Lothlorien in the 2nd age

[Thingol]

When Sauron invaded Eriador, destroyed Eregion, and sieged Rivendell what was Galadriel doing? I know Tolkien states that the doors of Khazad-dum where shut when Eregion was destroyed. Lothlorien is very close to Khazud-dum and it seems very unlikely that Sauron would leave such a powerful enemy at his rear. It is equally unlikely that Galadriel would just sit by and let Sauron overrun ME. Did Tolkien ever mention what Galadriel and Celeborn were doing during the war with Sauron? On a side note are we ever told when in the Second Age Galadriel gets Narya?

[Aralaithiel]

Have you read "The Silmarillion?" It is the history of the Elves and goes into how the rings were acquired by their various holders. It is truly fascinating reading...I highly recommend it.
[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Thingol]

I've read it several times, just not in a while, I didn't realize it was in there. Strange, you'd think I'd remember that, I usually skip the last part and just read till the end of the first age.

[Elrian]

Originally posted by Thingol:
<STRONG>When Sauron invaded Eriador, destroyed Eregion, and sieged Rivendell what was Galadriel doing? I know Tolkien states that the doors of Khazad-dum where shut when Eregion was destroyed. Lothlorien is very close to Khazud-dum and it seems very unlikely that Sauron would leave such a powerful enemy at his rear. It is equally unlikely that Galadriel would just sit by and let Sauron overrun ME. Did Tolkien ever mention what Galadriel and Celeborn were doing during the war with Sauron? On a side note are we ever told when in the Second Age Galadriel gets Narya?</STRONG>

The story Of Galadriel and Celeborn is in Unfinished Tales. Amroth was King of Lothlorien at the time Rivendell was besieged. In the tale of years in appendix B you'll see that aid was sent from Lothlorien.

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Elrian ]

[Man-of-the-Wold]

Well, there is some confusion about Celeborn's and Galadriel's whereabouts during the Second and much of the Third Age, but the Unfinished Tales provides an excellent set of alternative constructions by Tolkien. Some are not internally very sound, and they certainly don't agree with one another.

In his later years, JRRT, from what I'm reading in Letters... and The History... too, was developing a very ambitious history for Galadriel, and building her up to have been a much more complex and distinctive then what The Silmirillion (as it was ultimately published) presented. The Lord of the Rings has elements that hint at this, but it touches on Galadriel's past mysteriously. Unfortunately, he was mortal, and not too diligent about finalizing his total vision of Middle-Earth.

So, the following is how I tend to summarize the Galadriel story (off the top of my head) in a way that complements the published works -- i.e., the sacred texts:

In the First Age, Galadriel and Celeborn ("G&C") were hanging in Doriath. She was a very notable leader of the Noldorin exiles, and her beauty, strength of will, and inner power put her on a par with even Feanor among the decendents of Finwe.

Celeborn was in effect her second cousin, being a grandchild of Elmo, who like Olwe was a brother of Elu Thingol. They married sometime then. [I personally believe that in time, they left Doriath and explored east of the Ered Luin for many years. This would provide consistency with her statement to Frodo in Book II (although Tolkien may have had a more richer tale in mind then, however), and it would explain why there is no mention of them in The Silmirillion from before the Dagor Bragollach until the very end.]

At the start of the Second Age there is considerable question about whether the Valar expressively banned Galadriel from returning to Eldamar, because she was one (the last) of the rebellion's leaders. I believe that there was no formal ban as such, and that the Valar were in a forgiving mood, but that there was in effect a ban (albeit rather self-imposed) because of the unavoidability for Galadriel in having to have sought pardon in returning, combined with her own pride, desire to do great things, and concern with Middle Earth in the face of evil clearly survived Morgoth, as well as Celeborn's reluctance to leave then.

I think that this more nuanced interpretation of the "ban" makes Galadriel's realization and humility in Book II at the Mirror with Frodo all the more special and profound. [And, I daresay, Cate Blanchett, nailed it!] For at that point, she knew that her part was fulfilled, and that her pride and ambitions absolved, whereas she had not previously known of her longing for absolution. Total epiphany.

