Feanor and his wanker sons - Serious
db
I've come to the conclusion that Feanor might have been good with his hands,
but he had more mouth than brains.
Ok, he was upset. Pop got killed by Morgoth, who also took his jewelry. So
he goes and pisses off the few friends - no make that the few people still
friendly towards him, and takes an oath he knows and is told he can't keep,
OR break, and worse, makes his sons take it too.
So he goes to war. You think. Well, not. Not on Morgoth anyway. He starts
out by killing brother elves, betraying his closest kin, and (luckily)
getting himself killed without even token counter damage to his supposed
worst enemy.
His sons are no better.
Every fight they get themselves into is either initiated by Morgoth and
alway to their total surprise (and they always just manage to flee with
their skins intact), OR it's directed at, you guessed it, OTHER ELVES! These
they kill in serious numbers!
The one fight they start against Morgoth, they hire the help from Hell to
assist them in, this way ensuring total defeat, not only for them but worse,
for the ones who foolishly decide to aide them, even though _they_ have
nothing to gain and have been screwed over by them before! Serves them
right.
Can anyone think of even one redeeming quality in these eight losers?
db
--
_________
"Mostly harmless"
_________
Pls remove ".NoSpam" from email adres when replying
_________
Flame of the West
> I've been rereading the Sil (I agree, I don't know WHAT got into me...)
You have a problem with that?
> I've come to the conclusion that Feanor might have been good with his hands,
> but he had more mouth than brains.
<snip>
> His sons are no better.
<snip>
> Can anyone think of even one redeeming quality in these eight losers?
No indeed. I've always thought that the other Noldor, and JRRT as
well, were far too generous to these creeps. By their oath and
their subsequent crimes, they firmly established themselves
as the focus of evil among the Elves. The Valar tended to blame
Morgoth for everything that wrong in Middle-Earth, but as you
point out, Fëanor and his sons were responsible for plenty of it
as well. After the War of Wrath, the Host of the Valar should
have executed the remaining sons of Fëanor, instead of
mildly telling them "no you can't have the Silmarils." All
the Elves of Middle-Earth who participated in their crimes
should have been locked in the dungeon for at least an Age.
Not that I'm defending Morgoth, but it seems like only he is
made to answer for his crimes. The Noldor murderers are
invited back to Aman. Was there no justice for the Elves?
--
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-Earth.
PaulB
<d.belinfa...@reclamegebeuren.nl> writes:
>Can anyone think of even one redeeming quality in these eight losers?
>db
>
No redeeming qualities but it does reinforce the concept Pride goeth before the
Fall.
Oh, one redeeming quality for the sons: Steadfastnes to a cause, damn the
consequences. This is sometimes a great virtue when the threat is large enough
to cause enslavement or death to most of (known) creation. Unfortunately, the
driving force behind their adherence to the cause was not virtuous selflessness
but prideful self-interest.
PB
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that
die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal
out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." -JRRT
areb...@my-deja.com
oath with him out of loyalty. They were not pushed into it. Also
Feanor may have been in it for the wrong reasons but, if not for him,
no one from Aman would have come to do battle with Morgoth for who
knows how long. Keep in mind it was through events that Feanor set in
motion that Earendil eventually arrived in Valinor to beg for help.
Without that the only help I can imagine them sending would be a few
valar incarnated as old wizards to encourage the elves of Doriath and
men in their fight against Morgoth, not much help.
Were Feanor and his son's good people? No, with the possible
exception of Meadros (sp?). Did they do what they thought was right and
indirectly lead to the eventual cleansing of Middle-Earth. I beleive
that they did.
In article <8antfc$464$1...@weber.a2000.nl>,
"db" <d.belinfa...@reclamegebeuren.nl> wrote:
> I've been rereading the Sil (I agree, I don't know WHAT got into
me...) and
> I've come to the conclusion that Feanor might have been good with his
hands,
> but he had more mouth than brains.
> Ok, he was upset. Pop got killed by Morgoth, who also took his
jewelry. So
> he goes and pisses off the few friends - no make that the few people
still
> friendly towards him, and takes an oath he knows and is told he can't
keep,
> OR break, and worse, makes his sons take it too.
> So he goes to war. You think. Well, not. Not on Morgoth anyway. He
starts
> out by killing brother elves, betraying his closest kin, and (luckily)
> getting himself killed without even token counter damage to his
supposed
> worst enemy.
> His sons are no better.
> Every fight they get themselves into is either initiated by Morgoth
and
> alway to their total surprise (and they always just manage to flee
with
> their skins intact), OR it's directed at, you guessed it, OTHER
ELVES! These
> they kill in serious numbers!
> The one fight they start against Morgoth, they hire the help from
Hell to
> assist them in, this way ensuring total defeat, not only for them but
worse,
> for the ones who foolishly decide to aide them, even though _they_
have
> nothing to gain and have been screwed over by them before! Serves them
> right.
> Can anyone think of even one redeeming quality in these eight losers?
> db
>
> --
> _________
>
> "Mostly harmless"
> _________
>
> Pls remove ".NoSpam" from email adres when replying
> _________
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mark Wells
<jsol...@erols.com> wrote:
>No indeed. I've always thought that the other Noldor, and JRRT as
>well, were far too generous to these creeps. By their oath and
>their subsequent crimes, they firmly established themselves
>as the focus of evil among the Elves. The Valar tended to blame
They weren't _all_ bad. Maglor and Maedhros were fairly sensible.
>Morgoth for everything that wrong in Middle-Earth, but as you
>point out, Fëanor and his sons were responsible for plenty of it
>as well. After the War of Wrath, the Host of the Valar should
>have executed the remaining sons of Fëanor, instead of
>mildly telling them "no you can't have the Silmarils." All
Didn't Eonwe tell them to go back to Valinor so they could be judged?
It seems that the Valar didn't _want_ them to be executed without a
proper trial. When they stole the Silmarils Eonwe told his men not to
harm them.
>the Elves of Middle-Earth who participated in their crimes
>should have been locked in the dungeon for at least an Age.
>Not that I'm defending Morgoth, but it seems like only he is
>made to answer for his crimes. The Noldor murderers are
>invited back to Aman. Was there no justice for the Elves?
Feanor was locked up until the end of the world.
Just before he died, Finrod said that he wouldn't be seen among the
Noldor again for a long time. (I suppose he could mean that he would
want to rest for a while, but he has more reason than anyone else to
come back into the world as soon as possible. Finarfin and Amarie
were still alive, weren't they?) If Finrod's going to spend a long
time in Mandos, how long would the sons of Feanor be in the slammer?
I'll bet some of them got life sentences. Curufin, for example. The
Valar would never let him out after hearing Luthien and Elwing testify
about him.
PaulB
Testament? I personally think it's a toss-up.
Russ
pbac...@aol.comnojunk (PaulB) writes:
>Are Feanor and his sons any worse role models than those given in the Old
>Testament? I personally think it's a toss-up.
I wouldn't go that far. Some Old Testament figures had individual lapses but
the Feanoreans history was one of brutality. The three kinslayings alone are
enough to damn them all: Alqualonde, Doriath and the Havens.
Russ
David L.
Mark Wells <ma...@pc-intouch.com> wrote in message
news:38cfe936...@news.pc-intouch.com...> >blame Morgoth for everything that wrong in Middle-Earth, but as you
> >point out, Fëanor and his sons were responsible for plenty of it
> >as well. After the War of Wrath, the Host of the Valar should
> >have executed the remaining sons of Fëanor, instead of
> >mildly telling them "no you can't have the Silmarils." All
>
> Didn't Eonwe tell them to go back to Valinor so they could be judged?
> It seems that the Valar didn't _want_ them to be executed without a
> proper trial. When they stole the Silmarils Eonwe told his men not to
> harm them.
The Noldor did not go back to Valinor but instead were given Tol Eressea to
dwell on. If Eonwe had had the surviving leaders of the revolt slain they would
have ended up back in Valinor, only faster. There they would have dwelt in
Mandos until their penance was paid.
> >the Elves of Middle-Earth who participated in their crimes
> >should have been locked in the dungeon for at least an Age.
> >Not that I'm defending Morgoth, but it seems like only he is
> >made to answer for his crimes. The Noldor murderers are
> >invited back to Aman. Was there no justice for the Elves?
>
> Feanor was locked up until the end of the world.
It is not explicitly stated but I imagine dwelling on Eressea was some sort of
purgatorial punnishment for the survivors, something like the Hall of Waiting
but for the living. If my theroy is correct, then their punishment was being
seperated from the rest of the Noldor and from their kin in Valinor and denied
the fellowship of the Valar until their time of repentance was complete, however
long that might be in each individual case.
>
> Just before he died, Finrod said that he wouldn't be seen among the
> Noldor again for a long time. (I suppose he could mean that he would
> want to rest for a while, but he has more reason than anyone else to
> come back into the world as soon as possible. Finarfin and Amarie
> were still alive, weren't they?) If Finrod's going to spend a long
> time in Mandos, how long would the sons of Feanor be in the slammer?
> I'll bet some of them got life sentences. Curufin, for example. The
> Valar would never let him out after hearing Luthien and Elwing testify
> about him.
Somewhere is says that Finrod was released and "walks beneath the trees in
Eldamar" with Finarfin. He was probably not confined long in Mandos. IIRC his
ONLY crime was believing what Feanor said about the "wide realmes" he could rule
in Middle-earth. For that to be reported by the writer of the Quenta
Silmarillion Finrod would have had to have been released before the Host of the
West set out for the War of Wrath or at the latest when the ships of the Eldar
were forbidden to sail to Numenor during the reign of Ar-Gimilzor. At most he
could have spent some 3100 years in prison but I belive it would have been far
less than that.
Dave
Mark Wells
>> Didn't Eonwe tell them to go back to Valinor so they could be judged?
>> It seems that the Valar didn't _want_ them to be executed without a
>> proper trial. When they stole the Silmarils Eonwe told his men not to
>> harm them.
>
>The Noldor did not go back to Valinor but instead were given Tol Eressea to
>dwell on. If Eonwe had had the surviving leaders of the revolt slain they would
>have ended up back in Valinor, only faster. There they would have dwelt in
>Mandos until their penance was paid.
But then he'd be killing them before they were judged. That's a little
bit unfair, isn't it?
>> Feanor was locked up until the end of the world.
>
>It is not explicitly stated but I imagine dwelling on Eressea was some sort of
>purgatorial punnishment for the survivors, something like the Hall of Waiting
But they were free to _leave_ Eressea. They just couldn't enter Valinor.
They were 'imprisoned' on a beautiful enchanted island within sight of
Valinor, with all their friends, and they were free to leave and travel to
distant lands. That's quite a punishment.
>Somewhere is says that Finrod was released and "walks beneath the trees in
>Eldamar" with Finarfin. He was probably not confined long in Mandos. IIRC his
>ONLY crime was believing what Feanor said about the "wide realmes" he could rule
That was the only crime of many of the Noldor, particularly the followers
of Finarfin.
>in Middle-earth. For that to be reported by the writer of the Quenta
>Silmarillion Finrod would have had to have been released before the Host of the
>West set out for the War of Wrath or at the latest when the ships of the Eldar
>were forbidden to sail to Numenor during the reign of Ar-Gimilzor. At most he
I take it you're looking for the latest date at which the Quenta
Silmarillion could have been imported into Middle-earth. At the _very_
latest, this would be when the Istari arrived, unless Glorfindel memorized
the whole thing in Mandos and then wrote it down once he got his memories
back.
Flame of the West
> Were Feanor and his son's good people? No, with the possible
> exception of Meadros (sp?). Did they do what they thought was right and
> indirectly lead to the eventual cleansing of Middle-Earth. I beleive
> that they did.
I'm afraid I must disagree. Consider Maedhros' debate with Maglor
on whether to steal the Silmarils from Eönwë at the end of the
Quenta Silmarillion. It's pretty clear that they both know it
would be wrong, but Maedhros convinces Maglor to go for it
anyway. Yes, they were driven by the Oath, but they were
still knowingly doing evil. They were NOT doing what they
thought was right.
o.thomson
adherence to their vows even in the face of insurmountable adversity, good
looks.
o.thomson
db <d.belinfa...@reclamegebeuren.nl> wrote in message
news:8antfc$464$1...@weber.a2000.nl...
Renée Vink
areb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Were Feanor and his son's good people? No, with the possible
> exception of Meadros (sp?).
Maedhros. But the possible exception is Maglor, who might not have tried to
steal the two remaining silmarils if his brother hadn't been there to
persuade him.
Renée
--
Homepage: http://people.a2000.nl/nordho00/home.html
David L.
Mark Wells <ma...@colpanic.office.pc-intouch.com> wrote in message
news:slrn8d0ik...@colpanic.office.pc-intouch.com...
Actually no, I was looking for the latest date that someone from Valinor could
have reported Finrod's fate. Of course you are right, I forgot about Glorfindel.
But the problem with him is that we don't know when he returned to Middle-earth.
There are two contradictory stories about his return. In the first he returned
before the Change of the World in the Second Age. According to the other he came
with Gandalf about the year 1000 of the Third Age.
The Quenta Silmarillion was not imported from the West. It was compiled by
Pengolodh while he was still dwelling in Middle-earth. He is said to have stayed
well into the Second Age until the "shadow of Sauron fell upon Eriador" (War of
the Jewels, pg. 397).
Sharru-ken
areb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> IIRC the sons of Feanor sprung up beside their father and
took the
>oath with him out of loyalty. They were not pushed into it. Also
>Feanor may have been in it for the wrong reasons but, if not
for him,
>no one from Aman would have come to do battle with Morgoth for
who
>knows how long. Keep in mind it was through events that Feanor
set in
>motion that Earendil eventually arrived in Valinor to beg for
help.
