stories.

Stories of Annis are not part of my collective well of stories. You posted our. See http://www.merciangathering.com/black_annis.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Annis for what is available on the web, mostly a folktale and disputed theories.

You are splitting hairs with that, a opposite to a female character does not necessarily have to be a male (Fui Nienna and Vana were opposites in the primitive mythology after all)

Fui Nienna and Vána were sisters, not opposites necessarily. Many mythologies have characters that are in part opposites, but not complete opposites. Do not use a term that you have to struggle so hard to defend,

For example, Tom Bombadil is closer to a complete opposite of Fui Nienna than Nienna. I cannot really imagine a complete opposite of any of Tolkien’s characters. You can quite easily demonstrate that Fui Nienna and Nienna are different, without such a troublesome idea as complete opposite. You say that two characters could be further apart from each other than Fui Nienna from the BOLT and Nienna from the Silmarillion. This puts you in the absurd position have having to prove that Treebeard is not so far apart from Fui Nienna as is Nienna, or that Saruman is somehow closer to Gandalf than Fui Nienna to Nienna.

Any similarity that is undeniable you try to avoid by calling superficial. You have defined a position with which I mostly agree, but wrapped it in an envelope which makes it impossible for me to accept your whole package.

[Orphalesion]

Originally Posted by jallanite

They have as much relevance as Hel, Ereshkigal, and Elli. I wished to point out the differences of Despair and Death in a different mythology. So, point out where Tolkien actually calls Fui Nienna the “Goddess of Despair”. Fui Nienna sets many of her mortal prisoners free to dwell in Arvalin to the sound of their guitars to await the Great End. A smaller number she turns over to Nornorë, to dwell with the Valar until the Great End. So Fui Nienna is not only a Goddess of Despair. Blackening Fui Nienna by ignoring what Tolkien does say about her and exaggerating what he does not say is unconvincing.

of course she does, I corrected myself to say sinister instead of evil. I just wanted to point out that she is also the bringer/creator of despair.

Gandalf took on the earthly form of an old man. Why should it matter if his teacher had the fana of an old woman? Tolkien makes no comments, so far as I am aware, on what appearance Fui Nienna or Nienna took?

Sorry I wrote that bad. I mean here that Fui Nienna had "only cold feelings" for other beings and spent much of her time creating sorrow and despair, so she would have been not as good a teacher as Gandals as Silmarillion Nienna who is pure compassion. I did not mean to comment on Fui Nienna's appearance here, but on her character/modus operandi (both of which we only get the vaguest clues of in the BOLT, I'm actually surprised how much prominence Nienna gained later in comparison to Fui Nienna)

Yes Ishtar/Inanna corresponds to the Greek Aphrodite, the Latin Venus, and the Norse Freyja, more or less. Tolkien naturally removes the self-indulgent and petty and adulterous qualities from his Vána. The name itself may reflect theories that the Norse Vanir were etymologically related to the Latin goddess Venus. In short, I thank Inanna/Ishtar/Aphrodite/Venus/Freyja=Vána works better than other comparisons with real mythological figures that I can think of. Inanna is the cloest counterpart to Tolkien Vána in Sumerian mythology. Most of Tolkien’s Valar are based mainly on divine figures from real mythologies, but modified to his own tastes.

No, no I meant the theories that the cult of Aphrodite (not Venus who has a very different history) entered Greece through the Phoenicians and that she originally was Innana/Ishtar and that both goddesses had a very capricious character.
About Frejya I think we don't know enough to really reconstruct her character most of what we know about the Germanic deities comes after all from either Latin or already Christianized (and thus Roman influenced) sources.
I would place Vana closer to spring/youth goddesses like Flora and Idun, though Vana from the primitive mythology does have a certain childishness/self-indulgence which she displays during the hiding of Valinor before she redeemed herself by sacrificing her hair for the creation of the sun ship.

It is an interpretation not indicated by anything that Tolkien wrote.

Stories of Annis are not part of my collective well of stories. You posted our. See http://www.merciangathering.com/black_annis.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Annis for what is available on the web, mostly a folktale and disputed theories.

That's why I admitted the interpretation and repented.

The crone is part of folktales, and to me folktales are part of the collective well of stories, and since Tolkien adapted so much of Germanic mythology I made the mistake of translating too literal.

Fui Nienna and Vána were sisters, not opposites necessarily. Many mythologies have characters that are in part opposites, but not complete opposites. Do not use a term that you have to struggle so hard to defend,

They are in many ways opposites and you can be sisters and opposites.
Mistress of Life -Mistress of Death
Bringer of Joy - Bringer of Sorrow
Bringer of Spring -Bringer of Winter

For example, Tom Bombadil is closer to a complete opposite of Fui Nienna than Nienna. I cannot really imagine a complete opposite of any of Tolkien’s characters. You can quite easily demonstrate that Fui Nienna and Nienna are different, without such a troublesome idea as complete opposite. You say that two characters could be further apart from each other than Fui Nienna from the BOLT and Nienna from the Silmarillion. This puts you in the absurd position have having to prove that Treebeard is not so far apart from Fui Nienna as is Nienna, or that Saruman is somehow closer to Gandalf than Fui Nienna to Nienna.

Any similarity that is undeniable you try to avoid by calling superficial. You have defined a position with which I mostly agree, but wrapped it in an envelope which makes it impossible for me to accept your whole package.

Complete opposite was strong.
But you understand that I want to express that they have almost opposite roles in their relation to suffering? Inflicter and healer.
The idea of a being that has no compassion whatsoever and one that is compassion incarnate are very far from each other. In that aspect, which is however the whole being of Nienna in the Silmarillion, they are opposites, that's what I meant and phased it very unlucky.