Elves and Ringwraiths

[arathorn]

The average man and the average elf were probably pretty equal

No man... you must look the hole scenario.
Eldar>>>Avari(wood elves)
Men(descendants from the mixed Edain)=Avari
Eldar>>>Men
Eldar=Numenoreans or some of the Edain Hadoreans(pure blood)

The average Eldar are many times described as being strong.
Much taller.
Sight far superior than of Men.
Better coordination(higher degree of concentration and ambidexterity).
More stamina.
More durable.
Higher metabolism and greater spiritual contact what makes their healing more effective.
Faster/more lithe.
better skills(crafts and fighting)
And there are certain degree of Spiritual power.

Here are some later statements and comparisons made by Tolkien.
1.“…and they were tall and dark-haired and strong like fir-trees, and from them most of the Noldor later were sprung.
2.“…that time the Noldor still walked the lands here, the most powerful and most beautiful children in the world, and their languages were still heard by mortals.”
3.“…The Noldor, outnumbered and taken at unawares, were yet swiftly victorious; for the light of Aman was not yet dimmed in their eyes, and they were strong and swift, and deadly in anger, and their swords were long and terrible."
4.They were called “halflings”; but this refers to the normal height of men of Númenórean descent and of the Eldar (especially those of Ñoldorin descent), which appears to have been about seven of our feet.’
5.'The Quendi were in origin a tall people. The Eldar (...) they were in general the stronger and taller members of the Elvish folk at that time. In Eldarin tradition it was said that even their women were seldom less than six feet in height; their full-grown elfmen no less than six and a half feet, while some of the great kings and leaders were taller.'
6.They (Elves) were thus capable of far greater and longer physical exertions (in pursuit of some dominant purpose of their minds) without weariness; they were not subject to diseases; they healed rapidly and completely after injuries that would have proved fatal to Men; and they could endure great physical pain for long periods. Their bodies could not, however, survive vital injuries, or violent assaults upon their structure; nor replace missing members (such as a hand hewn off).
7.In general the Sindar appear to have very closely resembled the Exiles, being dark-haired, strong and tall, but lithe."
8."The Númenóreans ... are in constant communication with their ancient friends and allies, either in the bliss of Eressea, or in the kingdom of Gilgalad on the shores of Middle-earth. They became thus in appearance and even in powers of mind, hardly distinguishable from the Elves..."
9. Sauron indeed achieved even greater control over his Orcs than Morgoth had done. He was, of course, operating on a smaller scale, and he had no enemies so great and so fell as were the Noldor in their might in the Elder Days.
And we must remember about Beren who could defeat Celegorm and was always said to be very strong and remember along with Turin because of his limbs. However when he and Finrod were captured who was the one who burst his bonds with spiritual/physical power and disarmed killed the werewolf?? Probably Beren wasn't stronger than Celegorm but more skilled and less arrogant.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by arathorn

Give us a proof that men are stronger than Eldar.
Don't come with that "Turin thing" because he wasn't fighting an Eldar.

Yes, he was, actually, according to the definition of "Eldar" used in the published "Silmarillion"- there the Nandor were Teleri, thus Eldar. Mind you, Tolkien's concept of "Eldar" vs "Avari" was one he revised quite a bit, as he did many other things... but that's in itself a reason not to get too dogmatic on these sort of issues.

More to the point, the member of whom you're demanding "proof" made that post ten years ago, and hasn't been around for a while... so I'm afraid you could be waiting a long time for a reply.

Welcome to the Downs!

[arathorn]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Yes, he was, actually, according to the definition of "Eldar" used in the published "Silmarillion"- there the Nandor were Teleri, thus Eldar. Mind you, Tolkien's concept of "Eldar" vs "Avari" was one he revised quite a bit, as he did many other things... but that's in itself a reason not to get too dogmatic on these sort of issues.

More to the point, the member of whom you're demanding "proof" made that post ten years ago, and hasn't been around for a while... so I'm afraid you could be waiting a long time for a reply.

Welcome to the Downs!

Yeah that seems correct but it is also stated that they become very different from the Sindar, probably they weren't so strong and Saeros wasn't also a militar.

The Elves in Middle-earth were "a race high and beautiful, the older Children of the world, and among them the Eldar [referring to the Noldor Eldar] were as kings, who now are gone: the People of the Great Journey, the People of the Stars.

'The Quendi were in origin a tall people. The Eldar (...) they were in general the stronger and taller members of the Elvish folk at that time. - One of his latest notes.

[Galin]

The Elves in Middle-earth were "a race high and beautiful, the older Children of the world, and among them the Eldar [referring to the Noldor Eldar] were as kings, who now are gone: the People of the Great Journey, the People of the Stars.

First I note that the passage continues: '... People of the Stars. They were tall, fair of skin and grey-eyed, though their locks were dark, save in the golden house of Finarfin.'

Christopher Tolkien's objection to this passage is in reference to the fact that the mostly golden-haired Vanyar are Eldar by any definition, and the larger passage seems to say that the Eldar were generally dark-haired. This is being corrected in new editions of The Return of the King where a footnote has been added to note that: ['These words describing characters of face and hair in fact applied only to the Noldor: see The Book of Lost Tales, Part One, p. 44']

But there is further explanation from Christopher Tolkien about this matter too, where, in The Peoples of Middle-Earth he explains that despite the notion of the 'golden Vanyar' appearing to have pre-dated the final form of Appendix F, his father yet carefully revised this passage to refer to the Eldar, not just the Noldor.

Moreover, although the added footnote is correct in one sense, in my opinion in an internal sense the characteristics can easily apply to the Sindar too -- thus 'the Eldar of Middle-earth' [includes the Sindar*]. Which I think is a good way to view this passage, considering that the Vanyar were 'hardly' in Middle-earth from a relative, historical standpoint at least. As you quoted yourself above...

7. In general the Sindar appear to have very closely resembled the Exiles, being dark-haired, strong and tall, but lithe."

And Tolkien further notes here that it was the brightness of the eyes of the Exiles that helped make them distinct from the Sindar.

WCH has well argued that Tolkien probably goofed here Vanyar-wise, but JRRT later changed 'House of Finrod' here to 'House of Finarfin' for the Second Edition, and so must have missed his own suggestion about the Vanyar here once again? I guess it's possible.

Anyway in the end the text was never corrected [besides Finarfin I mean] by the author himself, and CJRT's objection also supports that the term Eldar is meant, not the Noldorin Eldar only. And in any case I don't see Christopher Tolkien's objection as pertaining to anything but the characteristics that follow the part of the passage you quoted -- although that said, I can see why, if one accepts 'they' as the Noldor as far as hair and so on, then the Noldor can be meant in the earlier passage too.

For myself, I say can't we just leave it as Eldar? I'm all for getting the hair colour right...

... but I'm not sure even CJRT would know Tolkien's move if he noted the 'problem' here. If his father thought it was a problem! I mean why can't we have dark-haired Vanyar as a 'fix' [the idea of the golden Vanyar is the 'unpublished' part in any case], and some golden haired East-elves?

There's seemingly one in Lorien already

__________

*Nerwen has already spoken to the changing nature of the term Eldar, and in The Lord of the Rings itself [but not necessarily in other works], in my opinion Eldar refers properly to the Vanyar** Noldor and Sindar only -- changing internally from its original reference to all Elves of course.

**The Vanyar are not noted, if I recall correctly, but are included as Eldar by implication, being Elves who passed Over Sea.

It does appear that Tolkien changed his mind to include the Nandor, and any who started the Great Journey, not simply those who passed Over Sea save the Sindar only, or [essentially] 'West-elves' [again based on text in The Return of the King].

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by arathorn

Give us a proof that men are stronger than Eldar.
Don't come with that "Turin thing" because he wasn't fighting an Eldar.

Men are no where near as strong as an average elf and they lack the 'magic' the elves have. The exceptions being the men with divine ancestry or the ones practicing black magic.

The exceptions to this are the Numenoreans who experienced a new enlightening and restoration in the Numenor. The Numenoreans are not distinguishable from the Eldar. When Tolkien compares the average heights the Numenoreans are equal with the Noldor.


However, if we are talking about individual houses then the House of Hador and Beren are physically the stronger than elves. Tolkien may have decided to drop the story of even Fingon being unable to wear the Dragon's helm, but there is lot's of other evidence.

Turin and Beren are probably the two strongest physically out of any elf or man. After that comes the House of Hador and House of Fingolfin. The early Numenorean Kings being descendants of Hador and Fingolfin would be there as well.

[Nerwen]

cellurdur, what is your source for all this? "Strength" can mean a lot of things- certainly Elves are *tougher* than Men- but the counter-examples you and arathorn mention suggest you're both thinking largely in terms of brute force. Is there a chart ranking everyone by this that I missed, somehow?

-Galin, I think that physical description of the Eldar in the "Return of the King" appendices may indeed refer to those of Middle-earth only- if you assume the point is to describe the Eldar as Men knew them (in which case the appearance of the Vanyar isn't relevant).

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

cellurdur, what is your source for all this? "Strength" can mean a lot of things- certainly Elves are *tougher* than Men- but the counter-examples you and arathorn mention suggest you're both thinking largely in terms of brute force.

Do I really just mention brute force? I thought I mentioned the inability of Men to use what we would call magic. I talk about how Numenoreans were blessed and had the gifts humans before they came into contact with Melkor. The telepathy the Numenoreans have is certainly 'magical' to us.

I talk about a variety of issues and Tolkien does tend to give us ranking charts and it appears you have missed it. Or do you disagree that Luthien is the fairest of all elves? Daeron the best out of all singers or Earendil the best out of all sailors? Maybe Feanor was the not the finest or all craftsmen after all?

What exactly do you want me to provide a source for?

[Nerwen]

I have indeed missed these ranking charts of which you speak.

Tolkien does often describe various people and things as the "---est"; while this is no doubt literally true in the case of, say, Feanor being the "greatest craftsman", much of the time it's a matter of him saying different things at different times, and not being particularly consistent. Judging from things you've said here and elsewhere, I gather you believe that there is a precise, thought-out system underlying all this. I doubt it.