But that is the difficulty. If Feanor had not set events in
motion by taking an oath he should never have taken, Melkor
might have been dealt with in some other way, eventually;a host
of elves would not have been killed;the Elves might have grown
even wiser;a lot of Men would have not been killed
either;Sauromn might, perhaps, have changed;and a whole lot of
trouble would have been avoided
>Without that the only help I can imagine them sending would be
a few
>valar incarnated as old wizards to encourage the elves of
Doriath and
>men in their fight against Morgoth, not much help.
> Were Feanor and his son's good people? No, with the possible
>exception of Meadros (sp?).
Maedhros.
Did they do what they thought was right and
>indirectly lead to the eventual cleansing of Middle-Earth. I
beleive
>that they did.
>
>
>In article <8antfc$464$1...@weber.a2000.nl>,
>"db" <d.belinfa...@reclamegebeuren.nl> wrote:
>> I've been rereading the Sil (I agree, I don't know WHAT got
into
>me...) and
>> I've come to the conclusion that Feanor might have been good
with his
>hands,
>> but he had more mouth than brains.
>> Ok, he was upset. Pop got killed by Morgoth, who also took his
>jewelry. So
>> he goes and pisses off the few friends - no make that the few
people
>still
>> friendly towards him, and takes an oath he knows and is told
he can't
>keep,
>> OR break, and worse, makes his sons take it too.
Or is certain he *can* keep.
>> So he goes to war. You think. Well, not. Not on Morgoth
anyway. He
>starts
>> out by killing brother elves, betraying his closest kin, and
(luckily)
>> getting himself killed without even token counter damage to
his
>supposed
>> worst enemy.
He won the First Battle, I think. And killed plenty of orcs in
the process.
>> His sons are no better.
>> Every fight they get themselves into is either initiated by
Morgoth
>and
>> alway to their total surprise (and they always just manage to
flee
>with
>> their skins intact), OR it's directed at, you guessed it,
OTHER
>ELVES! These
>> they kill in serious numbers!
Yes. x3.
>> The one fight they start against Morgoth, they hire the help
from
>Hell to
>> assist them in, this way ensuring total defeat, not only for
them but
>worse,
>> for the ones who foolishly decide to aid them, even though
_they_
>have
>> nothing to gain and have been screwed over by them before!
Serves them
>> right.
>> Can anyone think of even one redeeming quality in these eight
losers?
>> db
>>
>> --
>> _________
>>
>> "Mostly harmless"
>> _________
>>
>> Pls remove ".NoSpam" from email adres when replying
>> _________
>>
>>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Sharru-ken
But the HoME isn't *really* "canonical". Or is it [semi-]
canonical in ng discussions?
David L.
Sharru-ken <oxy104N...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:3caad5be...@usw-ex0103-086.remarq.com...
> In article <QEcA4.553$XF.1...@nntp0.detroit.mi.ameritech.net>,
> >news:slrn8d0ik...@colpanic.office.pc-intouch.com...
> >> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:14:59 -0500, David L.
> <dav...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >The Quenta Silmarillion was not imported from the West. It was
> compiled by
> >Pengolodh while he was still dwelling in Middle-earth. He is
> said to have stayed
> >well into the Second Age until the "shadow of Sauron fell upon
> Eriador" (War of
> >the Jewels, pg. 397).
> >
>
> But the HoME isn't *really* "canonical". Or is it [semi-]
> canonical in ng discussions?
Parts of HoMe are MORE canonical than _The Silmarillion_. Some of the texts in
the later volumes of HoME are the writings that Christopher Tolkien used to
construct the published Silmarillion. He was interested in making a self
contained narrative out of his father's unfinished writings. To that end he
didn't always choose the latest texts.
Dave
Renée Vink
areb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I checked out your homepage and I see that I have the privilege of
> being corrected by an accomplished author, translator and student of
> the middle ages.
Though I didn't mean to correct you in any of these qualities, I hope this
is a compliment...
> Nevertheless, I maintain that Maedhros was as
> honorable as an oath-bound son of Feanor could be. I agree that Malgor
> also has redeeming qualities (indeed he is the most repentant). I
> maintain that Maedhros is not free to forsake the remaining silmarils,
> still being bound by the oath. He is merely reminding Malgor of the
> facts of the matter, not trying to corrupt him into some new evil.
>
I beg to disagree. Feanor was at fault when he claimed the Silmarils for
himself. They contained the Light of the Trees, which had not been created
by Feanor. Yet he refused to give them up to let others benefit from their
light after the Trees were destroyed. In a way, this was theft: he wanted
to keep to himself what by right belonged to all.
By swearing the oath with Feanor, his sons became his accomplices. But
instead of seeking absolution from an oath which was clearly wrong - which
I think he was free to do - Maedhros chose to prove himself a thief indeed
by litterally stealing the Silmarils. Is it truly honorable to keep an oath
you had no right to swear?
In fact, Maglor isn't much better - his real repentance only came when he
had no chance left to recover the Silmarils - but I still think he is the
least evil of Feanor's sons (though as a music lover I may be biased.)
By the way, my original post only appears in alt.fan.tolkien, not in
rec.arts.books.tolkien, but obviously for you it does (however, your reply
does NOT appear in alt.fan.tolkien) - can anyone explain this?
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>I beg to disagree. Feanor was at fault when he claimed the Silmarils for
>himself. They contained the Light of the Trees, which had not been created
>by Feanor. Yet he refused to give them up to let others benefit from their
>light after the Trees were destroyed. In a way, this was theft: he wanted
>to keep to himself what by right belonged to all.
By that argument, we are all guilty of theft when we fail to give
up food, which we did not create, to those who need it. I don't
think so. One might argue that we have a moral obligation to
share out the necessities, but it is false to argue that we are
guilty of theft if we do not.
Fëanor may not have acted for the best(*), but he acted within
his rights. It was not theft: the light he captured had in no way
been stolen from the trees, as even Manwë acknowledged at the
time:
"Then Manwë spoke and said: 'Hearest thou, Fëanor son of Finwë,
the words of Yavanna? Wilt thou grant what she would ask?'"
Note: "grant", as a favor, not "yield" or a similar word, as a
right.
(*) Indeed, Tolkien almost says as much, in one of the most
poignant passages in the whole Silmarillion:
"The Silmarils had passed away, and all one it may seem whether
Fëanor had said yea or nay to Yavanna; yet had he said yea at the
first, before the tidings came from Formenos [his father's
slaying by Melkor, and the theft of the Silmarils], it may be
that his after deeds would have been other than they were. But
now the doom of the Noldor drew near."
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
http://www.mindspring.com/~brahms/
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
Tolkien FAQs:
http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien/TolkNgFaq.html (Jensen)
ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/rec.arts.books.tolkien/ (Loos)
more FAQs: http://www.mindspring.com/~brahms/faqget.htm
Öjevind Lång
>In article <8aokk2$10f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>
[snip]
>
>>> So he goes to war. You think. Well, not. Not on Morgoth
>anyway. He
>>starts
>>> out by killing brother elves, betraying his closest kin, and
>(luckily)
>>> getting himself killed without even token counter damage to
>his
>>supposed
>>> worst enemy.
>
>He won the First Battle, I think. And killed plenty of orcs in
>the process.
Tolkien says somewhere (I think it is in the Silmarillion, but I am not
sure) that the achievements of the Exiles "were not all in vain", or words
to that effect. Can anyone give the reference for this?
Öjevind
Sharru-ken
"Öjevind Lång" <ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
That could suit more than one place in the canon. Gandalf said
something of the kind to Pippin during the ride to Minas Tirith
[RK, chapter 1] - and/or it could be a quote from Elrond when he
describes the War of the Last Alliance in FR Bk. 2 chapter 2.
I think that if different words are used, it is probably from
Gandalf's explanation to Pippin. I don't remember it being said
anywhere else. Hope this helps.
Are you perhaps thinking of the words of Manwe to Mandos after
the imposition of the Curse of Mandos? It sounds like a
quotation from a speech, more than anything else.
Sharru-ken
1?Q?Ren=E9e?=
Vink <R.V...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>
>
>areb...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> Were Feanor and his son's good people? No, with the
possible
>> exception of Meadros (sp?).
>
>Maedhros. But the possible exception is Maglor, who might not
have tried to
>steal the two remaining silmarils if his brother hadn't been
there to
>persuade him.
>
>Renée
>
OTOH, don't Angrod and Aegnor deserve a bit of favourable
consideration? Offhand, I don't recall their doing anything
particularly bad.
And Maedhros did hand over the High Kingship in Middle Earth
to Fingon (I think) when he was under no external compulsion to
do so. And he did make an effort to find Elured and Elurin, even
though he failed. And presumably both Maehros and Maglor were,
after the victory of the Host of the West, so much under the
power of the Oath, that they had little will left in the matter.
We're told that they undertook to fulfil the Oath "with
loathing" - which hardly suggests great enthusiasm. (Perhaps the
Oath affected them a bit as the Nine affected the Ringwraiths,
by sapping the will....)
>
>--
>Homepage: http://people.a2000.nl/nordho00/home.html
db
Renée Vink <R.V...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote in message
news:38D1FA37...@cable.a2000.nl...
> I beg to disagree. Feanor was at fault when he claimed the Silmarils for
> himself. They contained the Light of the Trees, which had not been created
> by Feanor.
The light was there for all to cherish, but we're entering a very difficult
discussion if we start to distinguish between the Silmarils (Silmarilli?)
and the light they contain. Feanor had one outstanding quality, his gift of
creation. He made the jewels (and perhaps much like Sauron and his ring,
entered a major part of his being into them), and while the trees lasted,
they were there for all to enjoy.
The trees died, but it may have been possible to revive them with the light
contained in the Sils, destroying them in the process, and Feanors "soul" as
well.
Was _anyone_, even Manwe _entitled) to the light, if it meant destroying the
jewels retrieving it? I think it can be argued that Feanor was within his
right to refuse, and he was only asked to sacrifice them, of free will, and
no one seemed to consider any other options.
Where he screwed up was in becoming in a sense another evil, driven by pride
and revenge. He should have used his considerable influence to form as large
an alliance as possible, perhaps take more time but with consent (if not
aid) from all. It could even be argued that the Valar, like petulant
children delayed their actions against Morgoth only out of spite or anger,
or to avoid the notion that their actions were initiated by Feanor, and not
by themselves. Had Feanor played it more coolly, he might have had an army
10x the size it now was, with Eonwe at its head. And no one would have
contested his property right to the Sils.
> Yet he refused to give them up to let others benefit from their
> light after the Trees were destroyed. In a way, this was theft: he wanted
> to keep to himself what by right belonged to all.
> By swearing the oath with Feanor, his sons became his accomplices. But
> instead of seeking absolution from an oath which was clearly wrong -
which
> I think he was free to do - Maedhros chose to prove himself a thief indeed
> by litterally stealing the Silmarils. Is it truly honorable to keep an
oath
> you had no right to swear?
> In fact, Maglor isn't much better - his real repentance only came when he
> had no chance left to recover the Silmarils - but I still think he is the
> least evil of Feanor's sons (though as a music lover I may be biased.)
I love music too. But Maglor is still a wimp.
db
Mark Wells
wrote:
>Actually no, I was looking for the latest date that someone from Valinor could
>have reported Finrod's fate. Of course you are right, I forgot about Glorfindel.
>But the problem with him is that we don't know when he returned to Middle-earth.
>There are two contradictory stories about his return. In the first he returned
>before the Change of the World in the Second Age. According to the other he came
>with Gandalf about the year 1000 of the Third Age.
I'm not sure why he'd come back with Gandalf. I thought he was born
into a new body in Middle-earth.
Either way, he was still living in Middle-earth, with all his memories
of Valinor, at the _end_ of the Third Age. He could have told someone
about Finrod at any time.
>The Quenta Silmarillion was not imported from the West. It was compiled by
>Pengolodh while he was still dwelling in Middle-earth. He is said to have stayed
>well into the Second Age until the "shadow of Sauron fell upon Eriador" (War of
>the Jewels, pg. 397).
Then Glorfindel would probably have to have returned before the War of
the Elves and Sauron, found Pengolodh, and told him that Finrod had
been released from Mandos. "So, how is old Finrod, anyway? Still in
Mandos?" "No, they let him out two hundred years ago. He's doing
pretty well."
But if Glorfindel (or anyone else) _did_ return before Pengolodh left,
Pengolodh probably would have interviewed him. Wouldn't you, if you
were compiling a history of the First Age?
Of course, we're assuming that the part about Finrod was in the
_original_ Quenta Silmarillion. It might have been written into a
later edition by Glorfindel, or someone who knew him. (Bilbo, maybe.)
And we're assuming that Finrod didn't return from Mandos before the
War of Wrath. If he did, someone else could have told Pengolodh about
it, and this is all moot.
Mark Wells
<oxy104N...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>But the HoME isn't *really* "canonical". Or is it [semi-]
>canonical in ng discussions?
This is such a complex issue that we haven't really tried to establish
a 'canon' for the purposes of NG discussions.
The brief summary is that it's the published _Silmarillion_ that isn't
really canonical. HoME is 'canonical' in the sense that JRRT wrote
all the things published therein (except the commentary, of course),
but it has the small problem of being massively self-contradictory.
So whenever we use HoME as evidence, we have to qualify it with the
assumption that we're using some particular version of events as the
'real' story. (Or with the assumption that we're trying to
reconstruct a single 'most likely' story from all the available
sources. In this case, we might end up with something very similar to
the published _Silmarillion_, since it was assembled through basically
the same process.)
Öjevind Lång
>"Öjevind Lång" <ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>
[snip]
>>
>>
>>Tolkien says somewhere (I think it is in the Silmarillion, but
>I am not
>>sure) that the achievements of the Exiles "were not all in
>vain", or words
>>to that effect. Can anyone give the reference for this?
