Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
04-07-2006, 10:16 PM | #201 | ||
Beloved Shadow
|
Quote:
Quote:
On the subject of "favourite characters", I readily admit that I absolutely love Feanor, but at the same time I think my approach to him is far more factual than emotional. Indeed, it was ignoring emotion and taking into account facts that made me a huge fan of Feanor in the first place. When one reads the Silmarillion, it is natural to come away from it not liking Feanor. He is not treated with as much sympathy as he could've been- he is not treated like a hero. Feanor's actions are never remotely excused, and the Valar are never said to have made a mistake in their dealings with him. If I had just read the book, I probably would think Feanor was an out of control, egotistical, evil jerk, and that the Valar were practically perfect. But I didn't just read. I considered the facts apart from the way in which they were presented. I thought, "Hmm, Feanor couldn't possibly hope to remain unaffected by Melkor if Melkor was trying to influence him. After all, Melkor obviously was capable of fooling Manwe. Given that, it appears Feanor is being banished from his home for not doing the impossible. The primary objectives after discovering Melkor's evil should have been to catch Melkor and to undo his evil words. But instead, the first thing the Valar do is give Feanor a punishment that reinforces Melkor's lies. Wow. That is, without a doubt, the worst possible decision they could've made." So, as I hope you can see, my pro-Feanor stance grew from my examination of events, not from the way the events were presented. Surely that counts for something, and puts my opinions in a better light than some others who fanatically support one character or another.
__________________
the phantom has posted.
This thread is now important. |
||
04-08-2006, 06:21 AM | #202 | ||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,468
|
Quote:
Yes, others had various weaknesses that affect their "power". But Feanor's mental weakness was hugely detrimental to his own well-being, that of his entire line and most of those who came into contact with him. Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
||
04-10-2006, 08:08 PM | #203 | |||||
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
|
Regarding the Translator Conceit, play with it if you like, or not. It matters not to me. I think there may be more to it than I have so far cared to think. However, it can also render itself to such efforts as this thread no better than a confounding befuddlement bearing no useful results.
As to Fëanor, my further reading in the Sil has pointed up something rather critical to understanding him and his fellow Noldor: Quote:
Sauc'sy point as to Fëanor is an interesting one. Tolkien goes to great trouble to establish the psychological (as it were) roots of Fëanor's character, what with his mother leaving the body after giving birth, leaving him a sort of orphan and then Finwë's resulting favoritism which caused its own problems. Loss of a parent is a rather obvious treatment in the Legendarium, repeated over and over again, with varying results depending upon the character. That Fëanor's character is so rash and, well, fiery, seems to be a powerful intrinsic aspect, complicated further by his orphanhood. A more self-absorbed character most of us have never met. So is Saucy right? And if so, what do we make of it? Quote:
This has been a fascinating discussion on many levels, but I find myself most intrigued by the current (halted) discussion between the phantom and the saucepan man in regard to Fëanor. Very well argued on both sides. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
04-10-2006, 08:25 PM | #204 | ||
Dread Horseman
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Behind you!