Anyway, I'm not disputing the "magic" issue- but most of your post is, seemingly, concerned with physical strength. That's what I'm asking about.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I have indeed missed these ranking charts of which you speak.

Tolkien does often describe various people and things as the "---est"; while this is no doubt literally true in the case of, say, Feanor being the "greatest craftsman", much of the time it's a matter of him saying different things at different times, and not being particularly consistent. Judging from things you've said here and elsewhere, I gather you believe that there is a precise, thought-out system underlying all this. I doubt it.

Anyway, I'm not disputing the "magic" issue- but most of your post is, seemingly, concerned with physical strength. That's what I'm asking about.

When you write a work as detailed and vast as Tolkien's you are going to have mistakes. In the earliest drafts there is even intentional author bias.

The contradictions are not really that many considering how long he has been writing the story. A lot of the time they are consistent.

You mentioned Feanor, but why not comment on Daeron, Luthien or Earendil? In all three cases we are told several times that they are the best in a certain field. If you want to accept that Feanor is the mightiest craftsmen then how can you reject that Daeron is the mightiest singer?

How many different types of strength are there? Once we dismiss men from the 'strength' in magic, then there is only strength of body and strength of will left. Nor is strength of 'will' the same as wisdom. Ar-pharazon had strength of will, but lacked wisdom. In terms of strength of will once more the House of Hador stand at the forefront.

The House of Finarfin seemed particular adapt at 'magic' with the likes of Galadriel and Finrod.

When I commented on strength of body, I specifically mentioned 'physical strength'.

'But Turin had been long in a hard school, and had grown as agile as any Elf, but stronger.'-UT

As for strength of will Hurin is elsewhere called the mightiest in this and we see this in action when he is not daunted by Morgoth's eyes.

' and he sought to daunt him (Hurin) with his eyes. But Hurin could not yet be daunted and he defied Morgoth.'-UT

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

' and he sought to daunt him (Hurin) with his yes.

But he just said "No".

Ummm...sorry. Too much coffee not to comment.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

But he just said "No".

Ummm...sorry. Too much coffee not to comment.

I have corrected that mistake now.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

I have corrected that mistake now.

It was funnier the other way.

As far as the subject, I've come to the conclusion that for every statement you can quote from Tolkien, there is an equal and opposite contradictory reply. Like the elves, Tolkien says both yes and no.

So, whichever side of a discussion you wish to be on, there are plenty of quotes to cull. Except, of course, for Balrog's wings, which were an undeniable certainty.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

It was funnier the other way.

As far as the subject, I've come to the conclusion that for every statement you can quote from Tolkien, there is an equal and opposite contradictory reply. Like the elves, Tolkien says both yes and no.

So, whichever side of a discussion you wish to be on, there are plenty of quotes to cull. Except, of course, for Balrog's wings, which were an undeniable certainty.

Not when you take things into context.

For example Tolkien might call Galadriel a 'queen' in a letter to a friend outlining the story. He is not being literal here, because in the story we know she is not a 'queen' and in a more detailed letter he goes into it.

The same with Arwen being an 'elf'.

I think there is this great desire to dismiss the consistency in the work, even when there are no contradictions.

[Galadriel55]

The thing is, half the major characters are praised half as well as they deserve, and less than half are praised half as much, and they are never told to line up and run a race or something. How do you compare Sam with any other hero? Or even a more similar twain, Aragorn and Turin? How do you tell who had the greater will, physical strength, or greatness of character? LOTR provides the solution: get a sword and call for an axe.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

The thing is, half the major characters are praised half as well as they deserve, and less than half are praised half as much, and they are never told to line up and run a race or something. How do you compare Sam with any other hero? Or even a more similar twain, Aragorn and Turin? How do you tell who had the greater will, physical strength, or greatness of character? LOTR provides the solution: get a sword and call for an axe.

Tolkien was not a relativist.

'Good and evil have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among elves and dwarves and another among Men.'

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Tolkien was not a relativist.

'Good and evil have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among elves and dwarves and another among Men.'

That has nothing to do with anything. Please mark that I am not discussing the nature of good and evil but the "strength" of the characters. Last time I checked strength is not some transcendent quality but is very subjective; it depends on many considerations and conditions. Moreover, no one is put through the same task at the same time with the same situation. People do different strong and heroic things. How do you determine which is the more heroic, or who is stronger? You don't, you just appreciate both as much as they deserve and don't compare. It's not like they are competing for points for ranking.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

That has nothing to do with anything. Please mark that I am not discussing the nature of good and evil but the "strength" of the characters. Last time I checked strength is not some transcendent quality but is very subjective; it depends on many considerations and conditions. Moreover, no one is put through the same task at the same time with the same situation. People do different strong and heroic things. How do you determine which is the more heroic, or who is stronger? You don't, you just appreciate both as much as they deserve and don't compare. It's not like they are competing for points for ranking.

Strength is as subjective as good and evil. Can we determine with certainty what is always 'good' and what is always 'evil'? No. However, as the Aragorn quote says we have a choice to make.

The same way we cannot always determine who had the greatest strength, but we can still use our opinion to make a judgement call. Fortunately for us we don't always need to use our own judgement, but can rely on what Tolkien said.

When Tolkien tells us that Luthien and Beren stealing a Silmarillion was the greatest deed accomplished, then I take him for his word.

When Tolkien said Hurin had the greatest strength of 'will' ever when he defied Morgoth, once more I take him at his word.

The same way I take him at his word when he tells me that Finwe was the father of Feanor or Arathorn was the father of Aragorn.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Strength is as subjective as good and evil. Can we determine with certainty what is always 'good' and what is always 'evil'? No. However, as the Aragorn quote says we have a choice to make.

Ummmm.... no. Good is good and bad is bad, and they are not always clear but always constant. And then you have a basketball player and a swimmer: who is stronger? Go figure. How do you even judge or compare them? Or even, let's say, two biathletes - one skis in good weather and makes faster timing, the other skis in a storm and completes the same track in more time. Who is stronger? Dunno, they have a different situation. Maybe the second is naturally slower, or maybe the first wouldn't have been able to complete the track in bad conditions. And to add to that, the Canadian news reporter says that the first biathlete is the strongest of the bunch while the American reporter really praises the second for his superior strength. Who do you trust? Is one lying?

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The same way we cannot always determine who had the greatest strength, but we can still use our opinion to make a judgement call. Fortunately for us we don't always need to use our own judgement, but can rely on what Tolkien said.

Especially when he called most of his characters "great", "strong", "fair", etc at some point or another.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

When Tolkien tells us that Luthien and Beren stealing a Silmarillion was the greatest deed accomplished, then I take him for his word.

So do I, but I read his word differently. He writes a story, not a code of law. When he says that something or someone was greatest/strongest/fairest/[insert superlative], I understand it to be very great/strong/etc. Luthien, Arwen, and Galadriel all compete for the title of the "fairest" woman in ME (get the axes ready!), but to me that just means they were all quite beautiful in their own ways. One statement does not have to contradict another, and neither has to mean that literally out of the whole legendarium one lady gets the most points for beauty.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

When Tolkien said Hurin had the greatest strength of 'will' ever when he defied Morgoth, once more I take him at his word.

I myself admire Hurin for his willpower very very very much, but I have a couple problems with your statement:

1) You can't compare him with many others since he's one of the extremely few Eruhini who faced Morgoth. You don't know how others would have reacted, since they were never there. A great will won't show itself until it is tested, and he's the only one to get the test. It's like me saying "you are my favourite sister" when I only have one sister. It means that I like her very much. Perhaps she would be my favourite if I had more.

2) Tolkien says this and then spends over a thousand pages marvelling at the strength of will of the hobbits. Sure, they never defeat a Morgoth, but once again, it's relative. Look were Hurin starts out and where they start out. It is quite expected that Hurin would have the strength to resist to a point, while hobbits don't seem to have any strength at all. It's undeniably a great feat to defy Morgoth, but is it not also a great feat to resist Sauron in a Palantir? How many times to Gandalf and Elrond and the rest wonder at Frodo's strength after Weathertop and in general, throughout the journey? Of Pippin with the Palantir? Or Merry and the Nazgul? Feats that greater men could not do? It's subjective.

3) Tolkien is very liberal with his superlatives. If you take all of them to be literally true, you find yourself in a paradox. Therefore, you must also be liberal in understanding the value of those superlatives - not to diminish the deed or quality, but to understand that it's not really being ranked, just singled out as extraordinary.

4) If everything becomes important based on its rank of superlative, everything just loses the point. Do I care about Hurin because Tolkien described him as the strongest, physically or in will? Do I care about his strength that way? I really don't. What I do care about is that despite the hoplessness of the situation and the superhuman pressure he has to withstand, he does not crack and defies Morgoth. This makes me understand and admire his strength. A superlative statement just confirms my own feelings in ME people. At the same time, I also admire Aragorn's battle of wills with Sauron and Gandalf's battle of wills with the Balrog. I don't admire them less just because they don't have a Morgoth, or because they are not the greatest deeds ever. If you begin ranking events and characters based on pure superlatives, they will soon be reduced to pokemon cards. This one has 400 magic power, that one has 500 strength power...

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The same way I take him at his word when he tells me that Finwe was the father of Feanor or Arathorn was the father of Aragorn.

Well, technically...

I had to. Never mind this.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Gurthang

Does anyone besides me find it rather ironic that the men who accepted the rings from Sauron became more powerful than elves?

Now, it is generally assumed that on a normal day elves are more powerful than men. Not necessarily in strength, but in will, magic, skills, and vitality. But, the men who were consumed by the nine were different. They almost gained more from their 'transformation' than they lost.

One perk is that they became invisible. This would come in handy for eavesdropping , but it also creates a good fear tactic and would be useful in combat. They became semi-immortal. They could not die, and their spirits would always remain even if they were defeated, so they never could truly be defeated.

Due to these changes, it seems to me that the Nazgul became more powerful than the average elf. They were seduced by their rings(which is bad), but ended up more powerful than before(which is good for them, bad for everyone else). Which brings me back to the beginning. Doesn't that seem like its backwards?