>>
>>Öjevind
>
>
>That could suit more than one place in the canon. Gandalf said
>something of the kind to Pippin during the ride to Minas Tirith
>[RK, chapter 1] - and/or it could be a quote from Elrond when he
>describes the War of the Last Alliance in FR Bk. 2 chapter 2.
>
>I think that if different words are used, it is probably from
>Gandalf's explanation to Pippin. I don't remember it being said
>anywhere else. Hope this helps.
>
>Are you perhaps thinking of the words of Manwe to Mandos after
>the imposition of the Curse of Mandos? It sounds like a
>quotation from a speech, more than anything else.
I was thinking of Manwe's words to Mandos, but you are right that the phrase
comes from Elrond when descrbing the Last Alliance. What Manwe said was of
course: "So shall it be! Dear-bought these songs [about the deeds of the
Exiles] shall be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price
could be not other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before
conecived be brought into Eä, and evil yet good to have been."
To, which, it should be noted, Mandos replied: "And yet remain evil. To me
shall Fëanor come soon."
Öjevind
David L.
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:49:31 -0500, "David L." <dav...@ameritech.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Actually no, I was looking for the latest date that someone from Valinor
could
> >have reported Finrod's fate. Of course you are right, I forgot about
Glorfindel.
> >But the problem with him is that we don't know when he returned to
Middle-earth.
> >There are two contradictory stories about his return. In the first he
returned
> >before the Change of the World in the Second Age. According to the other he
came
> >with Gandalf about the year 1000 of the Third Age.
>
> I'm not sure why he'd come back with Gandalf. I thought he was born
> into a new body in Middle-earth.
The "born into a new body" trick only works in Valinor it seems. An Elf first
has to emerge from Mandos to be re-housed. At some point after being re-housed
Glorfindel had to return (again) to Middle-earth.
>
> Either way, he was still living in Middle-earth, with all his memories
> of Valinor, at the _end_ of the Third Age. He could have told someone
> about Finrod at any time.
I agree. But he would have had to have reported Finrod's fate before Pengolodh
compiled the QS.
>
> >The Quenta Silmarillion was not imported from the West. It was compiled by
> >Pengolodh while he was still dwelling in Middle-earth. He is said to have
stayed
> >well into the Second Age until the "shadow of Sauron fell upon Eriador" (War
of
> >the Jewels, pg. 397).
>
> Then Glorfindel would probably have to have returned before the War of
> the Elves and Sauron, found Pengolodh, and told him that Finrod had
> been released from Mandos. "So, how is old Finrod, anyway? Still in
> Mandos?" "No, they let him out two hundred years ago. He's doing
> pretty well."
>
> But if Glorfindel (or anyone else) _did_ return before Pengolodh left,
> Pengolodh probably would have interviewed him. Wouldn't you, if you
> were compiling a history of the First Age?
>
> Of course, we're assuming that the part about Finrod was in the
> _original_ Quenta Silmarillion. It might have been written into a
> later edition by Glorfindel, or someone who knew him. (Bilbo, maybe.)
That is another possibility I hadn't thought of. A later editor could have made
additions.
>
> And we're assuming that Finrod didn't return from Mandos before the
> War of Wrath. If he did, someone else could have told Pengolodh about
> it, and this is all moot.
That was my point a couple messages ago. Given Finrod's character ("wisest" and
"most beloved" of Finwe's descendants) and that he sacrificed himself for Beren
his time in Mandos would probably have been very short.
Dave
Aris Katsaris
David L. <dav...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:JkgA4.575$XF.1...@nntp0.detroit.mi.ameritech.net...
>
> Sharru-ken <oxy104N...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3caad5be...@usw-ex0103-086.remarq.com...
> > In article <QEcA4.553$XF.1...@nntp0.detroit.mi.ameritech.net>,
> > >news:slrn8d0ik...@colpanic.office.pc-intouch.com...
> > <dav...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> > >The Quenta Silmarillion was not imported from the West. It was
> > compiled by
> > >Pengolodh while he was still dwelling in Middle-earth. He is
> > said to have stayed
> > >well into the Second Age until the "shadow of Sauron fell upon
> > Eriador" (War of
> > >the Jewels, pg. 397).
> > >
> >
> > canonical in ng discussions?
>
texts in
> the later volumes of HoME are the writings that Christopher Tolkien used
to
> construct the published Silmarillion. He was interested in making a self
> contained narrative out of his father's unfinished writings. To that end
he
> didn't always choose the latest texts.
That depends on what you define as canonical. You may choose to define
it as 'latest' but not everyone has the same definition...
Aris Katsaris
Sharru-ken
ma...@pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:44:11 -0800, Sharru-ken
><oxy104N...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>But the HoME isn't *really* "canonical". Or is it [semi-]
>>canonical in ng discussions?
>
>This is such a complex issue that we haven't really tried to
establish
>a 'canon' for the purposes of NG discussions.
>
>The brief summary is that it's the published _Silmarillion_
that isn't
>really canonical. HoME is 'canonical' in the sense that JRRT
wrote
>all the things published therein (except the commentary, of
course),
>but it has the small problem of being massively self-
contradictory.
Um.....yes.
>
>So whenever we use HoME as evidence, we have to qualify it with
the
>assumption that we're using some particular version of events
as the
>'real' story. (Or with the assumption that we're trying to
>reconstruct a single 'most likely' story from all the available
>sources. In this case, we might end up with something very
similar to
>the published _Silmarillion_, since it was assembled through
basically
>the same process.)
>
>
>
I *think* I see - thank you very much. My own criterion for
canonicity was that if it was published as a finished work by
JRRT or by CJRT on behalf of JRRT, and was thus part of a
consistent narrative, it is canonical. I wish "The Disaster of
the Gladden Fields" and other bits of UT had been included in
LOTR. If stuff was cut from LOTR when it was first published,
can't it be restored?
Morwen
<oxy104N...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>OTOH, don't Angrod and Aegnor deserve a bit of favourable
>consideration? Offhand, I don't recall their doing anything
>particularly bad.
Sorry to nitpick here, but they were not sons of Feanor, but of
Finarfin.
I suspect you meant Amrod and Amras (and yes I had to go check their
names).
All I can find is that they spent a lot of time hunting and were slain
in the Doriath attack, so not a clean slate for them; still on a First
Age scale of stupid behaviour I suppose they would qualify as 'Mostly
Harmless'.
Let's not forget that the First Age Darwin Awards do not *all* go to
Feanor and Sons; how about Aredhel....
--
Morwen, Guardian of the (broken) CHOKLIT Sword
()xxxxxx)|(>>>>>>>>< >>>>>>>>>>>
Reply: remove the obvious bit . . .
Renée Vink
Stan Brown wrote:
> Said R.V...@cable.a2000.nl (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9e?= Vink) in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >I beg to disagree. Feanor was at fault when he claimed the Silmarils for
> >himself. They contained the Light of the Trees, which had not been created
> >by Feanor. Yet he refused to give them up to let others benefit from their
> >light after the Trees were destroyed. In a way, this was theft: he wanted
> >to keep to himself what by right belonged to all.
>
> By that argument, we are all guilty of theft when we fail to give
> up food, which we did not create, to those who need it. I don't
> think so. One might argue that we have a moral obligation to
> share out the necessities, but it is false to argue that we are
> guilty of theft if we do not.
Someone once said: Property is theft. (I think it was the 19th century French
anarchist Proudhon, but I'm not sure.) I wouldn't go that far, but if we say NO
to a direct appeal to share our food with someone who is starving, it could be
argued that, in a way, we're guilty of theft.
> Fëanor may not have acted for the best(*), but he acted within
> his rights. It was not theft: the light he captured had in no way
> been stolen from the trees, as even Manwë acknowledged at the
> time:
>
> "Then Manwë spoke and said: 'Hearest thou, Fëanor son of Finwë,
> the words of Yavanna? Wilt thou grant what she would ask?'"
>
> Note: "grant", as a favor, not "yield" or a similar word, as a
> right.
The Valar were not allowed to use coercion. This was as far as they could go.
From a legal point of view Feanor may have been within his rights, but not from
a moral point of view. And I think this story is more about morality than about
law.
> (*) Indeed, Tolkien almost says as much, in one of the most
> poignant passages in the whole Silmarillion:
>
> "The Silmarils had passed away, and all one it may seem whether
> Fëanor had said yea or nay to Yavanna; yet had he said yea at the
> first, before the tidings came from Formenos [his father's
> slaying by Melkor, and the theft of the Silmarils], it may be
> that his after deeds would have been other than they were. But
> now the doom of the Noldor drew near."
>
`It may seem' implies this is not how it really was. And if Feanor and his sons
had an undisputed claim to the remaining Silmarils, how come the Valar didn't
give them back to Maedhros and Maglor after defeating Morgoth?
Renée Vink
db wrote:
> Renée Vink <R.V...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote in message
> news:38D1FA37...@cable.a2000.nl...
> > I beg to disagree. Feanor was at fault when he claimed the Silmarils for
> > himself. They contained the Light of the Trees, which had not been created
> > by Feanor.
>
> The light was there for all to cherish, but we're entering a very difficult
> discussion if we start to distinguish between the Silmarils (Silmarilli?)
> and the light they contain. Feanor had one outstanding quality, his gift of
> creation. He made the jewels (and perhaps much like Sauron and his ring,
> entered a major part of his being into them), and while the trees lasted,
> they were there for all to enjoy.
> The trees died, but it may have been possible to revive them with the light
> contained in the Sils, destroying them in the process, and Feanors "soul" as
> well.
> Was _anyone_, even Manwe _entitled) to the light, if it meant destroying the
> jewels retrieving it?
Would the Valar have asked Feanor to give them up if it was wrong to break them?
Moreover, it isn't certain Feanors sould would have been destroyed. He may have
believed so, but even if he were right Ilúvatar would have been capable of
restoring it if Feanor had consented to the sacrifice.
> I think it can be argued that Feanor was within his
> right to refuse, and he was only asked to sacrifice them, of free will, and
> no one seemed to consider any other options.
> Where he screwed up was in becoming in a sense another evil, driven by pride
> and revenge. He should have used his considerable influence to form as large
> an alliance as possible, perhaps take more time but with consent (if not
> aid) from all. It could even be argued that the Valar, like petulant
> children delayed their actions against Morgoth only out of spite or anger,
> or to avoid the notion that their actions were initiated by Feanor, and not
> by themselves. Had Feanor played it more coolly, he might have had an army
> 10x the size it now was, with Eonwe at its head. And no one would have
> contested his property right to the Sils.
>
That Feanor was driven to revenge was just another side of the flaw which made
him refuse to give up the Silmarils to the Valar for the benefit of all. His
subsequent actions are in accordance with this refusal, and not some new
development.
The motives you ascribe the Valar are conjecture, I think. Would they still be
Tolkien's Valar if they harboured feelings like spite or anger? That seems
unlikely. And Feanor, playing it more `coolly'? His name means `Spirit of
Fire'...
db
>
>
>
> Would the Valar have asked Feanor to give them up if it was wrong to break
them?
They might have, they were certainly capable of error. Also, they gave him a
choice, themselves leaning in one direction but certainly not making a moral
judgment either way (except for that dumbass Tulkas(s)).
> Moreover, it isn't certain Feanors sould would have been destroyed. He may
have
> believed so, but even if he were right Ilúvatar would have been capable of
> restoring it if Feanor had consented to the sacrifice.
His beliefs were all that were relevant to him. And no one contradicted him
when he said he's be the first to die. Well ok, Mandos did, but being second
instead of first is hardly consolation.
>
> That Feanor was driven to revenge was just another side of the flaw which
made
> him refuse to give up the Silmarils to the Valar for the benefit of all.
His
> subsequent actions are in accordance with this refusal, and not some new
> development.
Not nessecarily. He might well have refused, but still have abided by the
wishes of the valar after he learned of his fathers death and the theft of
the Sils. With hindsight of course anyone could tell his case was hopeless,
but Feanor might have known it beforehand, had he not lost his sense of
reason. Mind you, I don't blame him for that under those circumstances. He
_should_ have come to his senses though.
> The motives you ascribe the Valar are conjecture, I think. Would they
still be
> Tolkien's Valar if they harboured feelings like spite or anger? That seems
> unlikely.
It is conjecture, but not without basis. The valar were really "only human".
They got angry, sad, and so I'm sure they got offended too. Why damn a whole
people for the sins of a few? Why go to war so late, after so much grief has
occurred? Why wait for Earendil to decide to finally take action? And THEN
take the action Feanor had wanted them to? I can find no other explanation
than that the Noldor had paid enough for their insolence, (most were dead
anyway) and now THEY were gonna show everyone what's what, and who's boss.
> And Feanor, playing it more `coolly'? His name means `Spirit of
> Fire'...
Good point. What was I thinking?
db
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>I wish "The Disaster of
>the Gladden Fields" and other bits of UT had been included in
>LOTR. If stuff was cut from LOTR when it was first published,
>can't it be restored?
I understand your feeling, I think, and I share it to a certain
extent. Why could not "The Disaster of the Gladden Fields" have
been in an appendix, like "A Part of the Tale of Aragorn and
Arwen"?
I think the only real answer is that Tolkien chose to exclude it.
He may have done it for a "permanent" reason -- he thought it
truly did not belong in the story -- or for mere expediency,
reasons of space.
For example, we can be sure that Tolkien would rather have seen
/LotR/ as a single volume because he said so; it was published in
three volumes issued at intervals only because the publishers
insisted. Therefore later publishers who issue one-volume
editions are being true to Tolkien's intent.
But I don't think we know why JRRT excluded "The Disaster" from
/LotR/. If he excluded it on artistic grounds, not merely to keep
the publishers happy, then we have to accept it as less than
canonical and accept its exclusion.
