The differences between Elves and Men

[arathorn]

Originally Posted by tom the eldest

Isnt galion get drunk because the wine of dorwinion is so strong?

Yes and poison was made by an elf, so what Tolkien was trying to say is that things that were made by humans such as their wines and poisons weren't capable of affecting the elves in the same way.

[tom the eldest]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The differences are that Elves are more in tune with this world. They have 'magic' tougher bodies and can also control their bodies better.

In terms of physical characteristics Elves are taller, more beautiful and much, much stronger. They also tend to be more agile.

The Noldor were generally taller than the Sindar.

The exceptions to this are the Numenoreans and the House of Hador, who are the tallest and strongest. Descendants of Earendil also had 'magic'.

What about the silvan,teleri and vanyar?

[arathorn]

Originally Posted by tom the eldest

What about the silvan,teleri and vanyar?

Just look at my last comment about what the said. and Sindar=Teleri.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

Originally Posted by arathorn

Well this is a feat of both physical strength and spiritual. While physically Turin was a match for Fingolfin in my opinion he didn't have the spirit to be above someone that was taken to be a Vala himself.
The preconception about elves being less in build and strength than men is very common don't worry since in others "cultures" they really are, even for Tolkien in the beginning the elves were shorter and slimmer than men.

By "my preconception" I only meant mine of Finrod himself. (Not that I think of him as 110 lb. weakling either.)

As far as the general question of Elven physical strength relative to that of men goes, my casual opinion is that the former would tend to be greater than the latter, on average* but still within the scope of the recognizably "human"-- recognizable in a fable that is, if not in a scientific article.

There'd be heroic paragons and exceptions among both kindreds, of course.

*Even excepting the elderly, ill, and infirm among the mortals.

...although far from being the strongest of the princes he's still above even the Noldor average(in strength).

Citations needed?

Beren was many times described as being especially strong in the Silmarillion, The Peoples of Middle Earth vol. XII

Ah, I do see the footnote in "Of Dwarves and Men" in the latter now, thank you.

and in the LOTR - Remember Boromir talking about the strength of Turin and Beren(both Edain) instead of talking about some great and tall Numenorean which he descent and probably had more information since both were from the first age.

I think you must mean the narrator describing the wounding of Shelob:

"The blade scored it with a dreadful gash, but those hideous folds could not be pierced by any strength of men, not though Elf or Dwarf should forge the steel or the hand of Beren or of Turin wield it."

That's a good catch. Thank you.

[tom the eldest]

I think that among the elves there are also differences.the noldor are the one that has the most crafting skill,and they are very thirsty of knowledge.this is why they can made the palatir,silmaril,and the ring of power with the aid of annatar,and that why morgoth and sauron both target them.the vanyar have less crafting skill i think,but they are the most loyal to the valar.the teleri,meh they are average quality.the elves also has different taste of weapon.the noldor likes sword and shield,the teleri like bow and arrow,and the vanyar like spear.there are also hierarchy in the three house of elves right?


ADD:the vanyar skill is in poetry,and manwe and varda love them because of this.the teleri like building ships,but they stil pretty much average joe for me.

[arathorn]

Actually the Sindar liked long-bows and axes.
The Silvan liked short-bows and long-knives.

[arathorn]

Originally Posted by IxnaY AintsaY

Citations needed?

Finrod was never mentioned as a warrior like Fingolfin, Fingon,or Maedhros and all of them have descriptions of their mighty while Finrod only about how wise he was.
In my pinion if Fingon fought the wolf instead the history would have been different.

[tom the eldest]

Originally Posted by arathorn

Actually the Sindar liked long-bows and axes.
The Silvan liked short-bows and long-knives.

Huh,they did?but they stil of telerinian descent right?i guess they get more diverse in selection of weapons.but yeah,the three main elves kind like spear,bow or sword and shield.