Hi everyone,

I remember reading that "...Elves do not fear them" (ringwraiths), though I can't for the life of me cite the quotation and place it to someone, though, I recall encountering the quote when looking up Annatar, the Ost-In-Edhil and history of Elves and Sauron. The nub of it was that Elves--already in two worlds at once--are either immune, or more resistant to the fear effects of the Nazgul--(and this bit we know from many precedents, including what was said about Glorfindel, for example, and what occurred when he assisted Frodo).

I've been trying to fathom what, exactly, it is then, that defines the core difference between Nagul in the wraith/spirit world and Elves when they are in that realm. Icy touch, death stares and so on don't come with the Eldar when they go into their 'fey' form. So, I don't believe the key difference is about 'good versus evil' Spirits, though this is implicated, somehow.

I'm wondering whether there is some variation on the channelling of Spiritual Energy through the Spirit Realm, in the very metaphysical 'organisation' of the flesh of the two distinct kinds of Spirit beings. Recalling, here, that Morgoth and Sauron were pervertos who got lustful and greedy about messing with Eru's and the Valar's Music of Creation, ergo Orcs from Elves, for example. Blarogs (beings of Shadow and Fire) and what Gandalf said to the Balrog, in a metaphysically significant comment: "I am a wielder of the Secret Fire". Some kind of stepping up to the plate, to match Mr Balrog's 'shadowy' version of 'metaphysical fire'. Presumably, 'Secret Fire' meant something to do with, perhaps, Eru's 'flames in the void' sort of thing.

If I had to think of 'metaphysical dimensions' to collapse to make a ringwraith, I'd be channelling a perversion of the Spirit Flame thing Eru goes on about. One that drains Life from the (mortal) body and replaces the flesh with Shadow Fire/Spirit, or that fortifies the lifespan by being a big 'power sink' syphoning the energy of life into the Undead being. A variation of the Elven Spirit world, but one that is life draining, c.f. life sustaining. I've often imagined that when one of the Nine used the Ring, before transmuting into Undead, some part of their Mortal essence was drained away into Sauron, while, instead, Sauron's mental and material presence grew in the man. I recall reading that the Nine, when they were not yet fully altered, grew unable to tell the difference between a thought that was theirs, and one of Sauron--until their Wills were one and the same, basically. This event is very 'Sauronic' and very much how the literature implied how me operated. For example, when he discorporated when the Ring was Unmade, all his Orc legions were basically free of his will. The Sauronic presence was about how he could permeate through Nature and Beings.

To support the idea of 'life draining' or 'Spirit Fire that syphons life--wraith', I cite their opposite in their 'Elviish' variant: The Three Elven Rings that, inspired by Celebrimbor seeking to manifest a 'minivalinor' in Middle Earth, basically, seemed to extend what happened in the Elven body, over a dominion or place, without violating life force or will of others (Lothlorien. Galadriel's capacity to stop 'fading' and to bear a variation of what occurs in Valinor to Middle Earth). The Silmarils, the Phial of Galadriel, the Two Trees, the Elessar, and so on, were all artefacts that were not just 'bright lights' but were, somehow, living lights radiating with 'life itself'--the eternal flame.

Cheers
Irviniel (Imrahil's older sister. She's not very happy with the 'boy prince' thing and decided to stomp her foot and make a realm for herself )

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Ummmm.... no. Good is good and bad is bad, and they are not always clear but always constant. And then you have a basketball player and a swimmer: who is stronger? Go figure. How do you even judge or compare them? Or even, let's say, two biathletes - one skis in good weather and makes faster timing, the other skis in a storm and completes the same track in more time. Who is stronger? Dunno, they have a different situation. Maybe the second is naturally slower, or maybe the first wouldn't have been able to complete the track in bad conditions. And to add to that, the Canadian news reporter says that the first biathlete is the strongest of the bunch while the American reporter really praises the second for his superior strength. Who do you trust? Is one lying?

Firstly the popular opinion now is not 'good is good' and 'bad is bad,' but one of relativism. This is something that Eomer is questioning. He is asking does the matter of what is good depend on the time period? Or is good relative to everyone's culture.

People compare sportsman all the time. What do you think the Laureus award is? When you know a sport is quite easy to compare, which athlete is stronger when they raced in different conditions.

Especially when he called most of his characters "great", "strong", "fair", etc at some point or another.

'Great' or 'strong' is not the same as 'greatest' or 'strongest'. When there is a contradiction we can then discuss things, but until then I believe it's best to go with what has actually written, rather than adding our own interpretation into the text. How far do you want to go?

So do I, but I read his word differently. He writes a story, not a code of law. When he says that something or someone was greatest/strongest/fairest/[insert superlative], I understand it to be very great/strong/etc. Luthien, Arwen, and Galadriel all compete for the title of the "fairest" woman in ME (get the axes ready!), but to me that just means they were all quite beautiful in their own ways. One statement does not have to contradict another, and neither has to mean that literally out of the whole legendarium one lady gets the most points for beauty.

So you want to interpret the words of the text differently than they are written. Maybe when it says Finarfin is blonde it really means brunette? How far do you want to go? Luthien, Arwen and Galadriel do not compete for the title of fairest. There is no competition in Tolkien's writing. There is a unanimous winner: Luthing Thingol. In every several different writings she is called the 'fairest' that ever lived. There are too many instances to even begin to quote them.

I myself admire Hurin for his willpower very very very much, but I have a couple problems with your statement:

Firstly it was not my statement, but Tolkien's who knows the characters and their strengths perfectly.

1) You can't compare him with many others since he's one of the extremely few Eruhini who faced Morgoth. You don't know how others would have reacted, since they were never there. A great will won't show itself until it is tested, and he's the only one to get the test. It's like me saying "you are my favourite sister" when I only have one sister. It means that I like her very much. Perhaps she would be my favourite if I had more.

You can compare him with others, who faced a less evil in Glaurung and proved not as strong. However, this is besides the point, because Tolkien told us that this was the strongest a Man's spirit has ever become.

2) Tolkien says this and then spends over a thousand pages marvelling at the strength of will of the hobbits. Sure, they never defeat a Morgoth, but once again, it's relative. Look were Hurin starts out and where they start out. It is quite expected that Hurin would have the strength to resist to a point, while hobbits don't seem to have any strength at all. It's undeniably a great feat to defy Morgoth, but is it not also a great feat to resist Sauron in a Palantir? How many times to Gandalf and Elrond and the rest wonder at Frodo's strength after Weathertop and in general, throughout the journey? Of Pippin with the Palantir? Or Merry and the Nazgul? Feats that greater men could not do? It's subjective.

So you want to take Tolkien's marveling at the strength of Hobbits literally, but not when he says Hurin's strength of Will was greater? Why is it a given that a man, would have the strength of Will to resist the greatest thing ever created when even Manwe initially was daunted by Melkor's eyes?

Just, because Aragorn resisting Sauron in the Palantir is a great feat, does not make it equal with Hurin's. As Tolkien tells us these mental battles are much, much more difficult in person and Aragorn was helped by distance and the Palantir rightfully belonging to him. Hurin on the other hand was up against a much greater foe than Sauron and in person.

Something being 'subjective' to our eyes does not mean there is no way of judging. Is the strength of Will Frodo needed to go on a diet the same as the strength of Will needed to destroy the ring? Both are subjective, but nobody is going to say the former required more mental strength.

3) Tolkien is very liberal with his superlatives. If you take all of them to be literally true, you find yourself in a paradox. Therefore, you must also be liberal in understanding the value of those superlatives - not to diminish the deed or quality, but to understand that it's not really being ranked, just singled out as extraordinary.

Or maybe Tolkien wished to rank certain deeds and we should take him at his word. Where things contradict then we can argue, but where there is no contradiction why reject his words?

4) If everything becomes important based on its rank of superlative, everything just loses the point. Do I care about Hurin because Tolkien described him as the strongest, physically or in will? Do I care about his strength that way? I really don't. What I do care about is that despite the hoplessness of the situation and the superhuman pressure he has to withstand, he does not crack and defies Morgoth. This makes me understand and admire his strength. A superlative statement just confirms my own feelings in ME people. At the same time, I also admire Aragorn's battle of wills with Sauron and Gandalf's battle of wills with the Balrog. I don't admire them less just because they don't have a Morgoth, or because they are not the greatest deeds ever. If you begin ranking events and characters based on pure superlatives, they will soon be reduced to pokemon cards. This one has 400 magic power, that one has 500 strength power...

Why does something loses importance if it is ranked? Please explain this to me? Ranking things does not reduce them to Pokemon cards. Just, because you personally want to look at things one way does not mean others do.

Not all situations are hopeless and some deeds are greater than others. It does not distract from one 'great deed' to know that another was greater. Rather it gives you Sam hope that if Beren and Luthien could triumph 'in a worse place and black danger' than theirs, then they could make it too.

Well, technically...

I had to. Never mind this.

I don't see why you don't take it seriously. When you pick and choose what the author means, despite him repeating an idea then what is next?

'and she (Luthien) was the fairest maiden that has ever been among all the children of this world'-LOTR

'for Luthien was the most beautiful of all the Children of Illuvater'-Silmarillion

Just two of the many, many quotes naming Luthien as the fairest of all the Children of Illuvater in different books. If you can reject something that Tolkien repeatedly writes then what next do you want to reject?

[Ivriniel]

I'm not sure quite how to assemble the various references in the books, both tacit, implied and explicit, about racial and trait differences into anything really simple. However, I would not be so sure a Ringwraith is quite the comparison to make here to the Eldar. Ringwraiths were beings imbued with Sauronic will, sorcery, evil, fortification and purpose. They had a Ring of Power bolstering and warping the underlying essence of their mortal being.

Tolkien often made specific reference in concepts ranking Elves and Men. Certain of the Eldar and Men are ranked against each other, and compared in specific ways. Those went beyond superlatives and implied, often but not always, inborn traits or capacities, though he also noted environmental impacts on the achievement of greatness, such as the Light of Aman and how it changed the Elves. Numenoreans were altered, it was sometimes implied and stated, by the Isle of Numenor's proximity to Valinor.