Posts: 2,752
|
Quote:
If the context is simply that two given characters go into a cage and fight to the death, then you can sort out the beginnings of a list rather easily (I expect that's mostly what drives the current rankings, with a few notable exceptions). A theme of Tolkien's is that evil choices lead to self-defeat, whereas self-sacrificing choices lead to victory. Consequently, while evil or deeply flawed characters bring more ability and/or will to project raw power onto the field, in practice they are not as "powerful" as they might seem since their attitudes towards power and its use and the choices they make ultimately leave them vulnerable. Quote:
|
||
04-11-2006, 01:19 PM | #205 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
|
Quote:
If Feanor was Tolkien's own alter-ego, it seems he was punishing himself for his 'sins' in Feanor's fate. Maybe Tolkien created the world as he felt it 'ought' to be in his Middle-earth. I suppose it could be argued that if the primary world had been as Tolkien felt it should be he wouldn't have bothered to create a 'secondary' one. So, was M-e really a 'reflection' of our world, an attempt to enable us to see things 'as we were meant to see them' (OFS) or was it his attempt to get us to see the world as he felt it ought to be, but plainly was not (in his view)? In short, was M-e truly 'escapist' in the pejorative sense? Yet this begs a further question - if the 'primary' world is not (as our experience suggests) a place where goodness & compassion ultimately win out, why do we respond so strongly to a world that is so 'out of touch' with our experience? Where does our innate sense that the way things work in M-e is 'right' & the way things seem to be in the 'real' world is wrong or 'faulty' come from? |
|
04-11-2006, 01:52 PM | #206 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Quote:
Quote:
But insofar as the victory that arises from self-sacrifice is the 'eucatastrophe' of the story, I think Tolkien would say that it does accurately represent the real world. Tolkien thought that the eucatastrophe was a true 'glimpse of the Evangelium'. |
||
04-11-2006, 02:22 PM | #207 | ||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: commonplace city
Posts: 518
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
04-11-2006, 02:33 PM | #208 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
|
Quote:
I suppose what I'm asking is, while we can accept Eucatastrophes in stories, do they actually happen in real life - or do we merely wish that they would happen? Perhaps we even convince ourselves sometimes that they do happen. But what's interesting is our desire for them - where does that come from is what I'm asking. Do stories shape our desire, make us want things that aren't true, or do they awaken a sense of something else, a sense that the stories are telling us the way things really were meant to be? Are they attempts to awaken 'memories' of 'Arda Unmarred', do they in effect 'alienate' us from our fallen state so that we will seek our unfallen state? And, yes, I know this takes the thread way off-topic..... EDIT. My thinking here is inspired by an essay I read recently 'the LotR as Literature' by Burton Raffel in the collection Tolkien & the Critics. Raffel mentions a story by Nathaniel West 'A Cooll Million'. In one episode Quote:
Yet Tolkien's Legendarium is full of such horrors as well as moral victories - The Sil in particular - but in a sense they don't move us as much, feel as 'True' as the Eucatastrophes'. They merely show us the world as we know it, as opposed to the way we feel it should be...
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 04-11-2006 at 03:06 PM. |
||
04-11-2006, 03:32 PM | #209 | |||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: commonplace city
Posts: 518
|
internal / external
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by drigel; 04-12-2006 at 07:19 AM. |
|||
04-11-2006, 03:43 PM | #210 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
|
Quote:
|
|
04-11-2006, 09:00 PM | #211 |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
|
There was a potential Eucatastrophe in LotR, in the situation between Frodo, Sam, and Gollum. Though it could have been, it was not, and this was because of choice. Sméagol was on the verge of repentance when Sam woke up. What if Sam had remained asleep and Frodo woken instead? What if Sam had not reacted out of his biases, but had seen Sméagol at a spiritual crossroads, assuming that such a thing was even possible for Sam? And what if Sméagol had not withered and been subsumed into Gollum's hatred by Sam's meanness? Tolkien, it is known, did find it necessary to think out an entire plot development based on this possible turning point, so we know that it was pivotal. But Sam did react meanly. Frodo did remain asleep. Sméagol was subsumed into Gollum. Thus we had not a Eucatastrophe, but a tragedy. This tragedy became however part and parcel of a yet greater eucatastrophe, however devastating and tragic it was for Sméagol.
The example you offered, davem, was not tragedy but irony, and a most black one at that, in that it was so unremitting. There was no grace in it. We know that the world can be that ugly, and that potential is, I think, what you (and I) react so strongly against (I had the same experience watching the recent film, Crash which I never saw to the end I was so revolted). But we also believe that primary life has the potential for grace, for eucatastrophe. (I see that I am at this point merely repeating what Tolkien said so well in On Fairy Stories.) My point in bringing up this potential eucatastrophe in LotR is that the best stories do reflect real life as we know it, with all of its best hopes and worst fears. I do, of course, have my own answers to the 'ultimate' questions you raise, but I feel it would be better for you to arrive at answers you need rather than for me to supply those that I need. |
04-11-2006, 09:58 PM | #212 | ||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: commonplace city
Posts: 518
|
Quote:
There are other experiences for me that have occured in a space and a time that is of a more immediate nature to my personal reality, therefore I can only say for myself that it is a subjective internal process. Or lets say 2 people get in to a car accident, and both have near death experiences. They might not relate to it in the same way. One might say "I was so lucky", and thats it. The other would say "I was granted grace for some reason. I have been on the wrong path, now I am set on the right path", etc. For a society - the group as a body would have to have something in common for the group as a body to experience eucatastrophe - a common faith, a common enemy that has been overcome, a UFO landing in London, etc. There are ideals revolving around the works that dont ever change, but ideals mean nothing without the individual. The primary world "as it should have been" for me would only apply to Valinor. In the sub-creation of ME, you would have to force justice onto a world where the genie is already out of the bottle, as it were. I guess the point I was driving at was that it's not my nature to expect the external world to fit itself in my consciousness, regardless of my state of grace. I feel that I would be delusional or hallucinating otherwise. IMO, there were many acts of self-sacrifice in the 1st (or any) age that went unrewarded, ignored, that had no positive results for the individual. Those acts were just as significant and important (if only for the self-sacrificer's grace, or spiritual state) as the ones that had results, and were recorded in song. Conversely, how many goodly creatures died in the War of Wrath, when Beleriand was broken? Yet this is an event that I would say would be considered Eucatastrophic, at least to the players in the drama. Quote:
Last edited by drigel; 04-11-2006 at 10:10 PM. Reason: pimf |
||
04-11-2006, 10:36 PM | #213 | |||
Dread Horseman
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Behind you!