Mark Wells
wrote:
>I *think* I see - thank you very much. My own criterion for
>canonicity was that if it was published as a finished work by
>JRRT or by CJRT on behalf of JRRT, and was thus part of a
>consistent narrative, it is canonical. I wish "The Disaster of
>the Gladden Fields" and other bits of UT had been included in
This seems like a useful standard. "The Disaster of the Gladden Fields"
and the other 'finished works' included in UT are generally viewed as very
reliable. It appears that there's an assumption that if JRRT prepared
something for publication, and then died before he published it, it's in
the form in which he'd want it published, which makes it canonical.
(But then he prepared the "Lay of Leithian" for publication also, didn't
he? Is it canonical for the same reason?)
>LOTR. If stuff was cut from LOTR when it was first published,
>can't it be restored?
I'm not sure. Some people would probably argue that material that was cut
was probably cut for a reason; i.e. that its credibility is hurt by the
fact that JRRT thought about including it in LOTR and then changed his
mind. I would then point out that there were many reasons why he cut
material from LOTR--for example, because it would slow down the book even
more, or make it too long, or confuse people. We don't know for sure.
Michael Martinez
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 09:01:39 -0800, Sharru-ken <oxy104N...@aol.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>I *think* I see - thank you very much. My own criterion for
>>canonicity was that if it was published as a finished work by
>>JRRT or by CJRT on behalf of JRRT, and was thus part of a
>>consistent narrative, it is canonical. I wish "The Disaster of
>>the Gladden Fields" and other bits of UT had been included in
>
>This seems like a useful standard. "The Disaster of the Gladden Fields"
>and the other 'finished works' included in UT are generally viewed as very
>reliable. It appears that there's an assumption that if JRRT prepared
>something for publication, and then died before he published it, it's in
>the form in which he'd want it published, which makes it canonical.
>
>(But then he prepared the "Lay of Leithian" for publication also, didn't
>he? Is it canonical for the same reason?)
A work should be regarded as canonical if it is not directly contradictory on
a majority or significant minority of points to other works in the corpus,
"the corpus" referring to any body of works which are relevant to each other.
Hence, by this criterion, THE BOOK OF LOST TALES is not canonical for
discussions of THE SILMARILLION and THE LORD OF THE RINGS.
Some people, however, would probably regard Tolkien's lost story about the
green great dragon to be canonical in any discussion.
--
\\ // Science Fiction and Fantasy in...@xenite.org
\\// Andromeda: http://www.xenite.org/boards/andromeda/
//\\ Star Wars: http://www.xenite.org/movies/phantom_menace/
// \\ENITE.org....................................................
David L.
Stan Brown <bra...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.133dcd0ea...@news.mindspring.com...
> Said oxy104N...@aol.com.invalid (Sharru-ken) in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >the Gladden Fields" and other bits of UT had been included in
> >can't it be restored?
>
> extent. Why could not "The Disaster of the Gladden Fields" have
> been in an appendix, like "A Part of the Tale of Aragorn and
> Arwen"?
>
> I think the only real answer is that Tolkien chose to exclude it.
> He may have done it for a "permanent" reason -- he thought it
> truly did not belong in the story -- or for mere expediency,
> reasons of space.
>
> For example, we can be sure that Tolkien would rather have seen
> /LotR/ as a single volume because he said so; it was published in
> three volumes issued at intervals only because the publishers
> insisted. Therefore later publishers who issue one-volume
> editions are being true to Tolkien's intent.
>
> But I don't think we know why JRRT excluded "The Disaster" from
> /LotR/. If he excluded it on artistic grounds, not merely to keep
> the publishers happy, then we have to accept it as less than
> canonical and accept its exclusion.
We DO know why it was "excluded" from the LOTR - it wasn't written yet.
Christopher Tolkien describes "The Disaster" ar a late narrative, written long
after the publication of the LOTR as were most of the texts in part three of
_Unfinished Tales_.
If you want to talk about stuff that was "cut" from LOTR you have to talk about
the texts in HoME, especially _Sauron Defeated_ and _The Peoples of
Middle-earth_.
Dave
Mark Wells
>> I'm not sure why he'd come back with Gandalf. I thought he was born
>> into a new body in Middle-earth.
>
>The "born into a new body" trick only works in Valinor it seems. An Elf first
The only rebirth I know of in Valinor was Miriel's, and she was rehoused
in her _original_ body, but then she's something of a special case.
>has to emerge from Mandos to be re-housed. At some point after being re-housed
>Glorfindel had to return (again) to Middle-earth.
I guess he might have been reborn in Aman, but it seems a little strange
that he'd immediately go back to Middle-earth.
"Laws and Customs" says that an Elf who's reborn is expected to resume his
or her previous life as far as it's possible, and therefore is placed in
the same general area among the same people, and often in the same family.
Now, which life was Glorfindel supposed to resume? I would guess that
most of his friends and family were in Aman. But most of his friends from
Gondolin were probably dead, and either still in Mandos or reborn. I
don't see the Valar placing them _all_ back in Middle-earth simply because
that's where they died, but it's possible.
If Glorfindel was released so he could continue his life in Aman, it would
be pretty rude of him to immediately leave Aman. So maybe Glorfindel was
supposed to go back to Middle-earth to resume his former life. Well, why
wasn't he reborn there? "Laws and Customs" seems to say that the Valar
could arrange for someone to be reborn _anywhere_.
>> Of course, we're assuming that the part about Finrod was in the
>> _original_ Quenta Silmarillion. It might have been written into a
>> later edition by Glorfindel, or someone who knew him. (Bilbo, maybe.)
>
>That is another possibility I hadn't thought of. A later editor could have made
>additions.
For that matter, Pengolodh could have made corrections _after_ arriving in
Aman, and shipped it back to Middle-earth via Numenor.
Stan Brown
>anarchist Proudhon, but I'm not sure.) I wouldn't go that far, but if we say NO
>to a direct appeal to share our food with someone who is starving, it could be
>argued that, in a way, we're guilty of theft.
Not without doing violence to the language.
Someone once said "Poverty is violence" too, but that doesn't
make it true.
Stan Brown
>> jewels retrieving it?
>
>Would the Valar have asked Feanor to give them up if it was wrong to break them?
Think about this logically.
It is quite morally correct for me to ask you to do something
that I can't morally do myself, as long as you can morally do it.
For instance, I can't take your money and give it to the poor, by
I can ask you to contribute to my charity. Many other examples
will occur to you with a little thought.
The Valar could not take the Silmarils from Fëanor, even for a
noble purpose, or they would be no better than Morgoth. But they
could ask him to give them up willingly, which meant they had to
accept his refusal.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
http://www.mindspring.com/~brahms/
My reply address is correct as is. The courtesy of providing a correct
reply address is more important to me than time spent deleting spam.
Stan Brown
>had an undisputed claim to the remaining Silmarils, how come the Valar didn't
>give them back to Maedhros and Maglor after defeating Morgoth?
Because the jewels had been hallowed, with Feanor's knowledge and
consent, and by their deeds the brothers were no longer worthy or
even capable of holding something hallowed. Remember what
happened when they actually did lay hands on the Silmarils.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
http://www.mindspring.com/~brahms/
David L.
Mark Wells <ma...@colpanic.office.pc-intouch.com> wrote in message
news:slrn8d82k...@colpanic.office.pc-intouch.com...
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 09:01:39 -0800, Sharru-ken
<oxy104N...@aol.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >I *think* I see - thank you very much. My own criterion for
> >canonicity was that if it was published as a finished work by
> >JRRT or by CJRT on behalf of JRRT, and was thus part of a
> >the Gladden Fields" and other bits of UT had been included in
>
> and the other 'finished works' included in UT are generally viewed as very
> reliable. It appears that there's an assumption that if JRRT prepared
> something for publication, and then died before he published it, it's in
> the form in which he'd want it published, which makes it canonical.
There is a diferent type of cannon also. Many would accept the ideas extressed
in part two of _Unfinished Tales_ about Galadriel and Celeborn as cannonical,
and yet Tolkien never incorporated these ideas into the "Quenta Silmarillion".
"Final intent", whether or not it was actually incorporated into a text is
something that must also be taken into account.
>
> (But then he prepared the "Lay of Leithian" for publication also, didn't
> he? Is it canonical for the same reason?)
What do you mean by "prepared for publication"? The texts of _Unfinished Tales_
were *unfinished*, or they were essays expanding on particular ideas found in
LOTR. I'm not sure that Tolkien would have published any of the essays. "The
Narn", "Tuor" and "Aldarion & Erendis" are different, they were stories in their
own right. The rest of them seem more like private backround notes.
>
> >LOTR. If stuff was cut from LOTR when it was first published,
> >can't it be restored?
>
Stan Brown
>> But I don't think we know why JRRT excluded "The Disaster" from
>> /LotR/. If he excluded it on artistic grounds, not merely to keep
>> the publishers happy, then we have to accept it as less than
>> canonical and accept its exclusion.
>We DO know why it was "excluded" from the LOTR - it wasn't written yet.
>Christopher Tolkien describes "The Disaster" ar a late narrative, written long
>after the publication of the LOTR as were most of the texts in part three of
>_Unfinished Tales_.
Thanks for pointing this out. I had looked for a note preceding
or following "The Disaster" in UT, and there is none to explain
the dating. But in the introduction to the whole book, CJRT says
"This is a 'late' narrative -- by which I mean no more, in the
absence of any indication of precise date, than that it belongs
in the final period of my father's writing on Middle-earth, ...
rather than to the time of the publication of /The Lord of the
Rings/ and the years following it."
So it certainly wasn't written in 1953, tough we can't be sure it
wasn't written in 1966 when the second edition came out.
But here's a fascinating question: Why didn't JRRT send it to the
publishers for inclusion in a new edition of /LotR/?
Sharru-ken
nath_k...@byt.wxs.nl (Morwen) wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:32:50 -0800,
Sharru-ken
><oxy104N...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>OTOH, don't Angrod and Aegnor deserve a bit of favourable
>>consideration? Offhand, I don't recall their doing anything
>>particularly bad.
>
>Sorry to nitpick here, but they were not sons of Feanor, but of
>Finarfin.
It's quite OK, thanks for taking the trouble.
>
>I suspect you meant Amrod and Amras (and yes I had to go check
their
>names).
They're the ones. Add Canthir and Curufin and that makes 6 out
of 7 - I can't remember the other one.
>
>All I can find is that they spent a lot of time hunting and
were slain
>in the Doriath attack, so not a clean slate for them; still on
a First
>Age scale of stupid behaviour I suppose they would qualify as
'Mostly
>Harmless'.
If the Doriath business is the only thing against them that
seems to suggest they are not that bad.
>
>Let's not forget that the First Age Darwin Awards do not *all*
go to
>Feanor and Sons; how about Aredhel....
That was soooooo stupid of her - I definitely have a soft spot
for Maeglin. And for Eol, come to that. If only Turgon had taken
good advice when it came...no fall of Gondolin.
>
>--
>Morwen, Guardian of the (broken) CHOKLIT Sword
>()xxxxxx)|(>>>>>>>>< >>>>>>>>>>>
>
>Reply: remove the obvious bit . . .
>
>
Sharru-ken
"db" <danybelinf...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
>Renée Vink <R.V...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote in message
>news:38D3F241...@cable.a2000.nl...
>>
>>
>>
>> Would the Valar have asked Feanor to give them up if it was
wrong to break
>them?
>
If "Gandalf is an angel", and they are greater than the Maiar Of
whom Gandalf was one), that means they are very mighty indeed,
although created and, therefore, finite. So they are rather more
than Men are.
>They got angry, sad, and so I'm sure they got offended too. Why
damn a whole
>people for the sins of a few? Why go to war so late, after so
much grief has
>occurred? Why wait for Earendil to decide to finally take
action? And THEN
>take the action Feanor had wanted them to?
They didn't, not exactly, because his motives were immoral,
unlike theirs. And if they could not stop the Oath operating,
what could they do to help? Not very much. The grief can be
blamed very largely on the Oath, IMHO. How do you interpret the
Curse of Mandos?
I can find no other explanation
>than that the Noldor had paid enough for their insolence, (most
were dead
>anyway) and now THEY were gonna show everyone what's what, and
who's boss.
>
>> And Feanor, playing it more `coolly'? His name means `Spirit
of
>> Fire'...
>
>Good point. What was I thinking?
>db
>
>
>
>
>
Sharru-ken
bra...@mindspring.com
(Stan Brown) wrote:
>Said
oxy104N...@aol.com.invalid (Sharru-ken) in
>rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>>I wish "The Disaster of
>>the Gladden Fields" and other bits of UT had been included in
>>LOTR. If stuff was cut from LOTR when it was first published,
>>can't it be restored?
>
>I understand your feeling, I think, and I share it to a certain
>extent. Why could not "The Disaster of the Gladden Fields" have
>been in an appendix, like "A Part of the Tale of Aragorn and
>Arwen"?
>
>I think the only real answer is that Tolkien chose to exclude
it.
>He may have done it for a "permanent" reason -- he thought it
>truly did not belong in the story -- or for mere expediency,
>reasons of space.
>
>For example, we can be sure that Tolkien would rather have seen
>/LotR/ as a single volume because he said so; it was published
in
>three volumes issued at intervals only because the publishers
>insisted. Therefore later publishers who issue one-volume
>editions are being true to Tolkien's intent.
>
>But I don't think we know why JRRT excluded "The Disaster" from
>/LotR/. If he excluded it on artistic grounds, not merely to
keep
>the publishers happy, then we have to accept it as less than
>canonical and accept its exclusion.