Amongst specific traits and concepts cited in this ranking, Feanor for example, (notwithstanding his unfortunate personality--narcissism) was described, specifically

"For Fëanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind: in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and subtlety alike: of all the Children of Ilúvatar, and a bright flame was in him." ― The Silmarillion, Of the Sun and Moon and the Hiding of Valinor.

He was clearly different and distinct in other ways. His mother, Miriel spent herself, somehow during her gestation, and imbued Feanor with this greatness. She passed on and was off to the Halls of Mandos (or was it Gardens of Lorien--Valinor not Middle Earth) after birthing Feanor. His Spirit burned more hotly. His body was consumed by burning fire when he was slain in the first Great Battle (I forget its name) between the Elves and Morgoth in Beleriand during the First Age.

There were references to greatness of heroism (Beren) and those of 'fairest' form (Luthien, whose likeness it was repeatedly said in the third age, lived in Arwen), and then Galadriel, in her blended Noldorin (half-cousin to Feanor through Finarfin), Vanyar (Indis was her grandmother) and Telerin (through Earwen, of Olwe) heritage

"Very tall [Galadriel and Celeborn] were, and the Lady no less tall than the Lord; and they were grave and beautiful. They were clad wholly in white; and the hair of the Lady was of deep gold… but no sign of age was upon them, unless it were in the depths of their eyes; for these were keen as lances in the starlight, and yet profound, the wells of deep memory." ― The Lord of the Rings, "The Mirror of Galadriel"

and often referred to, also, as fairest of all the Elves, both in Aman and Middle Earth.

Greatness in Men has particular emphases in certain traits, such as with Aragorn who had the "foresight of his people" (Numenoreans, as stated several times in The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen), as did Gilraen his mother. When he was clad in raiment of, I think it was green and silver (Tale of Aragorn and Arwen), in Lothlorien, where he pledged his troth to Arwen at Caras Caladhon after, I think it was 40 years adventuring, travelling, and fighting. He first saw Arwen when he was new to manhood, around 20, in Rivendell. He was seen by Arwen, again, after his honing in the wild, and upon return, seemed as a great lord in the impression he conveyed, mighty amongst even the Eldar. We're also told this many times about particular members of The Followers, such as of Tuor in his approach to Gondolin (I dunno, all that flowing golden hair and stuff that he had--sounds a bit liker a surfer dude to me ) and in his likeness to the Eldar, and successful courtship of even Idril Celebrindil, daughter of the then High King of the Noldor, Turgon, who was only two generations down from Finwe, High King of all the Noldor. We're also told that in the First Age, Elves and Men approached each other in stature, greatness and heroism.

Tolkien, not always, compared races on height/stature. Often he referred to presence or greatness in bearing, but also more, as he often cited light in the eyes of the Eldar (not really so of the Elves who never went to Aman). That 'light' he also attributed to Numenoreans (again whose stature was greater, though their wisdom, potency, and vigour/constitution was also greater). About vigour, an example is the Eldar who did versus did not succumb to cold during the crossing of the Heclaraxe. Resistance to sickness seemed to vary in the races and Elves did not struggle with mortal afflictions. I never heard of the Plague periods affecting Elves, though it decimated the Numenoreans in Exile, particularly in Arnor. Was it King Ondoher and, I think all seven of his children, who perished in the Plague that came out of the Morgul Vale? They were Men of the Westernesse, not your average, ole human of normal lifespan.

Implications were also drawn about capacity to resist evil. Men were more able to be influenced by the Yoke of Morgoth, who, I remember reading, could continue to influence mortals from even beyond the Doors of Night, in the Void, where he had been cast after the War of Wrath that ended the First Age. This relative vulnerability to evil, for example, by perversion through Sauronic influence was often attributed to Men (Boromir, Isildur and the Ring).

Tolkien also noted that there was something in the fibre or sinew of Hobbits more resistant--tougher--somehow in their capacity to tolerate the evil presence of Sauron through the ring. The same is implied about Sméagol and his near 900 year (or was it 400, I always forget) proximity to the Ring and failure to succumb to wraith form. Again, there is reference to this relative capacity to resist Wraith-ick transfiguration in the Dwarves who never became wraiths through possession of a Ring of Power.

There was also Ghan Buri Ghan, which is another oddity in the mythology, where, through reference to an unsullied or untainted laugh, Tolkien notes something different about this strain of human. Although not 'greatness' as Tolkien often cast it (like he never counted Ents amongst the 'great' in that particular way), Ghan Buri Ghan had something 'special' or 'greater' by way of relative ranking, than others of mortal kind.

All this leads me to conclude that there are specific ways to compare the races that have strong basis in the mythology as Tolkien cast it. Exactly how and where is difficult, exactly, to pinpoint, but comparisons and relative rankings can be drawn for different Ages, races of Men and Elves and in numerous ways.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Not when you take things into context.

For example Tolkien might call Galadriel a 'queen' in a letter to a friend outlining the story. He is not being literal here, because in the story we know she is not a 'queen' and in a more detailed letter he goes into it.

With respect to the sources, as far as I recall Gimli refers to Galadriel as a Queen in The Lord of the Rings, as does the narrator of Of The Rings Of Power And The Third Age [a Queen of the Woodland Elves]. Of course the latter wasn't published by JRRT himself, but since it does not disagree with the story published by the author I see no reason for Christopher Tolkien to edit this.

And yes, later Tolkien seems to have changed his mind here: in the 'Zimmerman letter' for example, JRRT explained that Artanis was not in fact a Queen, and in a relatively late text in Unfinished Tales he notes that she and Celeborn took no title of Queen and King, despite that they took up rule there.

Anyway, if we are talking about consistency, you characterizing your reference as not literal is, to my mind, you trying to explain a seeming inconsistency. And if we look at only what Tolkien himself chose to publish, in my opinion we have a different perspective concerning this matter.


Since Feanor is mentioned...

In the 1930s Tolkien wrote: 'Of these Feanor was the mightiest in skill of word and hand, more learned in lore than his brethren; in his heart his spirit burned as flame. Fingolfin was the strongest, the most steadfast, and the most valiant. Finrod was the fairest, and the most wise of heart.' Quenta Silmarillion


And then in the early 1950s Tolkien writes (Annals of Aman): 'For Feanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind: in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and subtelty alike: of all the Children of Eru, and a bright flame was in him.'

But yet in the early 1950s Tolkien keeps the first passage I quoted, even changing Finrod to Finarfin and extending the last sentence (so we know he simply didn't overlook this) -- thus if Feanor is the mightiest 'in valour', how then is Fingolfin the most valiant? Or if 'in strength' why then is Fingolfin the strongest? Or if 'in beauty' why then is Finarfin the fairest?

Maybe this is a matter of authorship and opinion: The Annals of Aman were said to be written by Rumil in the Elder Days, and held in memory by the Exiles, and parts remembered were set down in Numenor before the Shadow fell upon it. Could it be that Rumil esteemed Feanor so highly while another author rather noted the greatness of Fingolfin and Finarfin in certain areas?

Or something else; perhaps Tolkien just writing, in the moment, enjoying superlatives.

In any event, here's what Tolkien added (and thus published himself) to the second edition of 1965 (in Appendix A): 'Feanor was the greatest of the Eldar in arts and lore, but also the proudest and most self-willed.'

Of course this might be attributed to brevity, if Feanor was really the great-est in more than arts and lore.

[Galin]

-Galin, I think that physical description of the Eldar in the "Return of the King" appendices may indeed refer to those of Middle-earth only- if you assume the point is to describe the Eldar as Men knew them (in which case the appearance of the Vanyar isn't relevant).

By the way thanks for commenting on this Nerwen. I've planted the idea at other sites but no one ever agreed or disagreed [that I recall], or commented, and I wondered if anyone thought I was reaching here [here's your invite, as if you need one, to any who think I am reaching and care enough to say so].

I would say the footnote alters the natural interpretation of this passage, and it at least seems like a correction anyway, but it's really only there due to an attempt to find consistency with a description Tolkien himself never published in any case. Granted, the idea of the golden Vanyar is well attested in later texts and appears in the constructed Silmarillion...

... but still. I mean the reader of The Lord of the Rings is not aware that this passage is arguably problematic with something Tolkien had written in his private papers -- which are no longer private obviously, but this is not due to the Subcreator himself.

Just to note it, 'but still' is a very compelling argument It's also somewhat versatile.


Sorry. I'll shaddap now. Especially since no one is arguing with me about this [yet]...

... but still

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

With respect to the sources, as far as I recall Gimli refers to Galadriel as a Queen in The Lord of the Rings, as does the narrator of Of The Rings Of Power And The Third Age [a Queen of the Woodland Elves]. Of course the latter wasn't published by JRRT himself, but since it does not disagree with the story published by the author I see no reason for Christopher Tolkien to edit this.

And yes, later Tolkien seems to have changed his mind here: in the 'Zimmerman letter' for example, JRRT explained that Artanis was not in fact a Queen, and in a relatively late text in Unfinished Tales he notes that she and Celeborn took no title of Queen and King, despite that they took up rule there.

Anyway, if we are talking about consistency, you characterizing your reference as not literal is, to my mind, you trying to explain a seeming inconsistency. And if we look at only what Tolkien himself chose to publish, in my opinion we have a different perspective concerning this matter.


Since Feanor is mentioned...

In the 1930s Tolkien wrote: 'Of these Feanor was the mightiest in skill of word and hand, more learned in lore than his brethren; in his heart his spirit burned as flame. Fingolfin was the strongest, the most steadfast, and the most valiant. Finrod was the fairest, and the most wise of heart.' Quenta Silmarillion


And then in the early 1950s Tolkien writes (Annals of Aman): 'For Feanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind: in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and subtelty alike: of all the Children of Eru, and a bright flame was in him.'

But yet in the early 1950s Tolkien keeps the first passage I quoted, even changing Finrod to Finarfin and extending the last sentence (so we know he simply didn't overlook this) -- thus if Feanor is the mightiest 'in valour', how then is Fingolfin the most valiant? Or if 'in strength' why then is Fingolfin the strongest? Or if 'in beauty' why then is Finarfin the fairest?