In any event, at the beginning of the Second Age, G&C were in Lindon with Gil-Galad, Cirdan and Elrond, but that during those early centuries they led Grey/Green/High-Elves eastward, initially settling in Evendim for a time, which is where Celebrian may have been born. [To make Amroth their son is not possible given the published works, and there is plenty of unpublished material that fully identifies him as the son of another Sindarin lord, who was a King of Lothlorien, killed by the Third Age].

As for G&C, it is clear that they did not permanently live together in Lothlorien or rule it, as "Lady and Lord," until after the coming of the Balrog to Moria, and Amroth's subsequent departure from Lothlorien, which left the predominantly Silvan Elves of that realm without adequate leadership.

So, between dwelling in Lindon/Evendim at the beginning of the Second Age -- and their taking up governance in Lothlorien nearly two-thirds of the way into the Third Age -- G&C either together or separately spent significant time in several places, including: Eregion, Lothlorien, Rivendell, Lindon, Edhellond on the Bay of Belfalas and possibly Greenwood the Great or points east of the Great River.

The following is a "more or less" chronological set of significant actions and events that they took or were involved with during that period, and until their leaving Middle-Earth:[LIST][*]G&C (and others) lead Eldar, mostly Noldor, in establishing the realm of Eregion[*]Galadriel treats with and befriends (sans Celeborn, of course) the dwarves of Khazad-dum (maybe traveling through it between Eregion and Lothlorien)[*]Galadriel helps organize the Silvan Elves of that region to better resist the vague evil emanating from the East[*]Galadriel receives the (2nd) Elessar from Celebrimbor, which she uses for the strengthening of Lothlorien during the Second Age[*]Galadriel forbids Annatar (Sauron) from entering Lothlorien, spurning his entreaties among Elves that harken to her, Celeborn's or Gil-Galad's doubts and warnings[*]Discord between G&C and Celebrimbor/elven-smith guild concerning the lordship and future direction of Eregion, perhaps influenced by Annatar (Sauron)[*]Sauron's identity and treachery is revealed to Celebrimbor, and he entrusts Nenya (Ring of Water, Adament, White Ring) to Galadriel, while giving Vilya and Narya to Gil-Galad/Cirdan.[*]Sauron attacks Eregion, he is met by forces led by Celeborn, but along with Elrond's army out of Lindon, is repulsed and retreats to Imladris[*]Eregion overrun, Ost-in-Edhil destroyed, Celebrimbor killed, and the other 15 or 16 rings (assuming that Durin's folk may have received theirs directly) are seized and later distributed by Sauron; some Noldorin refugees flee through Moria to Lothlorien, where Galadriel likely is at that time, while most survivors make it to Imladris.[*]Elves from Lothlorien and Dwarves from Moria attack Sauron's forces from the rear, but are driven back, at which time Moria's west door is shut, and Imladris is besieged as Eriador is overrun[*]Gil-Galad and the Elves of Lindon (because of the Numenorean army and navy, arriving in the nick of time) defeat Sauron at Sarn Ford and near what became Tharbad[*]Western lands liberated as the army of Mordor is routed, not least by forces issuing from Imladris and led by Elrond, and likely Celeborn too[*]First White Council; Elrond encounters and falls in love with Celebrian, while G&C are abiding in Imladris[*]Last Alliance of Elves and Men; Sindarin-led Silvan Elves fight; Celeborn probably also participates [conceivably leading a contingency from Edhellond directly to Anarion's aid][*]Sauron defeated (for a time), One ring taken, but lost when Isildur perishes at the Disaster of the Gladden Fields. Elves wield and create great good with Three Rings.[*]Elrond & Celebrian wed; Elladan, Elrohir and Arwen born; Galadriel gives Celebrian the Elessar, later received by Arwen [*]Arrival of the Istari; evil increasingly spreads through Greenwood the Great (Mirkwood); Third-age conventions of the White Council[*]Dol Guldor manifests itself as dark citidel of a "Necromancer;" Angmar rises and attacks Arnor, Elves of Lothlorien aid in the containment of Angmar; Rivendell at times besieged; Arnor eventually conquered, but Realm of Angmar vanquished by combined forces of Gondor, Elves and others.[*]Dwarves of Moria flee Balrog; Amroth and Nimrodel leave Lothlorien to sail into West but lost in the sea/hills of Gondor.[*]G&C take up permanent residence in Lothlorien; Lothlorien transformed by power of Galadriel and Nenya, which is used to counter growing menace of Dol Guldor[*]Gandalf forces Sauron's temporary retreat from Dol Guldor (Watchful Peace)[*]Watchful Peace ends; Smeagol finds One Ring and hides in Misty Mountains[*]Galadriel assists in the Riding of Eorlingas to the Battle of the Field Celebrant[*]Celebrian captured in Redhorn Pass and tormented; sails into West[*]Battle of the Gates of Moria[*]Increasing corruption of Saruman, especially as he resents Galadriel's and the other Eldar's preference for Gandalf, who verifies the Necromancer to be Sauron returned[*]Bilbo finds One Ring; final meeting of White Council and the driving out/feigning of Sauron, before he declares himself from Barad-dur[*]Aragorn comes to Lothlorien, meets Arwen, and gives Ring of Barahir (originally belonging to Galadriel's brother, Finrod) to Arwen as token of betrothel[*]Fellowship of the Ring, meeting of Galadriel and the Ringbearer[*]War of the Ring; Lothlorien attacked three times but prevails; Dol Goldor overthrown by Celeborn and destroyed by Galadriel; East Lorien established as Celeborn's domain in Southern Mirkwood[*]Riding of the fair folk to Gondor; wedding of Arwen and Aragorn; G&C return to Lothlorien from Hollin[*]Sailing of the ringbearers; Galadriel finally returns to Eldamar; Lothlorien largely deserted[*]Celeborn stays in Imladris with Elrond's sons; passing of Arwen[*]Celeborn eventually goes into the West, quite possibly with Cirdan and the Last Ship.