[arathorn]

Originally Posted by tom the eldest

Huh,they did?but they stil of telerinian descent right?i guess they get more diverse in selection of weapons.but yeah,the three main elves kind like spear,bow or sword and shield.

In my opinion this has nothing to do with their sub-race mentality.
Mirkwood is a very dense forest and a long-bow wouldn't be a good a idea just as a big sword or a spear, but in the battle of the five armies they used spears for the battle was in the open.
Lorien they used long-bows because the forest wasn't very dense(some huge mallorn tress) and there were some Sindar and Noldor that always used that weapons during the ages.

[mhagain]

Originally Posted by arathorn

Yes and poison was made by an elf, so what Tolkien was trying to say is that things that were made by humans such as their wines and poisons weren't capable of affecting the elves in the same way.

Are you quite sure that Tolkien actually said that? I can get very drunk on incredibly strong wine too, but that doesn''t give me immunity to weaker wines.

Originally Posted by tom the eldest

Huh,they did?but they stil of telerinian descent right?i guess they get more diverse in selection of weapons.but yeah,the three main elves kind like spear,bow or sword and shield.

The Silvan were mostly descended from the Nandor, who were mostly of Telerin origin but had picked up some Avari on the way to Beleriand (per the note CT cites in his commentary on GA38).

What's interesting about the Avari is that according to Quendi and Eldar they were evenly divided between the Second and Third clans, so the seemingly common assumption that all Avari were Teleri in origin doesn't hold true. A further note in Quendi and Eldar states:

The first Avari that the Eldar met again in Beleriand seem to have claimed to be Tatyar

With the Tatyar being, of course, the Second Clan, and these Avari therefore actually being kin to the Noldor.

What all of this establishes is that some of the Silvan Elves were very probably Tatyar in origin, descended from those who the Nandor picked up before they entered Beleriand and who were likely to have been those first who the Eldar met (and note that Tolkien is careful to say "Eldar", not "Noldor" here, so this could just as easily be Thingol's folk).

[Galin]

I think the issue with the Avari, and even the true meaning of the term Eldar, depends upon which citation one employs.

Not unlike the issue of Eldarin height, although I already know what I'm going to get if I make the seemingly impossible claim that maybe not every 'late' description Tolkien wrote about Eldarin height was meant to be fused into one concept. Ahem.



It's once again sifting among [mostly] draft texts, with certain ideas arguably revised, others made uncertain by a 'lack' of mention perhaps, still others written years after something else, made all somewhat nice and tidy by Christopher Tolkien, for us, but who knows what Tolkien had in front of him when he was creating a 'new' text years after he had written something related...

... I put author-published description in a strong postion. We are looking for a measure of certainty it seems, at least often enough [I don't want to be certain of all things, myself, and like plenty of the misty elements], and despite even Tolkien's penchant for change, which arose even with respect to already published text [for example publishing that Galadriel's father was named Finrod, then (second edition) changing it to Finarfin], author-published is as 'certain' as we can get in my opinion... with even Tolkien illustrating that he is revising a different animal, if so.


Anyway there is text in Of Dwarves And Men which suggests that the idea of Avari in Beleriand was rejected; and late text in which the Tawarwaith, or Silvan Elves, of Mirkwood are simply noted as Telerin Elves in origin, hardly to be distinguished from Avari.

But that seems to distinguish them to the reader! And it's later description than Quendi and Eldar, and again, the Avari of Beleriand seem abandoned according to Of Dwarves And Men... sooo, what of Avari in the Anduin Vale however? Abandoned idea or back to Quendi And Eldar for that much? In any case the Avari are not mentioned outside of the remark I referred to, so read it as is, and arguably there's no real reason to think any Avari, Tatyarin or Nelyarin, had mixed in by Frodo's day.

Or is there? Not that I recall. Again if we toss in a text made years before, then we have the concept rather certainly. But that's a different matter... again keeping in mind that that text has the Avari in Beleriand!