Maybe this is a matter of authorship and opinion: The Annals of Aman were said to be written by Rumil in the Elder Days, and held in memory by the Exiles, and parts remembered were set down in Numenor before the Shadow fell upon it. Could it be that Rumil esteemed Feanor so highly while another author rather noted the greatness of Fingolfin and Finarfin in certain areas?

Or something else; perhaps Tolkien just writing, in the moment, enjoying superlatives.

In any event, here's what Tolkien added (and thus published himself) to the second edition of 1965 (in Appendix A): 'Feanor was the greatest of the Eldar in arts and lore, but also the proudest and most self-willed.'

Of course this might be attributed to brevity, if Feanor was really the great-est in more than arts and lore.

The example about the sons of Finwe and of course the famous Treebeard/Tom (about who is the oldest) are examples of where Tolkien has gone overboard with superlatives and they contradict each other. It's at times like these where there is a need we have to resort to other measures.

However, this is not the case with say Earendil being the greatest mariner or Luthien being the fairest. The story is very clear and Tolkien consistently praises them as the best with no contradiction as far as I am aware of.

The same with the stealing of the Silmarillion. Tolkien refers to this as the greatest deed of Elves and Men against Morgoth. There is nothing to contradict this.


Now in the case of Finwe's sons, I think originally there is a case that the translations were not completely accurate. Not only was their author bias in the case of Rumil, but there was also 'mistranslation' by the official translator, which led to more mistakes. These 'mistakes' were deliberately left in.

Later as I have said previously Tolkien seemed to move away from this position and wanted a more definitive story most of the time, but certainly not all the time.

In the case of Finwe's sons I tend to favour the interpretation as Fingolfin being the strongest, Finarfin the most handsome and wises, with Feanor the best at crafts and lore. I favour this interpretation, because we see this traits somewhat being inherited by their descendants.

Galadriel and Finrod are the most beautiful and wisest out of the younger descendants of Finwe.

Turgon, Fingon and Argon are all very big men. Turgon and Argon being the two tallest after Thingol.

Then we have Feanor's boys inheriting his powers of persuasion and craft like Curufin and Celebrimbor.

[Galin]

For the record I am not saying [in my last post] that there are no cases where we can say X is 'greatest' based on the text, but I was responding to two examples where there was, in my opinion, more comparative text [the Galadriel as Queen matter, for example]

Later as I have said previously Tolkien seemed to move away from this position and wanted a more definitive story most of the time, but certainly not all the time.

Can you explain what you mean here in more detail, maybe including examples to help mark the external time frame?

If I recall correctly, in general in the old scenario [let's say with the start of the 'Silmarillion', after The Book of Lost Tales and the poetry of the 1920s] Elfwine was to be a studious scribe, trying not to alter the tales as he heard them from Elvish Eresseans. This is more 'direct' than the later scenario.

My example of Annals of Aman and my conjecturing about Rumil's only possible 'bias' actually reflects the later scenario, with the transmission through Numenor and the Mannish Kindoms down to Imladris, allowing for more 'mistakes' and purposed variations.

I do think there was some intentional variation [compared to QS] in the Annals when they were first revised in the 1950s, that is, when they were still imagined as a variant tradition to Quenta Silmarillion.

But in any case we are essentially dealing with draft texts here: what would Tolkien's Silmarillon contain versus his Annals? It seems as if the existing Annals of the 1950s grew and morphed into another Silmarillion, and thus could be 'absorbed' into the Silmarillion, with The Tale of Years taking over for the Annals -- thus Christopher Tolkien took plenty of passages from the Annals, Aman and Grey, for his constructed Silmarillion.

What was to be intentional inconsistency, when there is plenty of natural inconsistency [Tolkien changing his mind, letting new and different stories flow as they came to him, and so on] in the external evolution of a complex tale, is very hard to say.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

For the record I am not saying [in my last post] that there are no cases where we can say X is 'greatest' based on the text, but I was responding to two examples where there was, in my opinion, missing or comparative text [the Galadriel as Queen matter for example]




Can you explain what you mean here in more detail, maybe including examples to help mark the external time frame?

If I recall correctly, in general the old scenario [let's say with the start of the 'Silmarillion', after The Book of Lost Tales and the poetry of the 1920s] Elfwine was to be a studious scribe, trying not to alter the tales as he heard them from Elvish Eresseans. This is more 'direct' than the later scenario.

My example of Annals of Aman and my conjecturing about Rumil's only possible 'bias' actually reflects the later scenario, with the transmission through Numenor and the Mannish Kindoms down to Imladris, allowing for more 'mistakes' and purposed variations.

But in any case we are essentially dealing with draft texts here: what would Tolkien's Silmarillon contain versus his Annals? It seems as if the existing Annals of the 1950s had grown and morphed into another Silmarillion, and thus could be 'absorbed' into the Silmarillion, with The Tale of Years taking over for the Annals [thus Christopher Tolkien took plenty of passages from the Annals, Aman and Grey, for the constructed Silmarillion].

What was to be 'intentional' inconsistency, when there is plenty of 'natural inconsistency' in the external evolution of a complex tale, is very hard to say.

In one of his earlier letters he mentions the problem with 'translations'. As studious as Elfwine was there was bound to be mistakes.

The change to the myths being Mannish seemed to come from Tolkien's desire to put the myths even more in align with Catholic theology.

An example of this is in the 50's he gets a letter about whether the orcs being irredeemable is heretical. At the time he dismisses the concern and says it is of little importance to his story. Yes later on he definitely changes his mind on the importance of orcs being redeemable. He writes philosophical reasons on what the orcs are and whether they can be redeemed. In the end settling on the notion that the it's possible that Eru could redeem them.

The use of the stories having a Mannish origin is more to clear up things he could not quite translate. The lates 50s when he started making significant edits and the revisions to Quenta Silmarillion is when I noticed a change.

With his desire to write a more 'accurate' cosmology of Arda, seems to have come with it a desire to write a more 'accurate' history. Once you begin to translate the truth about the Two Trees it is inevitable, that you will begin to write about the 'truth' of Feanor.

The use of the Mannish myths seems to be a way of keeping the older stories, which in my opinion were more beautiful.

The essays he writes such as Glorfindel, where he reasons and comes to a conclusion about who Glorfindel was and why he was sent back; look to me like someone trying to find the 'true story.'

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

In one of his earlier letters he mentions the problem with 'translations'. As studious as Elfwine was there was bound to be mistakes.

Which letter please? I need some context here.

(...) With his desire to write a more 'accurate' cosmology of Arda, seems to have come with it a desire to write a more 'accurate' history. Once you begin to translate the truth about the Two Trees it is inevitable, that you will begin to write about the 'truth' of Feanor.

The use of the Mannish myths seems to be a way of keeping the older stories, which in my opinion were more beautiful.

But that means that the 'truth' of the Two Trees is now questionable as a Mannish myth.

The essays he writes such as Glorfindel, where he reasons and comes to a conclusion about who Glorfindel was and why he was sent back; look to me like someone trying to find the 'true story.'

Well, but I don't see how this, or a few examples, necessarily supports the great shift in thinking that you appear to be referencing.

It seems to me that there are always going to be arguable examples of Tolkien working out what he wants to present as 'true' in the sense of 'it exists in the legendarium', but the general scenario -- from older to later as far as The Silmarillion goes -- appears to be a move away from directness of transmission so that the story of the Two Trees can be preserved...

... not the absolute truth that that's how the Sun and Moon really came to be, however.

Now in the case of Finwe's sons, I think originally there is a case that the translations were not completely accurate. Not only was their author bias in the case of Rumil, but there was also 'mistranslation' by the official translator, which led to more mistakes. These 'mistakes' were deliberately left in.

Later as I have said previously Tolkien seemed to move away from this position and wanted a more definitive story most of the time, but certainly not all the time.

You see, here you refer to the 'bias' of Rumil, but I brought that up only as a sheer possibility when we had two variant traditions written at the same time [early 1950s], and within the scenario of the later transmission too, since that allows for more error.

What texts are you talking about with 'originally' here? According to this...

The lates 50s when he started making significant edits and the revisions to Quenta Silmarillion is when I noticed a change.

... I assume it is before the late 1950s.

Maybe I'm confused at this point, but you seem to be saying that Tolkien moved away from 'mistranslation' about the time he began to recharacterize the Silmarillion as largely Mannish, which to my mind allows for more mistranslation and variation that within the Elfwine scenario, Elfwine himself receiving the tales direct from Eressean speakers and putting them into Old English...

... to Tolkien's doorstep I guess.

Still generally speaking.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Firstly the popular opinion now is not 'good is good' and 'bad is bad,' but one of relativism. This is something that Eomer is questioning. He is asking does the matter of what is good depend on the time period? Or is good relative to everyone's culture.

Relativism with good and bad comes when there is a choice between two or more goods, or two or more evils. I doubt you'd say that the concept of murder is good, regardless of time and culture.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

People compare sportsman all the time. What do you think the Laureus award is? When you know a sport is quite easy to compare, which athlete is stronger when they raced in different conditions.

That's right - people give certain criteria by which to judge. They count up the points, performance, whatever. But that just tells you who scored more points that year, not who is actually stronger.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

'Great' or 'strong' is not the same as 'greatest' or 'strongest'. When there is a contradiction we can then discuss things, but until then I believe it's best to go with what has actually written, rather than adding our own interpretation into the text. How far do you want to go?

As far as I want to go. Texts are always interpreted. If you choose to interpret everything you read literally, I don't have to follow your choice.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

So you want to interpret the words of the text differently than they are written. Maybe when it says Finarfin is blonde it really means brunette? How far do you want to go? Luthien, Arwen and Galadriel do not compete for the title of fairest. There is no competition in Tolkien's writing. There is a unanimous winner: Luthing Thingol. In every several different writings she is called the 'fairest' that ever lived. There are too many instances to even begin to quote them.

But that's just your opinion. Neither Gimli nor Eomer fought to defend Luthien's beauty.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Firstly it was not my statement, but Tolkien's who knows the characters and their strengths perfectly.

Not the statement about Hurin, but your conclusion.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

So you want to take Tolkien's marveling at the strength of Hobbits literally, but not when he says Hurin's strength of Will was greater? Why is it a given that a man, would have the strength of Will to resist the greatest thing ever created when even Manwe initially was daunted by Melkor's eyes?