More's the pity. There's a rather atmospheric illustration of
the death of Isildur by someone called Eiszenmann (sp?) which I
found on an ftp site. I could have done with some Numenorean
stuff, pre-Downfall. At least there is some in UT. BTW, sorry
about the length of the post to which you replied.
>
>--
>Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
> http://www.mindspring.com/~brahms/
>Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
>Tolkien FAQs:
> http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien/TolkNgFaq.html
(Jensen)
> ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/rec.arts.books.tolkien/ (Loos)
>more FAQs: http://www.mindspring.com/~brahms/faqget.htm
>
>
David L.
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 07:43:44 -0500, David L. <dav...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> >> I'm not sure why he'd come back with Gandalf. I thought he was born
> >> into a new body in Middle-earth.
> >
> >The "born into a new body" trick only works in Valinor it seems. An Elf first
>
> The only rebirth I know of in Valinor was Miriel's, and she was rehoused
> in her _original_ body, but then she's something of a special case.
>
> >has to emerge from Mandos to be re-housed. At some point after being
re-housed
> >Glorfindel had to return (again) to Middle-earth.
>
> I guess he might have been reborn in Aman, but it seems a little strange
> that he'd immediately go back to Middle-earth.
But that is what he did.
> "Laws and Customs" says that an Elf who's reborn is expected to resume his
> or her previous life as far as it's possible, and therefore is placed in
> the same general area among the same people, and often in the same family.
>
> Now, which life was Glorfindel supposed to resume? I would guess that
> most of his friends and family were in Aman. But most of his friends from
> Gondolin were probably dead, and either still in Mandos or reborn. I
> don't see the Valar placing them _all_ back in Middle-earth simply because
> that's where they died, but it's possible.
The idea of "rebirth", i.e. born into the same family was ultimatly rejected by
Tolkien. Instead, if they died in Aman where their body would remain uncorupt
they simply reinhabited it. If they died in Middle-earth the Valar would create
a new body for them - in all respects like the old one. Check out the note at
the end of the "Athrabeth".
> If Glorfindel was released so he could continue his life in Aman, it would
> be pretty rude of him to immediately leave Aman. So maybe Glorfindel was
> supposed to go back to Middle-earth to resume his former life. Well, why
> wasn't he reborn there? "Laws and Customs" seems to say that the Valar
> could arrange for someone to be reborn _anywhere_.
I didn't read it that way. The Elves were summoned to Aman. Especially after the
end of the 1st Age Aman was the "home" of all the Eldar. The slain spirits were
summoned to Mandos. When they were elegible for re-housing they were already in
Aman.
>
> >> Of course, we're assuming that the part about Finrod was in the
> >> _original_ Quenta Silmarillion. It might have been written into a
> >> later edition by Glorfindel, or someone who knew him. (Bilbo, maybe.)
> >
> >That is another possibility I hadn't thought of. A later editor could have
made
> >additions.
>
> For that matter, Pengolodh could have made corrections _after_ arriving in
> Aman, and shipped it back to Middle-earth via Numenor.
I don't buy this argument. Pengolodh arrived in Aman about the same time as the
Shadow was falling on Numenor. The ships of the Eldar would have been few an far
between.
However in one of the scenarios Glorfindel is said to have returned to
Middle-earth when Sauron began to assert himself in the 2nd Age - the same time
Pengolodh is said to have departed. This seems to be the best scenario.
Dave
Mark Wells
>> Was _anyone_, even Manwe _entitled) to the light, if it meant destroying the
>> jewels retrieving it?
>Would the Valar have asked Feanor to give them up if it was wrong to
>break them?
I think the issue here is that it was Feanor's choice. It would be wrong
for Manwe or anyone else to _take_ the jewels by force. Feanor seemed
to fear that the Valar would take them by force, and he pointed out that
that's the kind of thing Morgoth would do.
If Manwe was _entitled_ to the light, he'd have the _right_ to take the
jewels (by force, if necessary) and break them. He never claimed to have
this right. He gave Feanor a choice, and thus acknowledged that
(regardless of the source of the light, or the desperate need of the
Valar) the Silmarils were still Feanor's property.
Mark Wells
wrote:
>If "Gandalf is an angel", and they are greater than the Maiar Of
>whom Gandalf was one), that means they are very mighty indeed,
>although created and, therefore, finite. So they are rather more
>than Men are.
As Captain Kirk said, "Everybody's human." The Valar are bigger and
greater and cooler than men, but their motives and thoughts are still more
or less human.
>They didn't, not exactly, because his motives were immoral,
>unlike theirs. And if they could not stop the Oath operating,
>what could they do to help? Not very much. The grief can be
Feanor took an oath to take back the Silmarils. If they wanted to stop
Feanor from killing everyone who got in his way, all they'd have to do is
go thrash Morgoth and take the Silmarils and give them to Feanor.[0]
A more plausible explanation, which fits pretty well with _Morgoth's
Ring_, is that the Valar _couldn't_ beat Morgoth at the beginning of the
First Age, because he was too powerful, so they fenced him out and
waited. By the end of the First Age he had wasted enough of his native
strength that they could defeat him.
Flame of the West
> Now, which life was Glorfindel supposed to resume? I would guess that
> most of his friends and family were in Aman. But most of his friends from
> Gondolin were probably dead, and either still in Mandos or reborn. I
> don't see the Valar placing them _all_ back in Middle-earth simply because
> that's where they died, but it's possible.
Don't think so. IIRC, an Elf once reborn must remain in Aman,
and Glorfindel was the sole exception (internally because of
his great valor, but really because Tolkien re-used the name
by accident).
--
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-Earth.
PaulB
bra...@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) writes:
>So it certainly wasn't written in 1953, tough we can't be sure it
>wasn't written in 1966 when the second edition came out.
>
>But here's a fascinating question: Why didn't JRRT send it to the
>publishers for inclusion in a new edition of /LotR/?
>
Tolkien was also averse to revision and correction (Bilbo's aquisition of the
ring being the most major of these.) That LOTR's _structure_ was not altered at
any point in the 15+ years after RotK's publication is a strong indication that
either thoughts of adding to the text were never considered or were concieved
of and then dismissed.
Finally, while altering the the text of LOTR would be, IMNSHO, even worse than
writing a novelization of the movie, (which would at least have another authors
name to distance it from true greatness,) if it _was_ going to be done, I would
prefer seeing "The Battle at the Fords of Isen" inserted as it is relevent to
showing the War of the Ring as something of greater scope than just those
events directly having to do with the 9 walkers.
PB
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that
die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal
out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." -JRRT
Morwen
<oxy104N...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <38d3e838...@news.wxs.nl>,
>They're the ones. Add Canthir and Curufin and that makes 6 out
>of 7 - I can't remember the other one.
Maedhros; Maglor; Celegorm; Caranthir; Curufin; Amrod and Amras
>If the Doriath business is the only thing against them that
>seems to suggest they are not that bad.
Possibly; now I seem to remember that in HoME in some versions they
never made it to Middle-Earth, but were slain in Alqualondë or
something like that.
(Note to self: Time to re-read HoME, but skip the many versions of
LotR chapter 1 this time)
>>
>>Let's not forget that the First Age Darwin Awards do not *all*
>go to
>>Feanor and Sons; how about Aredhel....
>
>That was soooooo stupid of her - I definitely have a soft spot
>for Maeglin. And for Eol, come to that. If only Turgon had taken
>good advice when it came...no fall of Gondolin.
I don't think I'm with you in the sympathy for Maeglin/Eöl thing, at
least not all the way to the end, though of course they were also
instruments of the Doom of Mandos.
Look at what Ulmo said to Turgon, when Turgon set out from Nevrast to
establish Gondolin:
"And Ulmo warned Turgon that he also lay under the Doom of Mandos,
which Ulmo had no power to remove. 'Thus it may come to pass,' he
said, 'that the curse of the Noldor shall find thee too ere the end,
and treason awake within thy walls. Then they shall be in peril of
fire. "
I think that even if Turgon had listened to Tuor's message and if
Maeglin hadn't got himself captured and been all too ready to turn
traitor, Gondolin would have gone down; 'how' is an entirely different
question...
Conrad Dunkerson
news:38D44E95...@erols.com...
> Don't think so. IIRC, an Elf once reborn must remain in Aman,
> and Glorfindel was the sole exception (internally because of
> his great valor, but really because Tolkien re-used the name
> by accident).
I'm not sure that 'accident' is quite the right term, as JRRT
associated Glorfindel with Gondolin from the first draft of LotR.
There was a note indicating that Glorfindel would talk about his
"ancestry in Gondolin". Granted, this never made it into the book,
but it would seem to indicate that JRRT knew quite well that the
name had been used before. He may have forgotten that Glorfindel
DIED, but even that seems unlikely. Perhaps he was going on the
assumption that 'The Fall of Gondolin' would never be published,
and thus it would be 'safe' to reuse the character despite his
death.
Renée Vink
Stan Brown wrote:
> Said R.V...@cable.a2000.nl (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9e?= Vink) in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >> Was _anyone_, even Manwe _entitled) to the light, if it meant destroying the
> >> jewels retrieving it?
> >
> >Would the Valar have asked Feanor to give them up if it was wrong to break them?
>
> Think about this logically.
>
> It is quite morally correct for me to ask you to do something
> that I can't morally do myself, as long as you can morally do it.
>
> For instance, I can't take your money and give it to the poor, by
> I can ask you to contribute to my charity. Many other examples
> will occur to you with a little thought.
>
> The Valar could not take the Silmarils from Fëanor, even for a
> noble purpose, or they would be no better than Morgoth. But they
> could ask him to give them up willingly, which meant they had to
> accept his refusal.
>
I don't think I made myself clear. The question was whether it would be right to
destroy the Silmarils to get at the light contained within them. If the destruction
of the jewels was wrong in itself, then asking Feanor to put them at their disposal
would have been immoral to begin with. So the Valar clearly felt that breaking the
Silmarils would be the right thing to do if Feanor gave them up of his own free will.
As for the making of the Silmarils, I'd like to quote Tolkien himself:
`But the chief artificer of the Elves (Feanor) had imprisoned the Light of Valinor in
the three supreme jewels, the Silmarilli.' (Letter 131 to Milton Waldman). I think
the word `imprisoned' tells us clearly what Tolkien thought about Feanor's action.
David L.
Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:rO3B4.8534$iP.6...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Flame of the West" <jsol...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:38D44E95...@erols.com...
>
> > Don't think so. IIRC, an Elf once reborn must remain in Aman,
> > and Glorfindel was the sole exception (internally because of
> > his great valor, but really because Tolkien re-used the name
> > by accident).
>
> I'm not sure that 'accident' is quite the right term, as JRRT
> associated Glorfindel with Gondolin from the first draft of LotR.
Tolkien expressed a regret that certain names from the Silmarillion were
indiscriminately reused in LoTR, But he was concerned with the names themselves,
not the characters. Names like Eglamoth, Ecthelion and Glorfindel were all old
names first appearing in the Book of Lost Tales and were hard to incorporate
into his much more evolved linguistic situation. I think that is what Mr Flame
is referring to.
> There was a note indicating that Glorfindel would talk about his
> "ancestry in Gondolin". Granted, this never made it into the book,
> but it would seem to indicate that JRRT knew quite well that the
> name had been used before. He may have forgotten that Glorfindel
> DIED, but even that seems unlikely. Perhaps he was going on the
> assumption that 'The Fall of Gondolin' would never be published,
> and thus it would be 'safe' to reuse the character despite his
> death.
What is interesting here is that late in his life Tolkien was questioning his
basic assumption about the 2 Glorfindels. As Conrad points out it was understood
from the early drafts that Glorfindel of Rivendell was the same person as
Glorfindel of Gondolin. What was different or what elements in the Legendarium
were altered that made JRRT question this assumption?
Dave
Öjevind Lång
>Renée Vink wrote in message...
>>
[snip]
>>
>
>> That Feanor was driven to revenge was just another side of the flaw which
>made
>> him refuse to give up the Silmarils to the Valar for the benefit of all.
>His
>> subsequent actions are in accordance with this refusal, and not some new
>> development.
>
>Not nessecarily. He might well have refused, but still have abided by the
>wishes of the valar after he learned of his father's death and the theft of
>the Sils. With hindsight of course anyone could tell his case was hopeless,
>but Feanor might have known it beforehand, had he not lost his sense of
>reason. Mind you, I don't blame him for that under those circumstances. He
>_should_ have come to his senses though.
I think it can be stated with a fair degree of certainty that Fëanor chose
evil before good when he disobeyed the orders of the Valar and led a host
back to Middle-earth. On his way there he attacked and murdered the Teleri
at Alqualondë, stealing their ships , and on arriving in Middle-earth set
fire to the ships instead of sending them back to fetch the rest of the host
that had followed him out of fidelity. Those two acts were deliberate acts
of evil by someone who must have had a propensity for evil before; as I have
argued in another discussion, people do not automatically choose to act in a
consistently evil way just because they have lost their reason.
>> The motives you ascribe the Valar are conjecture, I think. Would they
>still be
>> Tolkien's Valar if they harboured feelings like spite or anger? That
seems
>> unlikely.
>
>It is conjecture, but not without basis. The valar were really "only
human".
Not really. They were archangels or subgods, and their ban against Elves
returning to Middle-earth expressed the will of the One. Do not forget
Tolkien's highly hierarchical attitude: disobeying a superior without
extremely good reason was a cardinal sin for him.
>They got angry, sad, and so I'm sure they got offended too. Why damn a
whole
>people for the sins of a few? Why go to war so late, after so much grief
has
>occurred? Why wait for Earendil to decide to finally take action? And THEN
>take the action Feanor had wanted them to? I can find no other explanation
>than that the Noldor had paid enough for their insolence, (most were dead
>anyway) and now THEY were gonna show everyone what's what, and who's boss.