And then there's the tantalizing notion [published by Tolkien] that the Silvan Elves of Lorien sail Over Sea. Hmm, would Avari sail? Could they sail? Was it only the Silvan Elves of Telerin origin that sailed, although that is never stated in the published account itself... it's just implied that the Silvan Elves in general could sail Over Sea if desired.

Mix and match. Hey it's not like I don't do it too, or think it's wrongheaded in every case. Tolkien, after all, need not be confined to tell his full 'tale', or explain every matter fully, within each and every text, for the other side of the coin here.

I'm just sayin'.... maybe a little less certainty with respect to some of these height and strength issues?

Or nah. What fun is that

And I won't even go into the definition of Eldar... although one of these passages is Tolkien-published. Huzzah.

[mhagain]

Originally Posted by Galin

<snip>awesome</snip>

Nail on the head.

The key problem is : "which writings do you accept?" You can't accept all of them because they contradict each other. CT acknowledges this and gives ample warning as early as his foreword to the Silmarillion.

A complete consistency (either within the compass of The Silmarillion itself or between The Silmarillion and other published writings of my father's) is not to be looked for, and could only be achieved, if at all at heavy and needless cost.

You can't accept none of them because then you'd have no history and we may as well go back to having fun bad-mouthing Peter Jackson.

So you have to accept some of them, and once again CT puts it best:

Moreover, my father came to conceive The Silmarillion as a compilation, a compendious narrative, made long afterwards from sources of great diversity (poems, and annals, and oral tales) that had survived in agelong tradition; and this conception has indeed its parallel in the actual history of the book, for a great deal of earlier prose and poetry does underlie it, and it is to some extent a compendium in fact and not only in theory.

So you need to work on the basis that you're dealing with writings that are going to contradict each other, that aren't going to give the full story, and that sometimes you're going to have to piece together a story that works for you from multiple different sources.

Reading the Silmarillion is to a large extent like reading a popular history account of ancient Mesopotamia. You know that decades or centuries of work deciphering ancient writings, putting together evidence, and trying to present what in the end only amounts to a current consensus underlies it, but it still has value on it's own and is still worth reading if you want to learn.

Arguing about content in HoME is like arguing over which of the Sumerian Kings List, the Epic of Gilgamesh or some merchants tablets from Nineveh contains the true account. It's fun to do for those of us who have an interest, but we need to do so with a keen awareness that we'll never really know. We're not arguing the case for fact, we're arguing the case for our own interpretation.

Both CT and JRRT this time:

Divergent versions need not indeed always be treated solely as a question of settling the priority of composition; and my father as "author" or "inventor" cannot always in these matters be distinguished from the "recorder" of ancient traditions handed down in diverse forms among different peoples through long ages (when Frodo met Galadriel in Lorien, more than sixty centuries had passed since she went east over the Blue Mountains from the ruin of Beleriand). "Of this two things are said, though which is true only those Wise could say who now are gone."

And I think that sums it up the best.

[arathorn]

Originally Posted by Galin

Not unlike the issue of Eldarin height, although I already know what I'm going to get if I make the seemingly impossible claim that maybe not every 'late' description Tolkien wrote about Eldarin height was meant to be fused into one concept. Ahem.

HAHAHAHA!!!! that was good but is still hard to understand why do you prefer to create divergences.

[arathorn]

I think one of the hardest things ever in Tolkien's work is about who is and who is not an Eldar. And why are the avari weaker than the Edar if they also Telerin in origin. And I also think the Nandor elves seemed to be less powerful than the Sindar but some would say they are exactly the same.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

Originally Posted by mhagain

Arguing about content in HoME is like arguing over which of the Sumerian Kings List, the Epic of Gilgamesh or some merchants tablets from Nineveh contains the true account. It's fun to do for those of us who have an interest, but we need to do so with a keen awareness that we'll never really know. We're not arguing the case for fact, we're arguing the case for our own interpretation.

Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

[arathorn]

Originally Posted by mhagain

Are you quite sure that Tolkien actually said that? I can get very drunk on incredibly strong wine too, but that doesn''t give me immunity to weaker wines.

I said that didn't affect them in the same way, not that doesn't affect them.
They can get drunk with men's wines but it takes more time.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by arathorn

HAHAHAHA!!!! that was good but is still hard to understand why do you prefer to create divergences.

I thought you might enjoy that

Anyway I wouldn't say I prefer to create divergences, but rather if I read two draft texts which even seemingly [or arguably] conflict, while I might be able to imagine a way in which they can be read as consistent, I feel I am also bound to at least consider that Tolkien might have been revising, changing his mind and creating a variant idea... or simply writing something new, perhaps having forgotten what he wrote possibly years before.

But for another example: when I have two descriptions published by the author that seem to be problematic, unless I have reason to think an arguable internal conflict is purposeful, then I am often the first to try to imagine how they can be said to be consistent, or consistent enough, or find some sort of 'internal-ish' explanation.

Divergent versions need not indeed always be treated solely as a question of settling the priority of composition; and my father as "author" or "inventor" cannot always in these matters be distinguished from the "recorder" of ancient traditions handed down in diverse forms among different peoples through long ages (when Frodo met Galadriel in Lorien, more than sixty centuries had passed since she went east over the Blue Mountains from the ruin of Beleriand). "Of this two things are said, though which is true only those Wise could say who now are gone."

A nice enough way to look at things, but I also think some might take this 'too far' [subjective as that is], or employ it too loosely perhaps, essentially creating internal inconsistencies out of external revisions, and thus essentially 'undermining' the art of subcreation.

But that's a matter for another thread perhaps

[Galin]

Originally Posted by arathorn

I think one of the hardest things ever in Tolkien's work is about who is and who is not an Eldar.

Not if you take what Tolkien himself published as the answer, and put the problematic rest at the doorstep. Aha! A confident answer based upon my own ideas about canonical status!



Anyway the correct answer is: Eldar at first referred to all Elves, but then came to refer to those Elves who passed Over Sea during the Great March, plus the Sindar only!

The Silmarillion concept is 'wrong'. Debate is pointless. You will be assimilated, and so on. This post is something like ironic. But doesn't it just figure that I really think that 'should' be the answer, even still.

Oh well

[arathorn]

Originally Posted by Galin

Not if you take what Tolkien himself published as the answer, and put the problematic rest at the doorstep. Aha! A confident answer based upon my own ideas about canonical status!



Anyway the correct answer is: Eldar at first referred to all Elves, but then came to refer to those Elves who passed Over Sea during the Great March, plus the Sindar only!

The Silmarillion concept is 'wrong'. Debate is pointless. You will be assimilated, and so on. This post is something like ironic. But doesn't it just figure that I really think that 'should' be the answer, even still.

Oh well

I always though in the same way you do.
So the Nandor aren't considered Eldar... That explains a lot.

[arathorn]

Exactly Galin for you to be write there must be to many possibilities:
1- Interpret the sentence in another possible way, so changing his mind.
2- It's only a "change" if it was written after 1968 and we don't know when it was.(another reason for not to trust the Authors)

[Galin]

Originally Posted by arathorn

I always though in the same way you do.
So the Nandor aren't considered Eldar... That explains a lot.

We agree? Well it had to happen sometime

Yes The Lord of the Rings not only decribes the Eldar [as basically 'West-elves'] in Appendix F, the translation section, but in the language section describes the Silvan tongues as not-Eldarin [although not Eldarin doesn't necessarily mean Avarin].

And I know there are those who will correctly tell me that Tolkien was rushed in the early 1950s, with the Appendices and so on, but heck he did revise the thing in the 1960s too.

And even if so, I say that even JRRT has to deal with what he publishes about the Subcreated World, despite that sometimes the way he dealt with it was to revise it!