Did I ever say that I do not take Hurin's greatness literally? I said that I admire his strength of will very very very much. And I don't see why I should not also agree about the hobbits' greatness. What I am liberal in reading are superlatives, because I am hesitant to start ranking people and deeds based on pokemon cards.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Something being 'subjective' to our eyes does not mean there is no way of judging. Is the strength of Will Frodo needed to go on a diet the same as the strength of Will needed to destroy the ring? Both are subjective, but nobody is going to say the former required more mental strength.

Alright then. Whose will was stronger, Merry's when he stabbed the Nazgul or Pippin's when he looked in the Palantir? Go, judge, rank. Good luck to you.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Or maybe Tolkien wished to rank certain deeds and we should take him at his word. Where things contradict then we can argue, but where there is no contradiction why reject his words?

So you're that keen on having everything laid out from most to least. Why? Why do you need to rank things? Why can you not just appreciate each for what they are independent of any other?

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Why does something loses importance if it is ranked? Please explain this to me? Ranking things does not reduce them to Pokemon cards.

Then how does this sound to you:

Gandalf - 400 strength -- 550 magic -- 450 mind
Aragorn - 350 strength -- 400 magic -- 400 mind
Boromir - 400 strength -- 300 magic -- 200 mind
Gimli - 450 strength -- 350 magic -- 250 mind

You see what I mean? Do you like LOTR, The Sil, etc when they are laid out like that?

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Just, because you personally want to look at things one way does not mean others do.

That applies to both sides, you know.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Not all situations are hopeless and some deeds are greater than others. It does not distract from one 'great deed' to know that another was greater. Rather it gives you Sam hope that if Beren and Luthien could triumph 'in a worse place and black danger' than theirs, then they could make it too.

It takes away from the appreciation of the reader to have it all laid out and ranked like Pokemon cards. Oooh, this one is stronger, it has more points!

Originally Posted by cellurdur

I don't see why you don't take it seriously. When you pick and choose what the author means, despite him repeating an idea then what is next?

Actually, I decided Feanor wasn't the son of Finwe at all, but Miriel had a secret affair with Melkor. This explains everything. She doesn't want to come back from the dead because she's ashamed and afraid. Feanor has skill beyond any other elf. He has quite the character but also quite the charisma. He's so concerned with fighting for his place as Finwe's firstborn son. There's clearly something going on between him and Morgoth when you look at their interactions. Isn't it obvious?

...You realize I'm doing this just for fun, right?

There are some things that are facts. Lorien lies to the West of the Misty Mountains. The Misty Mountains are mountains. Galadriel has golden hair.

There are some things which are opinion-like descriptions. Galadriel is the fairest. Lorien is the fairest. Celeborn is the wisest.

There are some things you take as givens. They are husband and wife. There are some things you take as enhancements of the text and of your understanding. Galadriel is the fairest.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Just two of the many, many quotes naming Luthien as the fairest of all the Children of Illuvater in different books. If you can reject something that Tolkien repeatedly writes then what next do you want to reject?

If you claim that Luthien is the fairest, are you then claiming Tolkien lied about Arwen and Galadriel being the fairest? Because that's what you're suggesting. You are picking your winner based on the number of times her beauty is praised, but that doesn't really erase the other two candidates and the statements that clearly say they are the fairest.

I do not reject Luthien's beauty, or Hurin's willpower. I do not deny that they surpass most others'. But I also value the subjective things - the situation, the effort, the sacrifice - and take them into account. The problem I have with your approach is that in ranking people and things it takes things out of context and diminishes the value of things that are not the "---est". Moreover, I want to ask you, how far do you want to go? What's next? giving points for number of ocrs killed? Tricks performed? Better weapons? I do not and cannot agree to this approach. I have stated my thoughts on the matter, I hope with enough clarity. If you want to continue discussing this, perhaps we can take it to PMs instead of filling this thread with tangential debates.

Originally Posted by Galin

Or something else; perhaps Tolkien just writing, in the moment, enjoying superlatives.

I can completely see this happening.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Relativism with good and bad comes when there is a choice between two or more goods, or two or more evils. I doubt you'd say that the concept of murder is good, regardless of time and culture.

No it doesn't. Relativism comes when 'good' and 'bad' are reduced to cultural phenomenons. So for one culture child sacrifice is 'good' and for the other culture it is abhorrent.

Nazism in my opinion (controversial as it maybe) is an example of what can happen when you take Nietzscheism down a certain road.

That's right - people give certain criteria by which to judge. They count up the points, performance, whatever. But that just tells you who scored more points that year, not who is actually stronger.

No by using the criteria the experts have we do make a judgement call on who is strong. The problem with judging things like 'strength of will' is that we lack the necessary information to judge other people. We don't know what they are feeling, we don't know how strong their resolve is and this is why in real life it's probably best to not to be quick to pass judgement even when we know many of the circumstances.

When judging characters 'will' in a story it is a different matter. Depending on the story we get an insight into a character we would never get in real life.

As far as I want to go. Texts are always interpreted. If you choose to interpret everything you read literally, I don't have to follow your choice.

No and that is why you are free to decide that Feanor is really the child of Melkor. I of course will disagree with your interpretation.

But that's just your opinion. Neither Gimli nor Eomer fought to defend Luthien's beauty.

This point makes little sense. Gimli and Eomer never saw Luthien, but all who did are in agreement that she was the fairest that ever lived. Not just characters in the story, but the narrator and Tolkien himself are in agreement with this.

Not the statement about Hurin, but your conclusion.

I am just going by what Tolkien said.

Did I ever say that I do not take Hurin's greatness literally? I said that I admire his strength of will very very very much. And I don't see why I should not also agree about the hobbits' greatness. What I am liberal in reading are superlatives, because I am hesitant to start ranking people and deeds based on pokemon cards.

Ranking people in terms of might does not turn things into a Pokemon game. Tolkien does it all the time in LOTR. Melkor was the mightiest of the Ainur. The Valar were mightier than the Maiar. Maiar are mightier than men. The ranking has always been there and is part of life. Some people have greater will power and strength than others the same way some people are taller and stronger.

The way you look on things is up to you. Denethor was the time to look down and scorn people less gifted than he was. Faramir was the type to show understanding and try and help them.

Alright then. Whose will was stronger, Merry's when he stabbed the Nazgul or Pippin's when he looked in the Palantir? Go, judge, rank. Good luck to you.

Well Merry succeeding to the right thing and stab the Witch King is for me the greater strength than Pippin giving in and looking in the Palantir.

Just, because we are not aware of all the details does not stop as from being able to make a decision. This judgement call is precisely what a judge does when he passes sentence.

Tolkien as the writer of the story has a greater insight into the strength of will needed for certain deeds. So I respect his judgment on such matters.

So you're that keen on having everything laid out from most to least. Why? Why do you need to rank things? Why can you not just appreciate each for what they are independent of any other?

Actually I don't feel the need to rank things and do appreciate them for what they are. The bigger question is why are you so against ranking things? Especially when it's the author laying it out for you. The ironic thing is by judging the Hobbit's resilience as something 'great' you are already ranking it. The use of the word great means you have already ranked it above something you would consider mundane or average.

Then how does this sound to you:

Gandalf - 400 strength -- 550 magic -- 450 mind
Aragorn - 350 strength -- 400 magic -- 400 mind
Boromir - 400 strength -- 300 magic -- 200 mind
Gimli - 450 strength -- 350 magic -- 250 mind

You see what I mean? Do you like LOTR, The Sil, etc when they are laid out like that?

No, because metaphysical things are things we don't have a way of measuring accurately. That being said we the LOTR is clear that in strength of spirit Gandalf is greater than Aragorn and Aragorn is greater than Boromir. To reject that is to reject one of the facts in the books and in my opinion equal to rejecting Eowyn as a blonde.

That applies to both sides, you know.

Of course, but I am not the one arguing that we reject the author's words when there is no contradiction.

It takes away from the appreciation of the reader to have it all laid out and ranked like Pokemon cards. Oooh, this one is stronger, it has more points!

You keep taking things back to Pokemon, but that's never been the way things work in LOTR. However, there has always been a ranking from Melkor at the top down to the Valar and Ainur. The wizards themselves were assigned an order and rank.

Arda has it's own order in it and you want to reject all this. You are advocating a chaos where we are ignorant of that different beings are greater or less, but that's not the world we are given.

Actually, I decided Feanor wasn't the son of Finwe at all, but Miriel had a secret affair with Melkor. This explains everything. She doesn't want to come back from the dead because she's ashamed and afraid. Feanor has skill beyond any other elf. He has quite the character but also quite the charisma. He's so concerned with fighting for his place as Finwe's firstborn son. There's clearly something going on between him and Morgoth when you look at their interactions. Isn't it obvious?

...You realize I'm doing this just for fun, right?

There are some things that are facts. Lorien lies to the West of the Misty Mountains. The Misty Mountains are mountains. Galadriel has golden hair.

There are some things which are opinion-like descriptions. Galadriel is the fairest. Lorien is the fairest. Celeborn is the wisest.

There are some things you take as givens. They are husband and wife. There are some things you take as enhancements of the text and of your understanding. Galadriel is the fairest.

Now this is the crux of the debate. For Tolkien at least the question of spiritual power is not one of opinion. Melkor has the most might out of anything ever created.

If Hurin had the mightiest spirit out of any man, this is not an opinion. This is actually a fact.

Just, because we lack the abilities to judge strength of will in real life, does not make it so in a story.

If Tolkien tells us Turin was taller than Hurin, then this is as much a fact as if he told as Hurin had the greater strength of will to me.

If you claim that Luthien is the fairest, are you then claiming Tolkien lied about Arwen and Galadriel being the fairest? Because that's what you're suggesting. You are picking your winner based on the number of times her beauty is praised, but that doesn't really erase the other two candidates and the statements that clearly say they are the fairest.

When did Tolkien ever contradict Luthien as the fairest? A contradiction is not a lie whether it flows from a desire to have different opinions in a story or a genuine mistake. That being said Luthien is consistently mentioned as the fairest. You may wish for Galadriel to be a fellow competitor for the title, but this is just not there in Tolkien's work.