Eru was boss, and the Valar had, if I have understood things right, no
authority to suddenly permit the Elves to contravene their destiny and
return to Middle-earth; their destiny, as decided by Eru, lay outside it.
They could only intervene in the affairs of Middle-earth after having gained
the permission of the One. At least that is my impression; perhaps someone
can correct me on that point.
Öjevind
Renée Vink
Mark Wells wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 22:16:49 +0100, Renée Vink <R.V...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>
> >> Was _anyone_, even Manwe _entitled) to the light, if it meant destroying the
> >> jewels retrieving it?
>
> >Would the Valar have asked Feanor to give them up if it was wrong to
> >break them?
>
> I think the issue here is that it was Feanor's choice. It would be wrong
> for Manwe or anyone else to _take_ the jewels by force. Feanor seemed
> to fear that the Valar would take them by force, and he pointed out that
> that's the kind of thing Morgoth would do.
>
> If Manwe was _entitled_ to the light, he'd have the _right_ to take the
> jewels (by force, if necessary) and break them. He never claimed to have
> this right. He gave Feanor a choice, and thus acknowledged that
> (regardless of the source of the light, or the desperate need of the
> Valar) the Silmarils were still Feanor's property.
They were his creations. Imagine a goldsmith turning a piece of gold belonging to
the community into a beautiful statue. The material belongs to the community, the
form is the artist's. Does the material become the artist's property because he
used it to create a work of art?
Renée Vink
Stan Brown wrote:
> Said R.V...@cable.a2000.nl (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9e?= Vink) in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >Someone once said: Property is theft. (I think it was the 19th century French
> >anarchist Proudhon, but I'm not sure.) I wouldn't go that far, but if we say NO
> >to a direct appeal to share our food with someone who is starving, it could be
> >argued that, in a way, we're guilty of theft.
>
> Not without doing violence to the language.
>
> Someone once said "Poverty is violence" too, but that doesn't
> make it true.
>
I said `in a way'. Legally, we're not thieves, and the language violated is that of
the law. Whether we're thieves in a moral sense is open to discussion, I think Ever
heard of `Summum ius, summa iniuria'?
Renée Vink
Stan Brown wrote:
> Said R.V...@cable.a2000.nl (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9e?= Vink) in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >And if Feanor and his sons
> >had an undisputed claim to the remaining Silmarils, how come the Valar didn't
> >give them back to Maedhros and Maglor after defeating Morgoth?
>
> Because the jewels had been hallowed, with Feanor's knowledge and
> consent, and by their deeds the brothers were no longer worthy or
> even capable of holding something hallowed. Remember what
> happened when they actually did lay hands on the Silmarils.
>
>
O.K., that's a good point; here, my argument fails.
db
>Ever heard of `Summum ius, summa iniuria'?
No
db
db
Öjevind Lång <ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote in message news:cB4B4.7662
> I think it can be stated with a fair degree of certainty that Fëanor chose
> evil before good when he disobeyed the orders of the Valar and led a host
> back to Middle-earth. On his way there he attacked and murdered the Teleri
> at Alqualondë, stealing their ships , and on arriving in Middle-earth set
> fire to the ships instead of sending them back to fetch the rest of the
host
> that had followed him out of fidelity. Those two acts were deliberate acts
> of evil by someone who must have had a propensity for evil before; as I
have
> argued in another discussion, people do not automatically choose to act in
a
> consistently evil way just because they have lost their reason.
True. I feel though that he might have made his initial decisions while
temporarily insane, afterwards being too proud to reconsider. Aside from
that, I agree he seems to have been the kind of person so ruthless and
arrogant that indeed the goal justifies any means.
> >It is conjecture, but not without basis. The valar were really "only
> human".
>
> Not really. They were archangels or subgods, and their ban against Elves
> returning to Middle-earth expressed the will of the One.
This I do not recall from anything I've read. It may be true, but it's clear
only that the valar forbade the Noldor. Wether they expressed Eru's will _in
this case_ I don't know, but I'd like to be shown.
In a wider sense, I think the valar ruled Arda without having to go to Eru
for guidance or instructions. I think they played this one the way they saw
fit.
> Do not forget
> Tolkien's highly hierarchical attitude: disobeying a superior without
> extremely good reason was a cardinal sin for him.
Well then in this case I agree with Feanor: You gave me a mind of my own,
I'll bloody well use it.
> Eru was boss, and the Valar had, if I have understood things right, no
> authority to suddenly permit the Elves to contravene their destiny and
> return to Middle-earth; their destiny, as decided by Eru, lay outside it.
> They could only intervene in the affairs of Middle-earth after having
gained
> the permission of the One. At least that is my impression; perhaps someone
> can correct me on that point.
I think a point could be made that they could intervene if they wanted to.
Ulmo helped the Noldor secretly, and told Tuor something to the effect of:
"My colleagues don't know I'm doing this, we decided to leave you to your
fates, but I'm playing my part in agreater whole". Didn't say anything about
Eru. They had a lot of leeway ruling Arda, I think.
db
Mark Wells
>They were his creations. Imagine a goldsmith turning a piece of gold belonging to
>the community into a beautiful statue. The material belongs to the community, the
>form is the artist's. Does the material become the artist's property because he
>used it to create a work of art?
That depends. How did he get the gold? Did he steal it? If so, he has
to give it back. Did they commission him to make the statue? If so, they
had an _agreement_ specifying who retains ownership of the statue
(probably the community), and probably requiring them to compensate him
for his work on it.
But the light from the Two Trees isn't a scarce commodity. Feanor didn't
have to _take_ it, or have it _given_ to him. He could use it without
diminishing anyone else's use or enjoyment of it. It has no scarcity, so
it can't be anyone's property. Anything he created from it would be his
own property, just as a farmer who uses the energy of the sun to grow
crops _owns_ the crops.
(I'd also dispute your claim that anything can belong to the community,
since communities don't have property rights, but this isn't really the
issue. The situation would be the same if the gold belonged to antoher
individual.)
Aris Katsaris
> db hath written:
>
> >> The motives you ascribe the Valar are conjecture, I think. Would they
> >still be
> >> Tolkien's Valar if they harboured feelings like spite or anger? That
> seems
> >> unlikely.
> >
> human".
>
> Not really. They were archangels or subgods, and their ban against Elves
> returning to Middle-earth expressed the will of the One.
I don't think the Valar never banned the Elves from returning to
Middle-earth.
That's what Feanor accused them of trying to do. What they did was make
a ban against the *return* of those who would follow Feanor.
The crime of those elves was not their departure - it was that they followed
a criminal. And Feanor's crime again was not departure - it was the
kinslaying.
> Do not forget
> Tolkien's highly hierarchical attitude: disobeying a superior without
> extremely good reason was a cardinal sin for him.
I don't really see that attitude... In some places, yeah, sure... but not to
such
extent that you could speak of a 'highly hierachical attitude'... or it
being
a cardinal sin to disobey a superior...
> >They got angry, sad, and so I'm sure they got offended too. Why damn a
> whole
> >people for the sins of a few? Why go to war so late, after so much grief
> has
> >occurred? Why wait for Earendil to decide to finally take action? And
THEN
> >take the action Feanor had wanted them to? I can find no other
explanation
> >than that the Noldor had paid enough for their insolence, (most were dead
> >anyway) and now THEY were gonna show everyone what's what, and who's
boss.
>
>
> Eru was boss, and the Valar had, if I have understood things right, no
> authority to suddenly permit the Elves to contravene their destiny and
> return to Middle-earth; their destiny, as decided by Eru, lay outside it.
> They could only intervene in the affairs of Middle-earth after having
gained
> the permission of the One. At least that is my impression; perhaps someone
> can correct me on that point.
The further history rolled along its way, the less power they had to
intervene without
that intervention being destructive.... Like an architect who can choose to
change a part of the plan early on in the construction process, but would
need to demolish the whole building if he changed his mind in the end...
Aris Katsaris
Renée Vink
Mark Wells wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 14:28:20 +0100, Renée Vink <R.V...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>
> >They were his creations. Imagine a goldsmith turning a piece of gold belonging to
> >the community into a beautiful statue. The material belongs to the community, the
> >form is the artist's. Does the material become the artist's property because he
> >used it to create a work of art?
>
> That depends. How did he get the gold? Did he steal it? If so, he has
> to give it back. Did they commission him to make the statue? If so, they
> had an _agreement_ specifying who retains ownership of the statue
> (probably the community), and probably requiring them to compensate him
> for his work on it.
He didn't steal it. No-one commissioned it. But the material wasn't his. Feanor did
not create the Light.
> But the light from the Two Trees isn't a scarce commodity. Feanor didn't have to
> _take_ it, or have it _given_ to him. He could use it without diminishing anyone
> else's use or enjoyment of it. It has no scarcity, so it can't be anyone's
> property. Anything he created from it would be his own property, just as a farmer
> who uses the energy of the sun to grow crops _owns_ the crops.
That depends on whether the soil is his, too... But my point was that the light BECAME
scarce when Morgot and Ungoliant destroyed the Trees.. I'll have another try. Let's
turn Feanor into an ice-sculptor who creates a beautiful work of art from a block of
ice, and manages to preserve it for a long period of time (how is irrelevant). Then
there's a draught in the country, and all the water left is in his ice-sculpture.
People get very thirsty... What's the right thing to do?
> (I'd also dispute your claim that anything can belong to the community,
> since communities don't have property rights, but this isn't really the
> issue. The situation would be the same if the gold belonged to antoher
> individual.)
Don't they? If I cut a tree in my front garden without the permission of the community
(represented by an administrative body), I get fined for damaging the general view, or
whatever the legal term is in English. But otherwise you're right; talking about
`community property' isn't relevant. It's too legalistic. When I used the word
`belonging' I didn't mean official, documented ownership but more something like
sunlight, water, soil, etc. But I doubt Tolkien saw the Light of the Trees as a
commodity, or he wouldn't have said Feanor imprisoned the Light when he put it into
his Silmarils.
Renée Vink
db wrote:
Literally: `The highest justice is the highest injustice', meaning that
what is legally correct can be absolutely wrong at the same time. The
maxim was coined by Cicero.
Mark Wells
<R.V...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>I don't think I made myself clear. The question was whether it would be right to
No, _this_ was the question:
>> Said R.V...@cable.a2000.nl (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9e?= Vink) in
>> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>> >> Was _anyone_, even Manwe _entitled) to the light, if it meant destroying the
>> >> jewels retrieving it?
>> >
The question is whether the Valar would have the right to destroy the
jewels if that's what was necessary.
>destroy the Silmarils to get at the light contained within them. If the destruction
>of the jewels was wrong in itself, then asking Feanor to put them at their disposal
I don't think it's implied anywhere that destruction of the jewels was
wrong in itself.
>would have been immoral to begin with. So the Valar clearly felt that breaking the
>Silmarils would be the right thing to do if Feanor gave them up of his own free will.
>
>As for the making of the Silmarils, I'd like to quote Tolkien himself:
>`But the chief artificer of the Elves (Feanor) had imprisoned the Light of Valinor in
>the three supreme jewels, the Silmarilli.' (Letter 131 to Milton Waldman). I think
>the word `imprisoned' tells us clearly what Tolkien thought about Feanor's action.
Not really. It tells us that the light was 'trapped' in the jewels.
It doesn't say that Feanor was doing anything wrong by making them.
(If he was, would Varda have blessed them? I don't think so.) At the
time he made them, the light of the Trees was abundant in Valinor, and
it wasn't diminished at all by being trapped in the jewels. Anyway,
if he _hadn't_ made them, the light would have been lost forever.
Feanor did a lot of Very Bad Things, but this wasn't one of them.
Stan Brown
>scarce when Morgot and Ungoliant destroyed the Trees..
So what? The fact that something later becomes scarce doesn't
invalidate ownership retroactively.
And you keep missing the most obvious point: The *Valar* did not
think the Silmarils belonged to anyone but Fëanor. That's why
they asked him earnestly to give up the Silmarils, but did not
command. They asked him to do that for the good of all, but they
recognized that they could only ask because the Silmarils were
his not theirs. The issue of where the light came from was
raised, but did not carry the day.
If the Valar thought Fëanor owned the Silmarils, who are you to
disagree? :-)
>I'll have another try. Let's
>turn Feanor into an ice-sculptor who creates a beautiful work of art from a block of
>ice, and manages to preserve it for a long period of time (how is irrelevant). Then
>there's a draught in the country, and all the water left is in his ice-sculpture.
>People get very thirsty... What's the right thing to do?
You're blurring the issue, between the right thing for the
sculptor to do and the right thing for the people to do. The
right thing for the sculptor to do might be to melt it down for
drinking water. But it is the sculptor's call, because the ice
sculpture is his property. The people can ask for it, but they
cannot demand it as of right.
Öjevind Lång
>
>Öjevind Lång wrote in message...
[snip]
>
>> Do not forget
>> Tolkien's highly hierarchical attitude: disobeying a superior without
>> extremely good reason was a cardinal sin for him.
>
>I don't really see that attitude... In some places, yeah, sure... but not
to
>such
>extent that you could speak of a 'highly hierachical attitude'... or it
>being
>a cardinal sin to disobey a superior...
Of course one can always discuss degrees, and certainly Tolkien did not
think one should obey an order from a superior if it was criminal. But I do
maintain that he cherished loyalty and obedience towards one's chief or king
as a very important thing. The biggest crimes throughout his works are those
of disobedience and rebellion against a legal ruler, or even God: Morgoth,
Sauron and Fėanor were all criminals of this kind.
[snip]
>
>The further history rolled along its way, the less power they had to
>intervene without
>that intervention being destructive.... Like an architect who can choose to
>change a part of the plan early on in the construction process, but would
>need to demolish the whole building if he changed his mind in the end...