Now, about 'High Elves'... :runs:

[arathorn]

[QUOTE=Galin;691067]We agree? Well it had to happen sometime

I think the only things we don't agree is about the Eldar height and maybe one aspect of their physical appearance since you may think they are slimmer than men.

[Galin]

But you might only disagree with what you think I may mean about slimness...

... so I'm not sure I agree that we necessarily disagree about that

Although granted you said maybe.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

but in the language section describes the Silvan tongues as not-Eldarin [although not Eldarin doesn't necessarily mean Avarin]

In 'Quendi and Eldar' (1959-60) Nandorin (and thus its derivatives Ossiriandic and Silvan) is expressly stated to be of Lindarin/Telerin origin, and therefore Eldarin.

This had been a question mark ca. 1936, it seems, since in the 'Lhammas' (B-version) the tongue of the 'Danians' was "like that of Doriath, but not the same" (amended from the A-text in which it was wholly unlike the speech of the Eldar and Beleriandic Ilkorins). But then in 'Lammasethen' Danian appears as a 'middle Quendian', neither Eldarin nor 'Lemberin'/Avarin (however, Thingol's folk are there promoted to 'Eldar').



The footnote to Appendix F is interesting. It doesn't appear in the first draft of that Appendix, written before the Great Linguistic Upheaval ca. 1951-52. From that time we find in the Grey Annals, entry VY 1350, that the Nandor (there so named for the first time) were explicitly Teleri, and so their language was Eldarin.

The App F draft itself alters the Lammasethen conception and distinguishes between Eldarin, Lemberin and Avarin tongues, the Lembi or 'lingerers' at that time incorporating both the Sindar and the Danians/Nandor; the "many secret tongues" of the Avari are said not to come into the LR. At this time of course Lemberin of Doriath and the Vales of Anduin was of course not Sindarin, which didn't yet exist (or more accurately, the language existed but was still called Noldorin and came from Valinor).

But App F as published appears on the face of it to return to the old conception, West-elves of Valinor and Avarin East-elves! (except for the 'promotion' of the Sindar). Indeed, text F4 of the appendix, written after the GLU with Sindarin now ensconced as the native tongue of Beleriand, says in so many words that the native peoples of Lorien and Mirkwood, despite their Sindarin nobility, were Avari: "many were Eastern Elves that had hearkened to no summons to the Sea, but being content with Middle-earth remained there, and remained long after, fading in fastnesses of the woods and hills....Of that kind were the Elves of Greenwood the Great; yet among them also were many lords of Sindarin race. Such were Thranduil and Legolas his son. In his realm and in Lorien both the Sindarin and the woodland tongues were heard; but of the latter notrhing appears in this book."

[Galin]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

(...) In 'Quendi and Eldar' (1959-60) Nandorin (and thus its derivatives Ossiriandic and Silvan) is expressly stated to be of Lindarin/Telerin origin, and therefore Eldarin. (...)

Yes, and no doubt this issue is made notably misty and more complex due to posthumously published texts.

But App F as published appears on the face of it to return to the old conception, West-elves of Valinor and Avarin East-elves! (except for the 'promotion' of the Sindar). Indeed, text F4 of the appendix, written after the GLU with Sindarin now ensconced as the native tongue of Beleriand, says in so many words that the native peoples of Lorien and Mirkwood, despite their Sindarin nobility, were Avari: "many were Eastern Elves that had hearkened to no summons to the Sea, but being content with Middle-earth remained there, and remained long after, fading in fastnesses of the woods and hills....Of that kind were the Elves of Greenwood the Great; yet among them also were many lords of Sindarin race. Such were Thranduil and Legolas his son. In his realm and in Lorien both the Sindarin and the woodland tongues were heard; but of the latter notrhing appears in this book."