I do not reject Luthien's beauty, or Hurin's willpower. I do not deny that they surpass most others'. But I also value the subjective things - the situation, the effort, the sacrifice - and take them into account. The problem I have with your approach is that in ranking people and things it takes things out of context and diminishes the value of things that are not the "---est". Moreover, I want to ask you, how far do you want to go? What's next? giving points for number of ocrs killed? Tricks performed? Better weapons? I do not and cannot agree to this approach. I have stated my thoughts on the matter, I hope with enough clarity. If you want to continue discussing this, perhaps we can take it to PMs instead of filling this thread with tangential debates.

My approach does not diminish the value of other great deeds, unless you place importance on only being the best. If you only want to be the strongest or your favourite character to be the most beautiful then it diminishes them.

However, if you value beauty or the greatness of the act itself then what does it matter? Do you look down on a gift a friend gives you, because he gave someone else a more expensive gift? Do you stand and look at a beautiful landscape and think less of it, because years back you saw a more beautiful landscape?

There is beauty and value in all great deeds whether some are greater than others. As I said before by calling something a 'great deed' or saying someone has 'strong will' you have already began to place rank it.

It's best we agree to disagree on this matter.

[Belegorn]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Nazism in my opinion (controversial as it maybe) is an example of what can happen when you take Nietzscheism down a certain road.

I'd say it's when his philosophy is misrepresented, but not really put into practice. Nietzsche was used as a figurehead thanks to his sister, but the Nazis had as little to do with Nietzsche's philosophy as whatever you can describe as being like oil and water.

[Ivriniel]

@Celludur

Galadriel is a Queen. High Queen, in fact, not of 'all of the Noldor' (and because she is blended of all three kindreds, Noldor, Vanyar and Teleri, and in fact, of Royal lineage of all three houses). She most certainly is a Queen.

Her grandfather was Finwe, and her father Finarfin. Finarfin's mother is Indis of the Vanyar. Eawen, was daughter of Olwe of Alqualonde (not just Telerin, but a Royal Telerin Elf). Earwen wedded Finarfin.

Although she never inherited the High Kingship of the Eldar in Exile after Gil Galad was slain, that's not for lack of legitimacy in title. It's for the patrilineal emphasis in Elven Royalty, who, unlike the Numenoreans, never allowed females to access the High Kingship.

She was, however, most eligible, and arguably, more so than Elrond (he never saw the Light of Aman).

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

Which letter please? I need some context here.

I am sorry I don't remember. It was something I briefly noticed whilst looking for something else, but I can find it during the weekend.

But that means that the 'truth' of the Two Trees is now questionable as a Mannish myth.

I don't think there is much doubt that Tolkien wanted to remove the 'Two Trees' as a Mannish myth. His problem was how to translate it, into the 'true history.'

Well, but I don't see how this, or a few examples, necessarily supports the great shift in thinking that you appear to be referencing.

It seems to me that there are always going to be arguable examples of Tolkien working out what he wants to present as 'true' in the sense of 'it exists in the legendarium', but the general scenario -- from older to later as far as The Silmarillion goes -- appears to be a move away from directness of transmission so that the story of the Two Trees can be preserved...

... not the absolute truth that that's how the Sun and Moon really came to be, however.

Except he didn't seem particularly keen on preserving the 'Two Trees'. Others urged him to do it, but he described such a cosmology story as absurd and ridiculous for intelligent elves to believe. He sought out ways to write 'true accounts' but in my opinion and others he let read them, they lack the beauty of the 'Two Trees'.

You see, here you refer to the 'bias' of Rumil, but I brought that up only as a sheer possibility when we had two variant traditions written at the same time [early 1950s], and within the scenario of the later transmission too, since that allows for more error.

What texts are you talking about with 'originally' here? According to this...



... I assume it is before the late 1950s.

Maybe I'm confused at this point, but you seem to be saying that Tolkien moved away from 'mistranslation' about the time he began to recharacterize the Silmarillion as largely Mannish, which to my mind allows for more mistranslation and variation that within the Elfwine scenario, Elfwine himself receiving the tales direct from Eressean speakers and putting them into Old English...

... to Tolkien's doorstep I guess.

Still generally speaking.

My point is when he started to disregard previous drafts as Mannish myths, he went about trying to write 'accurate accounts' of the myths.

For example explaining how when the elves were created Morgoth had the world created in a smog, but Manwe blew away the smog during the night and the elves first saw the stars and loved them ever since.

It's around this time he refocuses on things like the Children of Hurin and begins to hammer out things like makeup of orcs.

[Ivriniel]

About moral relativism in the Mythology--meh--I see what is being argued, but the mythology does take either of a moral universalist's or moral absolutist's emphasis a about good and evil. Evil is caste more as something tangible, and as an 'essence', and not as the relativists put it in our world, where, for example, 'one man's terrorist is another's hero'.

In the Tolkien mythology, Evil was something that could be 'incarnate'. It was not merely extreme narcissism, or psychopathy, as we often attribute to evil in our world. It was not merely the lust and power and pleasure of killing, or of enslaving, or sadism. Sauron was, indeed, sadistic, and a power hungry freak, bent on invading everyone's will with his own, and controlling everything. A bit like an overgrown tantruming child really.

The evil of Sauron and Morgoth was more. It was something that had 'fell' attributes. It syphoned life, and more. It perverted the essence of life. It rotted, violated, seduced and corrupted. But by these things, we're meaning, for example, the black breath of the Ringwraiths. The paralysing fear created by staring into a Dragon's eye (though that is more magical fear than evil), and the capacity to use magical powers to mar and unmake beauty.....

Moral relativism is very different. In a moral relativist's universe, Mirkwood would not get all scary and nasty, just by having a tyrant take over to install another regime. Magical power, itself, would not be good or evil, it would merely be magical power, but in Middle Earth, certain magical effects were somehow, innately vile.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

My point is when he started to disregard previous drafts as Mannish myths, he went about trying to write 'accurate accounts' of the myths.

For example explaining how when the elves were created Morgoth had the world created in a smog, but Manwe blew away the smog during the night and the elves first saw the stars and loved them ever since.

It's around this time he refocuses on things like the Children of Hurin and begins to hammer out things like makeup of orcs.

So you mean the 'Myths Transformed' phase? This is where my confusion arises, as for me Tolkien abandoned these new attempts at a 'more accurate' cosmology -- more accurate because the Elves of the West should know better...

... but his solution was [as can be illlustrated by various late notes and commentary in my opinion]: retain the Two Trees [at least in Quenta Silmarillion], as JRRT recharacterizes Quenta Silmarillion as a largely Mannish affair. Christopher Tolkien even comments [Myths Transformed] that his father seems to have found his answer, but didn't employ it at once in any case, with the writing of these transformed versions [Manwe blowing away the smoke and so on]...

... but it is the ultimate acceptance that the Silmarillion is mostly a Mannish affair that allows Tolkien to retain the less accurate but more beautiful tales, without transformation. And to employ the idea means no need to rewrite: the Elves of the West are no longer telling their version of Cosmology direct to Elfwine.

In short don't make the myths more accurate, keep them and make certain sources hail from a folk who are less informed than the Elves of the West, some of whom had been in contact with the Powers or Maiar.

But this is all about transmission in any case, and speaks to a general scenario in which [again in my opinion] opens up the door to more variation, and actually I think it is relatively late that Tolkien 'ratifies' The Drowning of Anadune [DA] as a viable text in his legendarium, exactly because he now accepts that there need not be merely one version of the Drowning of Numenor, and that DA nicely contained Mannish confusions.

Anyway I'm not sure the idea you are suggesting [if I still understand it properly that is] can be proven objectively, at least easily. For instance you brought up orcs, but to my mind Tolkien only 'needed' [I'm not sure he really 'needed'] to hammer out the origin of Orcs because of a notable shift in thinking --

-- but that shift was that Evil could not create souls, or true living beings.

And the note published in Unfinished Tales might possibly be Tolkien's latest remark about Orc-origins, yet -- as he had done with the Orcs from Elves theory, putting the idea in the mouths of the Eressean Wise -- JRRT puts the matter [Orcs from Men] as something the Eldar said or believed.


On the possible other hand I have posted before that Tolkien as Subcreator 'should' be, and was, greatly concerned with consistency, and that the purposed inconsistencies should be like pepper in the soup -- some measure will actually help make the Subcreated World more believable, but too much will, or at least might, serve to help 'ruin' the taste. That measure is Tolkien's of course, but I am here speaking of a potential, ultimate legendarium published by the author himself [which is different from various draft texts when Tolkien is trying to work out the version of a given text]...

... but yet seemingly contrary to this [arguably] I also maintain that Tolkien was, in later life, more open to publishing textual variations like The Drowning of Anadune, a text that presents some drastic variations compared to earlier ideas [the shape of the world in origin being round, for example], and a text which was to be as much a part of the Legendarium as was Akallabeth; and again a text [DA] which also contained purposed confusion, like the Mannish authors confusing the Eldar with the Powers for instance.

And with respect to the Silmarillion related writings, Tolkien got more caught up in 'philosophical' issues, or with trying to explain the nature of the Elvish fea for example, or why Men could not live in Aman due to their inherent gift and so on... and maybe that's what you mean by more accurate and less mistranslation, I don't know.

But I'm guessing we might be mostly talking past each other here? Not that that's a bad thing necessarily, but I'm still not wholly sure we are going to place the same subjective characterizations upon a given example of Tolkien seemingly doing X at a given phase in in his life.

At least not in every case

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

So you mean the 'Myths Transformed' phase? This is where my confusion arises, as for me Tolkien abandoned these new attempts at a 'more accurate' cosmology -- more accurate because the Elves of the West should know better...

... but his solution was [as can be illlustrated by various late notes and commentary in my opinion]: retain the Two Trees [at least in Quenta Silmarillion], as JRRT recharacterizes Quenta Silmarillion as a largely Mannish affair. Christopher Tolkien even comments [Myths Transformed] that his father seems to have found his answer, but didn't employ it at once in any case, with the writing of these transformed versions [Manwe blowing away the smoke and so on]...