That is a very good point. When the Host of the Valar vanquished Morgoth,
the destruction was so great that all the westernmost lands of Middle-earth
were broken and sank beneath the water. The terrible cold north of Arnor was
also due to this great turmoil. That is one reason why the Valar did not
intervene against Sauron in Midddle-earth later on; not only would that have
infringed on the free will of Middle-earth's inhabitants, but the
destruction would probably have been even more terrible than the one when
Morgoth was overthrown.
Öjevind
Raven
nyhedsmeddelelse:0OuB4.8479$_Z2....@nntpserver.swip.net...
> Of course one can always discuss degrees, and certainly Tolkien did
> not think one should obey an order from a superior if it was criminal.
> But I do maintain that he cherished loyalty and obedience towards
> one's chief or king as a very important thing. The biggest crimes
> throughout his works are those of disobedience and rebellion against
> a legal ruler, or even God: Morgoth, Sauron and Fëanor were all
> criminals of this kind.
The loyalty to Eru, against whom Morgoth rebelled, may be considered
a special case. Eru was God of Tolkien's world, and to a devout
Christian, sins don't come much viler than that, I suppose. Yet
Melkor/Morgoth is depicted as evil based more on the nature of his
actions after his rebellion: he caused innocent beings to suffer for his
own gratification. He considered himself the only being entitled to
happiness, and had no pity, mercy or empathy for others. The same evil
is depicted in Sauron. And when Fëanor left Aman, it was not this
action in particular which marked him as an evil Elf, but his
self-serving pride: threatening death to his half-brother, and then the
Kinslaying of Alqualondë. The Valar had reason to punish him for those
deeds, but he fled that punishment in his hunt for the Silmarils. Under
different circumstances the Valar would have had no authority to forbid
the departure of those Elves who wished to leave.
To me, it seems that evil in these books are those who serve only
themselves, using others merely as tools for the furtherance of their
own happiness. Of course it may be argued that having such a mindset is
in itself an act of rebellion against Eru/God.
Jon L. Beck.
Renée Vink
Stan Brown wrote:
> Said R.V...@cable.a2000.nl (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9e?= Vink) in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>
> You keep missing the most obvious point: The *Valar* did not
> think the Silmarils belonged to anyone but Fëanor. That's why
> they asked him earnestly to give up the Silmarils, but did not
> command. They asked him to do that for the good of all, but they
> recognized that they could only ask because the Silmarils were
> his not theirs. The issue of where the light came from was
> raised, but did not carry the day.
>
> If the Valar thought Fëanor owned the Silmarils, who are you to
> disagree? :-)
I wouldn't dare to. :-)
When I went over this whole discussion again, I nowhere found myself saying the Valar
disputed Feanor's ownership of the Silmarils. Originally, I reacted against something
else: the notion that they didn't have the right to ask Feanor to destroy them (and, as
he thought, his soul in the process).
I rejected that idea, and I still do. They did have the right to make the suggestion.
This whole discussion about ownership arose when I supposed the Valar had this right
because Feanor had made the Silmarils, but not the light within them. I just tried to
find an explanation for their request which would preserve their integrity (which has
been questioned in this thread).
Feanor did have an indisputable claim to his own artistic creations. What I questioned
was his refusal to hand them over for the benefit of all. From a legal point of view - if
such a viewpoint existed in the Blessed Realm - he may have been right. From a moral
point of view it was not ok, and it exposes a basic flaw in his character: he was more
interested in his own creations than in anything else.
>
> >I'll have another try. Let's
> >turn Feanor into an ice-sculptor who creates a beautiful work of art from a block of
> >ice, and manages to preserve it for a long period of time (how is irrelevant). Then
> >there's a draught in the country, and all the water left is in his ice-sculpture.
> >People get very thirsty... What's the right thing to do?
>
> You're blurring the issue, between the right thing for the
> sculptor to do and the right thing for the people to do. The
> right thing for the sculptor to do might be to melt it down for
> drinking water. But it is the sculptor's call, because the ice
> sculpture is his property. The people can ask for it, but they
> cannot demand it as of right.
Why is it, then, that so many states have laws allowing them to disown property if this
will serve the common good (or what is perceived as such)? Clearly because law-giving
bodies have decided at some time such laws ought to exist. The question is perhaps, why
such laws didn't exist in the Blessed Realm - because it was supposed to be perfect?
Renée Vink
Mark Wells wrote:
But `imprisoned' is a negative term, and I wonder if `trapped' is so much better. Tolkien
didn't think positively about prisons. And Varda wasn't omniscient. She might have thought
twice if she had perceived Feanor's true character and/or foreseen Morgoth's actions.
On the other hand you may be right; maybe I'm taking a metaphor too litterally. People can
steal harts without doing something wrong.
db
>On the other hand you may be right; maybe I'm taking a metaphor too
litterally. People can
>steal harts without doing something wrong.
Not if you were the one on top of the donorlist...
db
_________
"Mostly harmless"
_________
Pls remove ".NoSpam" from email adres when replying
_________
Öjevind Lång
>Öjevind Lång skrev...
>
[snip]
> To me, it seems that evil in these books are those who serve only
>themselves, using others merely as tools for the furtherance of their
>own happiness. Of course it may be argued that having such a mindset is
>in itself an act of rebellion against Eru/God.
I think you have got to the heart of the matter here. Hierarchy was ordained
by God. of course, it had to be righteous, God-fearing hierarchy.
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>
>When I went over this whole discussion again, I nowhere found myself saying
the Valar
>disputed Feanor's ownership of the Silmarils. Originally, I reacted against
something
>else: the notion that they didn't have the right to ask Feanor to destroy
them (and, as
>he thought, his soul in the process).
>I rejected that idea, and I still do. They did have the right to make the
suggestion.
>This whole discussion about ownership arose when I supposed the Valar had
this right
>because Feanor had made the Silmarils, but not the light within them. I
just tried to
>find an explanation for their request which would preserve their integrity
(which has
>been questioned in this thread).
As I read it, the Valar made a request that Fëanor sacrifice the Silmaril
for the common good. When he refused, they did not press the matter since
Fëanor was not "legally" obliged to fulfil their request, just morally. His
action was morally wrong, but not against the "law".
Öjevind
Raven
news:38D73E5D...@cable.a2000.nl...
> People can steal harts without doing something wrong.
Wouldn't that be poaching? :-)
Harabanar.
Mark Wells
wrote:
>As I read it, the Valar made a request that Fëanor sacrifice the Silmaril
>for the common good. When he refused, they did not press the matter since
>Fëanor was not "legally" obliged to fulfil their request, just morally. His
>action was morally wrong, but not against the "law".
Or, equivalently, the Valar weren't authorized to enforce morality. They
were authorized to enforce a certain limited subset of morality, which was
the 'law'. But they weren't allowed to step beyond the boundaries of law
and try to enforce, say, the virtue of generosity. In this case, giving
up the Silmarils was probably the right thing for Feanor to do, but the
law that the Valar enforced didn't require it.
The law of Eru, OTOH, could be considered 'equivalent' to morality. But
Eru chose not to enforce it.
Renée Vink
db wrote:
> Renée Vink wrote in message <38D73E5D...@cable.a2000.nl>...
> >On the other hand you may be right; maybe I'm taking a metaphor too
> litterally. People can
> >steal harts without doing something wrong.
>
> Not if you were the one on top of the donorlist...
But in that case the excitement would surely kill me?
Renée Vink
Mark Wells wrote:
IMO we must abandon all ideas about codified law, and about the Valar as
executors/enforcers of the law, when talking about the Blessed Realm.
Renée Vink
Raven wrote:
> Renée Vink <R.V...@cable.a2000.nl> skrev i en
> news:38D73E5D...@cable.a2000.nl...
>
> > People can steal harts without doing something wrong.
> Wouldn't that be poaching? :-)
>
Not if you leave them alive, I think.
Mark Wells
<R.V...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>> The law of Eru, OTOH, could be considered 'equivalent' to morality. But
>> Eru chose not to enforce it.
>
>IMO we must abandon all ideas about codified law, and about the Valar as
>executors/enforcers of the law, when talking about the Blessed Realm.
Why? There clearly _is_ a law that they enforce. It's not all
codified _in detail_ because they don't know of all the situations
that might arise in Arda Marred, so they have to act as a court and
figure out how the law applies to each situation, but they do follow a
law of some kind.
Renée Vink
Mark Wells wrote:
What I meant was codified law as against customary law. Many laws existed long
before they were written down & codified. But as we're talking about the
Blessed Realm I doubt there were many laws. I always thought laws were made to
solve problems and conflicts. How many problems and conflicts occurred in the
Blessed Realm before Miriel refused to live on and her son became a
trouble-maker? When do we first see the Valar form a judicial court?
I think Öjevind is right: we're talking about morality here, the awareness of
right and wrong which comes from Eru. The Blessed Realm is not a society like
ours.
Juho P. Pahajoki
>As I read it, the Valar made a request that Fëanor sacrifice the Silmaril
>for the common good.
I couldn't help but to notice that you used wrongly the singular
Silmaril and not Silmarilli or Silmarils. In the council the Valar and
Fëanor speak of the Silmarils only in plural. Yet Yavanna says that
she would need only little of the light of the Trees to recall them to
life. Has Tolkien in any of his texts written about the possibility to
use only one of the Silmarils? What would Fëanor have done, had the
Valar asked only for one of the three?
--
Good: Your husband understands fashion.
Bad: He's a crossdresser.
UGLY: He looks better than you.
-- Anonymous, posted to rec.humour.funny
Öjevind Lång
>Öjevind Lång wrote:
>>As I read it, the Valar made a request that Fëanor sacrifice the Silmaril
>>for the common good.
>
>I couldn't help but to notice that you used wrongly the singular
>Silmaril and not Silmarilli or Silmarils. In the council the Valar and
>Fëanor speak of the Silmarils only in plural. Yet Yavanna says that
>she would need only little of the light of the Trees to recall them to
>life. Has Tolkien in any of his texts written about the possibility to
>use only one of the Silmarils? What would Fëanor have done, had the
>Valar asked only for one of the three?
I do not know whether Tolkien ever suggested that only one of the Silmarilli
be used to restore the light of the Trees. It is an intriguing idea.
However, I do not believe that Fëanor, with his fiendish pride, would have
consented to such a compromise either. And possibly, the Valar would have
needed all three Silmarilli to rekindle the Light.
Öjevind
Don Brinn
"Juho P. Pahajoki" wrote:
> Öjevind Lång wrote:
> >As I read it, the Valar made a request that Fëanor sacrifice the Silmaril
> >for the common good.
>
> I couldn't help but to notice that you used wrongly the singular
> Silmaril and not Silmarilli or Silmarils. In the council the Valar and
> Fëanor speak of the Silmarils only in plural. Yet Yavanna says that
> she would need only little of the light of the Trees to recall them to
> life. Has Tolkien in any of his texts written about the possibility to
> use only one of the Silmarils? What would Fëanor have done, had the
> Valar asked only for one of the three?
I feel that he still would have said no. Even though he (and everyone) loved
the Simarils, I think he mainly said no because:
a) He is stuborn;
b) He is possessive;
c) It is in his nature to 'defy the gods'; and
d) He is a wanker.
_________________________________________________
Don
Waterloo, Ontario
_________________________________________________
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur."
(Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.)
Mark Wells
<ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>I do not know whether Tolkien ever suggested that only one of the Silmarilli
>be used to restore the light of the Trees. It is an intriguing idea.
Remember that the Valar got one of the Silmarils back, before the War
of Wrath, and nobody mentioned trying to resurrect the Trees with it.
>However, I do not believe that Fëanor, with his fiendish pride, would have
>consented to such a compromise either. And possibly, the Valar would have
I think he might, if they phrased it properly. He almost consented to
give up all of them.
Stan Brown
>Remember that the Valar got one of the Silmarils back, before the War
>of Wrath, and nobody mentioned trying to resurrect the Trees with it.
Of course not: by then the trees were not just dying but dead.
Remember Yavanna had said: "Yet had I but a little of that light
I could recall life to the Trees, ere their roots decay; ..."
Note that adverbial clause. Presumably even in the Deathless Land
their roots would have decayed in several hundred years.
Mark Wells
wrote:
>Said ma...@pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>
>>Remember that the Valar got one of the Silmarils back, before the War
>>of Wrath, and nobody mentioned trying to resurrect the Trees with it.
>
>Of course not: by then the trees were not just dying but dead.
>
>Remember Yavanna had said: "Yet had I but a little of that light
>I could recall life to the Trees, ere their roots decay; ..."
>Note that adverbial clause. Presumably even in the Deathless Land
>their roots would have decayed in several hundred years.
From "Laws and Customs":
"In Aman only there was no decay."
It's called the Undying Land for a reason. Miriel's body sat in the
gardens of Este for hundreds of years without decaying. Yes, Este's
Maiar[0] protected it, but wouldn't Yavanna's Maiar protect the Trees
just as well? I have a hard time believing they just dug them up and
ground them into mulch. The Valar knew they _might_ eventually get
the Silmarils back.
[0] Or whoever else worked in Este's gardens. I assume they're Maiar.
Dave Lind
Mark Wells <ma...@pc-intouch.com> wrote in message
news:38dc78a7...@news.pc-intouch.com...
When I read Stan Brown's message I thought the same thing but I couldn't
find the passage you have cited above. Searching for it gave me time to
rethink my initial reaction.
Death was not 'natural' in Aman just as decay was not, but death occurred
there anyway. Therefore could not decay also be imported. The above citation
from "Laws and Customs" could be taken to mean: all things being equal decay
would not occur naturally. But all things were not equal, the Trees were
poisoned by Ungoliant. The agent of decay in this case was the poison which
was brought in from Outside.
