Fingolfin

[Elmo]

I don't consider his death valiant it was pointless it achieved nothing and put his kinsman to great disadvantage, people put down Feanor because he got a bit carried away in his wrath but exactly the same thing happened to Fingolfin and he has been called saintly. Also Fingolfin has been called the produest of Elves, WHAT even prouder then Feanor he thought he could defy the Valar etc. Fingolfin was so arrogant to think he could take down a Valar on his own, that's why he is such an over rated character.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Good question to be raised.

One thing first - when you say "Valar", you mean "Vala", like singular, right? Meaning Morgoth? (just to make this clear)

Okay, to Fingolfin. Well, his deed obviously reached nothing more than few bruises to Morgoth (although, you must agree that even a few bruises to Vala are something!). Pure rationalistic way, it was in vain, it was pure stupidity, total lapse of reason in response to emotions, one great Noldo king, who could have lead the Elves as a great commander and perhaps yet kill some more Orcs or Balrogs... In this point, yes, I'd agree.

If nothing more then, however, you have to consider that Fingolfin's deed had surely a great "morale-boosting" effect. After such great defeats, and all the troubled situation the residents of Beleriand were in, hurting the very Arch-Enemy, and a Vala, as you said, is really something. You have to consider also, that in our postmodern view this deed of Fingolfin's really does not seem in any way "reasonable". But if in the Middle Ages, for example, some warrior happened to ride on his horse right to the enemy camp, and challenged their leader to a duel, although he would certainly be killed (if not by the leader then by his followers), this counted for something. This is the "code of honor" system, to which the current western civilization is no longer used to: purely rationalistic, it would be best for Morgoth, even if such an annoying Noldo rode to his gate, to tell the Orcs just "shoot him" and not bother. Of course, his authority might be undermined after the refusal of the challenge, but I think nowadays he'd just tip the Orcs to forget it.

The other thing is, the narrative aspect of it. Just from the reader's view, it was just brilliant from Fingolfin to ride there, and seven times hurt Morgoth. It was such a brave deed, alone, to the enemy's gate. Also in the chain of events: the narration is just brilliant. If it does not take the reader's heart, then it would really be written in vain. But the fact that many people admire Fingolfin and like the passage, then it seems Tolkien knew very well what he was writing.

And about the difference with Fëanor - I think their death was more or less the same in the meaning that it was in vain, Fëanor's was a lot more sad, I think, because it was not certainly as valiant as Fingolfin's. And the point is, in my opinion, that Fëanor's wrath (in opposite to Fingolfin's) was unjust: Fingolfin wanted to avenge death of his kinsmen, but he took the responsibility for himself. He could do anything he wanted with his life, but Fëanor manipulated many others in his "personal" problems (yes, why not face it, it was just personal problem - he wanted the Silmarilli for himself, not that he for example wanted them back so that he could share them with others or help Valar revive the Trees with them, as they first asked him).

And one last thing - Fingolfin was arrogant, you say. I think Fingolfin was not "arrogant to think that he could take down a Vala on his own" - if you permit me, I'll quote here. Tolkien wrote:

Then Fingolfin beheld (as it seemed to him) the utter ruin of the Noldor, and the defeat beyond redress of all their houses; and filled with wrath and despair he mounted upon Rochallor his great horse and rode forth alone, and none might restrain him.

I think he didn't imagine that he will take Morgoth down. I think he just didn't really think anything at the moment. He just went there. It seemed to him that defeat is inevitable. So just one last thing, before the darkness fell, one last desperate act. I don't deny he was driven by emotions at that time. But not arrogance.

[mhagain]

I'm inclined to agree with Legate's final conclusion. Fingolfin saw at the time that no matter what the Elves & allies did, final defeat was inevitable, so he set out to attempt the best he could. There are parallels with Finrod here (although Finrod's death did achieve something more), whereas in the case of Turgon, he decided to stay shut behind his hills.

If there's a moral here, it's probably "far better to have tried and failed".

[Elmo]

Just to point out that Melkor had murdered Feanor's father so I think his wrath was as 'just' as Fingolfins

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

For this, obviously yes. But in the end, there were other emotions involved in Fingolfin's case, and I think the lust for Silmarils was almost as big reason as the revenge for father, maybe even bigger. Note also that if it were to be a vendetta for his father, it was certainly not according to the point that he let his half-brothers (although half, but the father was the same) on the other side.

[mhagain]

Actually, re-reading Of the Ruin of Beleriand, it comes across very strongly that in Fingolfin's case he was primarily motivated by despair, which is - as we all know - a Bad Thing in Tolkien. Interesting that, and never really thought on it before either.

[The Sixth Wizard]

I'm inclined to agree with Legate's final conclusion. Fingolfin saw at the time that no matter what the Elves & allies did, final defeat was inevitable, so he set out to attempt the best he could. There are parallels with Finrod here (although Finrod's death did achieve something more), whereas in the case of Turgon, he decided to stay shut behind his hills.

You're right. Who remembers Turgon anyway? Nothing and nobody. But everyone likes Fingolfin the brave strong leader of the Noldor. When we think of Gondolin we think Tuor, Idril and Earendil, and that guy that killed a Balrog, not Turgon.

And the line that says 'none could withstand him' probably means that he killed a few orcs on his way to Angband (I mean, you'd be trampling over them without meaning to by the end of the journey). You can't blame him for riding to greet Morgoth, he was fey and wild and to stay behind would only be a morale boost (which his deed achieved anyway). In the case of Feanor's death, it's a massive morale weakening, "Oh no the great fiery leader's gone, who's going to do the job now? Might as well send his first son to a negotiation which we know is tipped in their favour."

Fingolfin probably ticked off Morgoth a bit too.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard

Fingolfin probably ticked off Morgoth a bit too.

Exactly. It is written there that "Morgoth went ever halt of one foot after that day, and the pain of his wounds could not be healed". I think Morgoth must have felt rather bad after the battle with Fingolfin, and he would certainly remember Fingolfin as the bravest of Noldor, who was even able to hurt him...

[Morwen]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

For this, obviously yes. But in the end, there were other emotions involved in Fingolfin's case, and I think the lust for Silmarils was almost as big reason as the revenge for father, maybe even bigger. Note also that if it were to be a vendetta for his father, it was certainly not according to the point that he let his half-brothers (although half, but the father was the same) on the other side.

I find it interesting that avenging Finwe's death does not form part of Feanor's oath, which solely concerns the Silmarils. And in light of that, I've often wondered what Feanor would have done if his father had been slain but the Silmarils had (by some strange chance) remained in Valinor.

As for Fingolfin, I agree that his act was futile. But then the entire war on Morgoth WAS futile. The elves, without assistance, could not hope to win it. I saw Fingolfin's challenge to Middle Earth's then Dark Lord as a result of despair and anger shutting down the more rational parts of his brain. In the circumstances who could blame him.

[Raynor]

I admire his deed; in those dire times, an example of such courage can only strenthen determination, perhaps more than some local victories. And, let us admit it, of all the exiles, he came closest to achieving the defeat of Melkor; that such a thing is impossible in itself was foretold by Mandos. But let us give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's .