... but it is the ultimate acceptance that the Silmarillion is mostly a Mannish affair that allows Tolkien to retain the less accurate but more beautiful tales, without transformation. And to employ the idea means no need to rewrite: the Elves of the West are no longer telling their version of Cosmology direct to Elfwine.

In short don't make the myths more accurate, keep them and make certain sources hail from a folk who are less informed than the Elves of the West, some of whom had been in contact with the Powers or Maiar.

But this is all about transmission in any case, and speaks to a general scenario in which [again in my opinion] opens up the door to more variation, and actually I think it is relatively late that Tolkien 'ratifies' The Drowning of Anadune [DA] as a viable text in his legendarium, exactly because he now accepts that there need not be merely one version of the Drowning of Numenor, and that DA nicely contained Mannish confusions.

I don't think Tolkien ever did 'abandon' trying to translate the myths. He simply found the task very difficult and moved onto stories he did not have to 'translate' like the Children of Hurin.

He used the Mannish myths as an excuse to keep the prior cosmology and stories like the return of Turin. However, in his later works like the Children of Hurin, there is no mention of Turin returning. If he was still writing the as from a Mannish Numenorean perspective then he would have kept the Turin prophecies in. The fact that he now disregards them in his new story, supports the idea he is trying to write a more 'accurate' version of events.

Anyway I'm not sure the idea you are suggesting [if I still understand it properly that is] can be proven objectively, at least easily. For instance you brought up orcs, but to my mind Tolkien only 'needed' [I'm not sure he really 'needed'] to hammer out the origin of Orcs because of a notable shift in thinking --

-- but that shift was that Evil could not create souls, or true living beings.

And the note published in Unfinished Tales might possibly be Tolkien's latest remark about Orc-origins, yet -- as he had done with the Orcs from Elves theory, putting the idea in the mouths of the Eressean Wise -- JRRT puts the matter [Orcs from Men] as something the Eldar said or believed.

His last word on the topic seems t be orcs from corrupted spirits and men, bred by Sauron during Morgoth's captivity. It seems for this reason that orcs are not to be treated like mere beast and are under the 'Law' which beast are not.

On the possible other hand I have posted before that Tolkien as Subcreator 'should' be, and was, greatly concerned with consistency, and that the purposed inconsistencies should be like pepper in the soup -- some measure will actually help make the Subcreated World more believable, but too much will, or at least might, serve to help 'ruin' the taste. That measure is Tolkien's of course, but I am here speaking of a potential, ultimate legendarium published by the author himself [which is different from various draft texts when Tolkien is trying to work out the version of a given text]...

... but yet seemingly contrary to this [arguably] I also maintain that Tolkien was, in later life, more open to publishing textual variations like The Drowning of Anadune, a text that presents some drastic variations compared to earlier ideas [the shape of the world in origin being round, for example], and a text which was to be as much a part of the Legendarium as was Akallabeth; and again a text [DA] which also contained purposed confusion, like the Mannish authors confusing the Eldar with the Powers for instance.

And with respect to the Silmarillion related writings, Tolkien got more caught up in 'philosophical' issues, or with trying to explain the nature of the Elvish fea for example, or why Men could not live in Aman due to their inherent gift and so on... and maybe that's what you mean by more accurate and less mistranslation, I don't know.

But I'm guessing we might be mostly talking past each other here? Not that that's a bad thing necessarily, but I'm still not wholly sure we are going to place the same subjective characterizations upon a given example of Tolkien seemingly doing X at a given phase in in his life.

At least not in every case

I think the chief difference is that I believe Tolkien still wanted to keep the discarded stories, but only as Mannish myths. Not for everything of course, but for things like the Arda existing before the Sun we should take the story with a pinch of salt and realise they are mistakes.

However, for things he tried to edit later like Glorfindel's identity or Turin's story he wants to hand down a more accurate version.

As you said I don't think we will have to discuss this point on every topic, because you don't believe he left contrary stories deliberately on every story and I don't believe he left only one clear version on every story.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

-Galin, I think that physical description of the Eldar in the "Return of the King" appendices may indeed refer to those of Middle-earth only- if you assume the point is to describe the Eldar as Men knew them (in which case the appearance of the Vanyar isn't relevant).

That's a valid point, which I hadn't considered; but it is reinforced by the end of the passage that says "they are all now gone"- cert. a reference to Middle-earth and not the Elves in Aman!

[Nerwen]

cellurdur, let me explain something, re: ranking. No-one would doubt that some characters are meant to be more powerful than others, or better-looking, or taller, or whatever. What I, G55 and others take issue with is your belief that all the major characters can be precisely, objectively and definitively graded on this basis.

You have, as requested- thank you!- demonstrated your own system for doing this, which seems to involve taking various statements and descriptions written by Tolkien over the years, and making them add up by means of what I'd have to call "selective literalism". If that satisfies you, well and good. However, in my opinion your conclusions are by no means the only possible ones, even on your own terms, nor does disagreeing with them, or even disputing the validity of what you are doing, mean "advocating a chaos".

That is all.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

That's a valid point, which I hadn't considered; but it is reinforced by the end of the passage that says "they are all now gone"- cert. a reference to Middle-earth and not the Elves in Aman!

Well, I'd never thought of it before myself until I re-read the passage a couple of days ago.

The difficulty is that at the start Tolkien is clearly referring to the Elves of Aman (and, by implication, the Vanyar) as well: "...Eldar, the name of the *Three* Kindreds that sought for the Undying Ream..."

So at some point the subject changes from all the Eldar to those of Middle-earth only. My guess is that the key is in the next sentence where he starts talking about "...such memories of this people as Men preserved...".

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

cellurdur, let me explain something, re: ranking. No-one would doubt that some characters are meant to be more powerful than others, or better-looking, or taller, or whatever. What I, G55 and others take issue with is your belief that all the major characters can be precisely, objectively and definitively graded on this basis.

Where do I say that all major characters can be precisely and objectively graded on any particular basis? You are pulling a strawman argument. I said certain things can be ranked and Tolkien is often very clear with no contradiction when he wants this to be the case. Arguing against Luthien being the fairest, Feanor the greatest craftsman or Earendil the greatest mariner. I don't feel the need or argue that we can rate say whether Faramir was fairer than Boromir, or Denethor had more Numenorean qualities than Faramir.

You have, as requested- thank you!- demonstrated your own system for doing this, which seems to involve taking various statements and descriptions written by Tolkien over the years, and making them add up by means of what I'd have to call "selective literalism". If that satisfies you, well and good. However, in my opinion your conclusions are by no means the only possible ones, even on your own terms, nor does disagreeing with them, or even disputing the validity of what you are doing, mean "advocating a chaos".

That is all.

Once again you are misrepresenting my argument. I don't just go around with a pen marking every time Fingon is called strong and then declare him to be the strongest. I don't particular care of think we have anyway of knowing if Fingon had a stronger will than Finrod.

What I do look at is when a character is called the best at something repeatedly with no contradictions. In such a case I accept what Tolkien is telling me and don't try reject it, because I want my favourite character to have more prominence.

Luthien is called the fairest, with no competition, no contradiction throughout different stories, different drafts etc. Earendil is called the mightiest mariner throughout the story once more with no contradictions. These statements are important to the story and are points Tolkien stresses. I wonder if the resistance to such statements is to elevate personal favourites to a higher role than Tolkien wrote.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

I don't think Tolkien ever did 'abandon' trying to translate the myths. He simply found the task very difficult and moved onto stories he did not have to 'translate' like the Children of Hurin.

I don't know what you mean by 'translate' here. All the tales have been translated in theory. Do you mean into Old English? If so I'm not sure how that fits into your argument.

He used the Mannish myths as an excuse to keep the prior cosmology and stories like the return of Turin. However, in his later works like the Children of Hurin, there is no mention of Turin returning. If he was still writing the as from a Mannish Numenorean perspective then he would have kept the Turin prophecies in. The fact that he now disregards them in his new story, supports the idea he is trying to write a more 'accurate' version of events.

Rather in a later text concerning the Second Prophecy, Andreth foretells of Turin's return at the War of Wrath. And in Morgoth's Ring Tolkien clearly recharacterizes the Second Prophecy as a Mannish myth.

His last word on the topic seems t be orcs from corrupted spirits and men, bred by Sauron during Morgoth's captivity. It seems for this reason that orcs are not to be treated like mere beast and are under the 'Law' which beast are not.

My point was that Tolkien, in my opinion was originally being 'accurate' in that Morgoth made Orcs [granted, merely in the sense that this is the version of the tale he wants imparted to readers]. This was the tale given to Elfwine. Later this could not be so, so JRRT looks for another idea. Not because of accuracy in general in my opinion, but because of a shift in thinking that Evil could not create in this way. I'm not sure how this examples illustrates Tolkien trying to be more accurate, in some sense, in his later life.

And in the late text I mentioned JRRT isn't giving us an objective fact, but an Elvish belief. That's not necessarily accurate in another sense, at least it's not necessarily objectively true -- while on the other hand it would still [arguably] be the version if no other variant opinions are given, in the sense of what is presented to the reader about the matter].

I think the chief difference is that I believe Tolkien still wanted to keep the discarded stories, but only as Mannish myths. Not for everything of course, but for things like the Arda existing before the Sun we should take the story with a pinch of salt and realise they are mistakes.

Why is this a difference? It's what I've been saying too

However, for things he tried to edit later like Glorfindel's identity or Turin's story he wants to hand down a more accurate version.

Again I don't get why you use these as examples of accurate. In my opinion Tolkien merely decided to answer the question of 'two Glorfindels'. I'm guessing you mean Tolkien wants to clear up this mystery, but from his perspective this was not a mystery to his readers in any case, as there was only ever one Glorfindel as far as many fans knew.

In any case there are different ways to be accurate and maybe that's part of why we are talking past each other at times.

As you said I don't think we will have to discuss this point on every topic, because you don't believe he left contrary stories deliberately on every story and I don't believe he left only one clear version on every story.

Very well but who does believe that Tolkien meant to have variations for every tale, and who does believe that he only left one clear version of every story.

I would guess no one