Well put as I expected

But I would emphasize 'on the face of it', as the word Avari was not employed in the final form of any text in the Appendix F, and the distinction between West-Elves [Eldar] versus the East-elves is maintained...

... but who are the East-elves? Not that you said otherwise, but I think they don't have to be Avari according to the author-published description [nor do the Minyar have to be named the Vanyar necessarily, on the Eldarin side of this coin]. They could be Telerin, they could be Avarin, they could be a mix of Teleri and Avari, as they are some grouping of Elves that are yet distinct from the West-elves -- those Elves who passed Over Sea plus only the Sindar.

And so what remains once the mist of all this posthumous complexity is blown away? To my mind: most of the Elves of Lorien and Mirkwod are East-elves, not Eldar, nor their languages Eldarin.

Which JRRT not only decided to publish in the 1950s, but if he was unhappy with this scenario, he yet didn't revise it given the chance in the 1960s.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Galin

Yes, and no doubt this issue is made notably misty and more complex due to posthumously published texts.




Well put as I expected

But I would emphasize 'on the face of it', as the word Avari was not employed in the final form of any text in the Appendix F, and the distinction between West-Elves [Eldar] versus the East-elves is maintained...

... but who are the East-elves? Not that you said otherwise, but I think they don't have to be Avari according to the author-published description [nor do the Minyar have to be named the Vanyar necessarily, on the Eldarin side of this coin]. They could be Telerin, they could be Avarin, they could be a mix of Teleri and Avari, as they are some grouping of Elves that are yet distinct from the West-elves -- those Elves who passed Over Sea plus only the Sindar.

And so what remains once the mist of all this posthumous complexity is blown away? To my mind: most of the Elves of Lorien and Mirkwod are East-elves, not Eldar, nor their languages Eldarin.

Which JRRT not only decided to publish in the 1950s, but if he was unhappy with this scenario, he yet didn't revise it given the chance in the 1960s.

They were, perhaps, Keeblerin Elves: shorter of stature, intent on perfecting baked goods (in imitation of the Noldorin Lembas), but still fond of living in trees.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well, although the term "Avari" only entered the vocabulary with Quendi and Eldar, the description in F4 fits them to a tee: "hearkened to no summons to the Sea;" or perhaps rather, given the lack of a statement of active 'refusal' but including "content with Middle-earth remained there, and remained long after, fading in fastnesses of the woods and hills" it appears we have the Lemberi or 'Lingerers' of the Lhammas again.

--------------

I'm not one to try to draw bright lines of 'canonicity;' I think ultimately the legendarium is its history, and changes and inconsistencies are part of it. Given Tolkien's way of working andf constant changes of mind, I don't think it's helpful to set up one dustbin of "posthumously-published works" that includes everything from vague sketches about the Dome of Varda, speculative essays like 'Orks', and works like Quendi and Eldar which were never intended for publication but rather as 'background' or 'lore' for JRRT's private purposes, and which were I think intended (at the time of writing) to be 'definitive' (allowing of course for the transient nature of 'definitive' when we're dealing with JRRT!

I also wouldn't put disproportionate weight on 'dogs that didn't bark' in the Revised Edition, which was after all not a comprehensive overhaul but a quick-and-dirty job for the purpose of regularising the US copyright. Some things T happened to have in his head and was happy to include, like the extended account of the Kinslaying; some were fairly 'easy' name changes like Finrod > Finarfin (tho he was imperfect even with that one). But T in revision hadr a tendency to pounce upon particular things that caught his eye, not a systematic approach at all. Certainly it's the case that he had definitely changed his mind about the Silvan tongue, even if he didn't amend App F; his Letters are unequivocal.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

I'm not one to try to draw bright lines of 'canonicity;'

Well that's my whole argument here

As I agree the draft texts imply Avarin Elves no matter when the term Avari came into use with its 'ultimate' meaning. But I'll add: not even author-published?