Looking at a different aspect of Yavanna's words, what exactly did she mean
by "decay" anyway? She could not have meant "decompose" because it is said
that the dead Trees still stand as a memorial of the days of bliss.
Dave
Conrad Dunkerson
news:MPG.13459e1f2...@news.mindspring.com...
> Of course not: by then the trees were not just dying but dead.
>
> Remember Yavanna had said: "Yet had I but a little of that light
> I could recall life to the Trees, ere their roots decay; ..."
> Note that adverbial clause. Presumably even in the Deathless Land >
their roots would have decayed in several hundred years.
In addition to Mark's point about the lack of decay in Aman there
are the various versions of the Dagor Dagorath prophecy... where
we repeatedly see the Silmarils recovered and used to rekindle the
trees... though not from the withered husks, rather from the two
parts which Yavanna managed to keep alive - the Sun and the Moon.
Mark Wells
<dav...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>When I read Stan Brown's message I thought the same thing but I couldn't
>find the passage you have cited above. Searching for it gave me time to
>rethink my initial reaction.
>
>Death was not 'natural' in Aman just as decay was not, but death occurred
>there anyway. Therefore could not decay also be imported. The above citation
I suppose it could, but if Ungoliant's venom couldn't be removed from
the Trees, why did Yavanna suggest relighting them at all? They'd
just die all over again.
Nienna's tears are said to have washed away the defilements of
Ungoliant, so I think the only barrier to relighting the Trees was the
lack of a suitable source of light.
>from "Laws and Customs" could be taken to mean: all things being equal decay
>would not occur naturally. But all things were not equal, the Trees were
>poisoned by Ungoliant. The agent of decay in this case was the poison which
>was brought in from Outside.
>
>Looking at a different aspect of Yavanna's words, what exactly did she mean
>by "decay" anyway? She could not have meant "decompose" because it is said
>that the dead Trees still stand as a memorial of the days of bliss.
Well, she said she was worried that their _roots_ would decay. But if
their roots decayed, wouldn't they fall over?
Stan Brown
>>>Remember that the Valar got one of the Silmarils back, before the War
>>>of Wrath, and nobody mentioned trying to resurrect the Trees with it.
>On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:46:14 -0500, I wrote:
>>Of course not: by then the trees were not just dying but dead.
>>
>>Remember Yavanna had said: "Yet had I but a little of that light
>>I could recall life to the Trees, ere their roots decay; ..."
>>Note that adverbial clause. Presumably even in the Deathless Land
>>their roots would have decayed in several hundred years.
Said ma...@pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>From "Laws and Customs":
>
>"In Aman only there was no decay."
If there was no decay in Aman, why would Yavanna *specifically*
refer to decay of the roots of the Two Trees?
Or do you think that clause was added by CJRT and not written by
his father?
Tamim Khawaja
Renée Vink wrote:
>
> Stan Brown wrote:
>
> > Said R.V...@cable.a2000.nl (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9e?= Vink) in
> > rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> > >And if Feanor and his sons
> > >had an undisputed claim to the remaining Silmarils, how come the Valar didn't
> > >give them back to Maedhros and Maglor after defeating Morgoth?
> >
> > Because the jewels had been hallowed, with Feanor's knowledge and
> > consent, and by their deeds the brothers were no longer worthy or
> > even capable of holding something hallowed. Remember what
> > happened when they actually did lay hands on the Silmarils.
> >
> >
>
> O.K., that's a good point; here, my argument fails.
>
> Renée
I don't think so: was it up to the Valar to decide if they
were worthy of keeping them. It wasn't theirs to decide at the
time of the destruction of the trees either. They weren't
capable, agreed, but Eonwe didn't know that at the time.
Here I think the brainless warrior E made a mistake.
> --
> Homepage: http://people.a2000.nl/nordho00/home.html
Renée Vink
Tamim Khawaja wrote:
> Renée Vink wrote:
> >
> > Stan Brown wrote:
> >
> > > Said R.V...@cable.a2000.nl (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9e?= Vink) in
> > > rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> > > >And if Feanor and his sons
> > > >had an undisputed claim to the remaining Silmarils, how come the Valar didn't
> > > >give them back to Maedhros and Maglor after defeating Morgoth?
> > >
> > > Because the jewels had been hallowed, with Feanor's knowledge and
> > > consent, and by their deeds the brothers were no longer worthy or
> > > even capable of holding something hallowed. Remember what
> > > happened when they actually did lay hands on the Silmarils.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > O.K., that's a good point; here, my argument fails.
>
>
> I don't think so: was it up to the Valar to decide if they
> were worthy of keeping them. It wasn't theirs to decide at the
> time of the destruction of the trees either. They weren't
> capable, agreed, but Eonwe didn't know that at the time.
> Here I think the brainless warrior E made a mistake.
>
It wasn't Eonwe who caused the Silmarils to burn in the brothers' hands. The jewels
themselves rejected the sons of Feanor, so obviously they had forfeited their right.
Stan really does have a point here.
Tamim Khawaja
Yes, but Eonwe did not know that at the time he refused to give the
jewels back.
Ermanna
Tamim Khawaja wrote:
> Renée Vink wrote:
<shnip>
> > It wasn't Eonwe who caused the Silmarils to burn in the brothers' hands. The jewels
> > themselves rejected the sons of Feanor, so obviously they had forfeited their right.
> > Stan really does have a point here.
>
> Yes, but Eonwe did not know that at the time he refused to give the
> jewels back.
"But Eönwë answered that the right to the work of their father, which
the sons of Fëanor formerly possessed, had now perished, because of
their many and merciless deeds, being blinded by their oath, and most
of all because of their slaying of Dior and the assault upon the havens."
Ermanna the Elven Jedi Knight
Elbereth Gilthoniel!
Renée Vink
Tamim Khawaja wrote:
> Renée Vink wrote:
> >
> > Tamim Khawaja wrote:
> >
> > > Renée Vink wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stan Brown wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Said R.V...@cable.a2000.nl (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9e?= Vink) in
> > > > > rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> > > > > >And if Feanor and his sons
> > > > > >had an undisputed claim to the remaining Silmarils, how come the Valar didn't
> > > > > >give them back to Maedhros and Maglor after defeating Morgoth?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because the jewels had been hallowed, with Feanor's knowledge and
> > > > > consent, and by their deeds the brothers were no longer worthy or
> > > > > even capable of holding something hallowed. Remember what
> > > > > happened when they actually did lay hands on the Silmarils.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > O.K., that's a good point; here, my argument fails.
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't think so: was it up to the Valar to decide if they
> > > were worthy of keeping them. It wasn't theirs to decide at the
> > > time of the destruction of the trees either. They weren't
> > > capable, agreed, but Eonwe didn't know that at the time.
> > > Here I think the brainless warrior E made a mistake.
> > >
> >
> > It wasn't Eonwe who caused the Silmarils to burn in the brothers' hands. The jewels
> > themselves rejected the sons of Feanor, so obviously they had forfeited their right.
> > Stan really does have a point here.
> >
>
> Yes, but Eonwe did not know that at the time he refused to give the
> jewels back.
He may have foreseen something like it, as he's not the brainless warrior you make him but
a Maia, a spiritual being whose moral judgment may be somewhat more accurate than that of
your average general. There is no suggestion anywhere in the text that Eonwe is wrong-
which would be peculiar if Tolkien thought he was. And the ensuing events prove him to be
right. Do you really think that is coincidence?
Tamim
> Tamim Khawaja wrote:
>> Renée Vink wrote:
>> >
>> > Tamim Khawaja wrote:
>> >
>> > > Renée Vink wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Stan Brown wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Said R.V...@cable.a2000.nl (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9e?= Vink) in
>> > > > > rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>> > > > > >And if Feanor and his sons
>> > > > > >had an undisputed claim to the remaining Silmarils, how come the Valar didn't
>> > > > > >give them back to Maedhros and Maglor after defeating Morgoth?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Because the jewels had been hallowed, with Feanor's knowledge and
>> > > > > consent, and by their deeds the brothers were no longer worthy or
>> > > > > even capable of holding something hallowed. Remember what
>> > > > > happened when they actually did lay hands on the Silmarils.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > O.K., that's a good point; here, my argument fails.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I don't think so: was it up to the Valar to decide if they
>> > > were worthy of keeping them. It wasn't theirs to decide at the
>> > > time of the destruction of the trees either. They weren't
>> > > capable, agreed, but Eonwe didn't know that at the time.
>> > > Here I think the brainless warrior E made a mistake.
>
>> Yes, but Eonwe did not know that at the time he refused to give the
>> jewels back.
> He may have foreseen something like it, as he's not the brainless warrior you make him but
> a Maia, a spiritual being whose moral judgment may be somewhat more accurate than that of
> your average general. There is no suggestion anywhere in the text that Eonwe is wrong-
> which would be peculiar if Tolkien thought he was. And the ensuing events prove him to be
> right. Do you really think that is coincidence?
I do.
Tamim
> Tamim Khawaja wrote:
>> Renée Vink wrote:
> <shnip>
>> > It wasn't Eonwe who caused the Silmarils to burn in the brothers' hands. The jewels
>> > themselves rejected the sons of Feanor, so obviously they had forfeited their right.
>> > Stan really does have a point here.
>>
>> Yes, but Eonwe did not know that at the time he refused to give the
>> jewels back.
> "But Eönwë answered that the right to the work of their father, which
> the sons of Fëanor formerly possessed, had now perished, because of
> their many and merciless deeds, being blinded by their oath, and most
> of all because of their slaying of Dior and the assault upon the havens."
> Ermanna the Elven Jedi Knight
> Elbereth Gilthoniel!
Exactly, that was not for Eonwe to decide. Especially if even Manwe
hadn't the right to take the Silmarils from Feanor in aman when the
reasons were much more important.
Renée Vink
Tamim wrote:
> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Renée Vink <R.V...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
>
> > Tamim Khawaja wrote:
>
> >> Renée Vink wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Tamim Khawaja wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Renée Vink wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Stan Brown wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Said R.V...@cable.a2000.nl (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9e?= Vink) in
> >> > > > > rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >> > > > > >And if Feanor and his sons
> >> > > > > >had an undisputed claim to the remaining Silmarils, how come the Valar didn't
> >> > > > > >give them back to Maedhros and Maglor after defeating Morgoth?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Because the jewels had been hallowed, with Feanor's knowledge and
> >> > > > > consent, and by their deeds the brothers were no longer worthy or
> >> > > > > even capable of holding something hallowed. Remember what
> >> > > > > happened when they actually did lay hands on the Silmarils.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > O.K., that's a good point; here, my argument fails.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > I don't think so: was it up to the Valar to decide if they
> >> > > were worthy of keeping them. It wasn't theirs to decide at the
> >> > > time of the destruction of the trees either. They weren't
> >> > > capable, agreed, but Eonwe didn't know that at the time.
> >> > > Here I think the brainless warrior E made a mistake.
> >
>
> > He may have foreseen something like it, as he's not the brainless warrior you make him but
> > a Maia, a spiritual being whose moral judgment may be somewhat more accurate than that of
> > your average general. There is no suggestion anywhere in the text that Eonwe is wrong-
> > which would be peculiar if Tolkien thought he was. And the ensuing events prove him to be
> > right. Do you really think that is coincidence?
>
> I do.
So what you're saying is that Eonwe acted wrongly, but that by pure coincidence the events
proved him right?
Tamim Khawaja
Renée Vink wrote:
>
> >
> > > He may have foreseen something like it, as he's not the brainless warrior you make him but
> > > a Maia, a spiritual being whose moral judgment may be somewhat more accurate than that of
> > > your average general. There is no suggestion anywhere in the text that Eonwe is wrong-
> > > which would be peculiar if Tolkien thought he was. And the ensuing events prove him to be
> > > right. Do you really think that is coincidence?
> >
> > I do.
>
> So what you're saying is that Eonwe acted wrongly, but that by pure coincidence the events
> proved him right?
Yes and No. Apparently Maedrhos and Maglor weren't worthy of the light
of the trees in silmarils. Still from my point of view they had the
"legal" right to the Jewels at least until it was known that they
couldn't hold the Silmarils. To me Eonwe didn't have the right to keep
the silmarils from them. Even Yavanna, who made the trees, didn't have
that right earlier. The Silmarils were theirs even if they couldn't hold
them. At least Eonwe didn't have the right to take them away.
At the end he was anyway proven to be wrong: the two Silmarils
were lost ( Well maybe that was planned by eru, but it really doesn't
change things in practical argumentation). What I would have done?
I would have given the silmarils to their rightful owners, and arrested
them, saying that because they had done crimes "against humanity" they
have to come to Aman to be judged. I wouldn't have court marshalled them
and put them into situation, where they had to follow their oath. After
they had noticed that they weren't worthy of the light they might even
had agreed to give them for "common" use: that wouldn't have gone
against their oath, which was to them at that time a burden. Apparently
they took the silmarils mainly because of their oath, not because they
were greedy.
In the end my main point stands, Eonwe had no right to take
the jewels from their rightful owners, at least when he didn't no that
they couldn't hold the silmarils. And anyway the point that if they were
worthy of them from magical or metaphysical point of view doesn't mean
that they didn't have legal claim for them.
Russ
<tamin....@helsinki.fi> writes:
Well, if we're going to talk about "legal rights", under many systems of law,
the Feanoreans lost their legal right to the Silmarils. This is because of the
harm inflicted by them on others. These aggrieved peoples had a "claim"
against rhe Feanoreans and were therefore entitled to attach or place in
receivership their assets, which included the Silmarils.
In fact, Eonwe was acting appropriatly as a sort of Sheriff, holding the
Feanorean defendants' assets in his possession until a court could render
judgment on the claims and determine liability.
Russ, Esq.