Posts: 2,752
|
Quote:
Quote:
But within a spiritual context, one can argue (I daresay Tolkien might argue) that self-sacrifice always leads to (spiritual) victory, even if within the bounds of time and the material world it yields an apparent defeat. There is the grace of the act itself -- of serving others; then there are the (often unknowable) consequences of the act, however small, within the grand scheme of things. These ideas sounded more coherent when they were in my head. Still, pressing on: Quote:
|
|||
04-12-2006, 07:54 PM | #214 | |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
|
Upon further reading in the Sil it becomes clear that Finarfin's heirs also fell under the curse.
Quote:
So all the Noldor were under Mandos' curse that was sanctioned by Manwë, as a result of the Slaying of Alqualondë. Only the sons of Fëanor were bound by the oath of the Silmarils. However, Fingolfin's house, by his oath to follow Fëanor wheresoever he leads, does play into this oath. Complicated. Now here's a question: How did the lies of Morgoth get spread, with him holed up in Thangorodrim during that centuries long siege? Updated List |
|
04-13-2006, 12:35 AM | #215 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Muddy-earth
Posts: 1,307
|
Send re-enforcements were going to advance.................
Morgoth had many spies, and once the seeds were sown, it only took time for the half-truths and lies to grow, a bit like Chinese whispers. One of the reasons Hurin was shunned was because no-one trusted that Morgoth released him for any good reason than to do harm.
__________________
[B]THE LORD OF THE GRINS:THE ONE PARODY....A PARODY BETTER THAN THE RINGS OF POWER. |
04-17-2006, 01:20 PM | #216 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I'm sorry, but i just couldn't read all of the replies to the topic, my primary intent here is just defend the position on 3 elves, in my opinion, the mightiest of all elves.
Fëanor, Galadriel, Fingolfin. I really think they should be placed above the witch king (in the original and first post of the list) Why ? Quote:
Considering Fingolfin in a 1X1 contest with morgoth, he proved to be quite a worthy enemy (ok, morgoth had already shed much of his power in the land but still was supreme ruler) Now consider Fëanor, he was the greates of all elves, because he just had more than any other. His mother just gave more of her Fëa to feed him, than did any other mom, so this fact, thus the dagor dagorath episode makes me believe he was the mightiest in body of all elves and men (i would also include "mind" but by doing this we would need to compare him with Felagund). And Galadriel, where does she stands ? It is said that she could perfectly match any elf (phisically speaking) in the games held at Valinor , and if my memory does not fail me, she could match quite well Fëanor's phisical prowess too... So, if Fëanor is stronger than Fingolfin and Galadriel is not far from Fëanor's power.... Thus, elves are fearless, so any of these could easily overcome the Witch-King.... I'll stop by here, let's see wat you think about my theories. Namárië. |
|
04-17-2006, 08:54 PM | #217 |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
|
Yuukale Narmo, thanks for joining the discussion. I'm in agreement with you. Please click on the link, "Updated List", below in this post for the most recent edition of the list.
EDIT: Well, I could kick myself. I forgot to put the link up. Here goes.... Updated List Last edited by littlemanpoet; 05-04-2006 at 04:34 PM. |
05-04-2006, 01:30 PM | #218 | |||||
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
|||||
|
|