I think ultimately the legendarium is its history, and changes and inconsistencies are part of it. Given Tolkien's way of working andf constant changes of mind, I don't think it's helpful to set up one dustbin of "posthumously-published works" that includes everything from vague sketches about the Dome of Varda, speculative essays like 'Orks', and works like Quendi and Eldar which were never intended for publication but rather as 'background' or 'lore' for JRRT's private purposes, and which were I think intended (at the time of writing) to be 'definitive' (allowing of course for the transient nature of 'definitive' when we're dealing with JRRT!

I think it is helpful in some ways, if not in others. Or at least in one way.

I also wouldn't put disproportionate weight on 'dogs that didn't bark' in the Revised Edition, which was after all not a comprehensive overhaul but a quick-and-dirty job for the purpose of regularising the US copyright. Some things T happened to have in his head and was happy to include, like the extended account of the Kinslaying; some were fairly 'easy' name changes like Finrod > Finarfin (tho he was imperfect even with that one). But T in revision hadr a tendency to pounce upon particular things that caught his eye, not a systematic approach at all. Certainly it's the case that he had definitely changed his mind about the Silvan tongue, even if he didn't amend App F; his Letters are unequivocal.

I agree, Tolkien probably just 'missed' his chance. Maybe not too, as maybe his 'ros reaction' kicked in. But even if he simply missed his chance, why doesn't the answer that he published trump all else? Even Tolkien thought what he published in the Appendices about -ros must trump his change of mind later...

... and yes, he is not consistent here either; but I think it illustrates the different animal that even Tolkien knows he is dealing with -- and thus, for all we know, what he wrote in letters or any subsequent draft texts about the Eldar, would take a back seat to already published text...

... 'most of this fails' is a decision, yes, but based on consideration that simply doesn't exist with work that is still private to Tolkien -- even if that distinction is admittedly sweeping.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The finny thing about the Problem of Ros is that Tolkien could easily have got out of the Cair Andros issue, had he thought of it (or wanted to!)

[Galin]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

The finny thing about the Problem of Ros is that Tolkien could easily have got out of the Cair Andros issue, had he thought of it (or wanted to!)

I think so too actually... although there is Rauros as well. But JRRT didn't try here [seemingly], and in any case he knew he had to 'deal with it' in a way that he would not have had to if Cair Andros had not been published [as Sindarin].

Which is basically another canon-related thing to say so I'll shaddup for now

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Guinevere

Mae govannen !

I`m in the middle of reading the Silmarillion,...<snip>--<snip>...I really started asking myself what the difference between elves and men are, apart from the immortality.??

Suilad, Guinevere

Elen Sila Lumenn Omentielvo

I have to say, when I was young, blind and romantically in love with all of Elvendom, I skimmed over quite a few traits that really do place Elves as not-so-nice, at times. So, I have to agree with this post.

For example, Turgon tossed Eol's father off the cliffs as punishment for Eol killing Aredhel. Eol--really not very nice as well--thought of his son, Maeglin and Aredhel as his possessions. Eol was a hot-headed, territorial Elf (like them all, really), banging on about Telerin lands overrun by imperial Noldor. Feanor, another maniacal ego-driven madman (sorry madelf ) decided to start a civil war and kinslaying over a pretty glowing jewel. Sons of Feanor - omg, imagine them at a dinner party when trying to have a nice quiet conversation about magic and beauty and the silmarils. I'm sure that by dessert, a number of hapless guests would be added to the Nolodorin long list of those vowed as a blood enemies for all eternity.

Elvish folk made rather nasty weapons that were extremely deadly, whose blades felled their own kind (e.g. Beleg). They were deeply xenophobic peoples who had exclusionary principles that governed territorial rights.

Though, their mystery, beauty, grace, wisdom and essence were also a deeply moving legacy. Though, I still love elves, I've grown to see how Melkor made Orcs of them. I also wonder about that natural hatred between those two races and what that really means about both Elves and Orcs, but for mirror-image reasons.