************

Namariae

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Man-of-the-Wold ]

[Thingol]

Wow, very thorough, thanks Man of the Wold. I've always believed that the ban was more self-imposed than enforced by the Valar myself.

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[Tar Elenion]

Re Galadriel's Ban:
While some late (posthumously published) variants indicate changes in the characterization of Galadriel, JRRT actually published very specific statements on her association with the Exile and the Ban in RGEO:
"The question Sí man i yulma nin enquantuva? and the question at the end of her song (Vol. I, p. 389), What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?, refer to the special position of Galadriel. She was the last survivor of the princes and queens who had led the revolting Noldor to exile in Middle-earth. After the overthrow of Morgoth at the end of the First Age a ban was set upon her return, and she had replied proudly that she had no wish to do so. She passed over the Mountains of Eredluin with her husband Celeborn (one of the Sindar) and went to Eregion. But it was impossible for one of the High-Elves to overcome the yearning for the Sea, and the longing to pass over it again to the land of their former bliss. She was now burdened with this desire. In the event, after the fall of Sauron, in reward for all that she had done to oppose him, but above all for her rejection of the Ring when it came within her power, the ban was lifted, and she returned over the Sea, as is told at the end of The Lord of the Rings.
The last lines of the chant express a wish (or hope) that though she could not go, Frodo might perhaps be allowed to do so."

Road Goes Ever On.

[Aralaithiel]

Thank you! Thank you for setting me straight! I cannot believe that I referenced the wrong source! [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] Me bad!!! Now to go flog myself and read Unfinished Tales again (obviously, it has been too long!)!! I apologize profusely for the misinformation!

[Thingol]

Tar-Elenion and I have had this discussion before [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img] In the Unfinished Tales there are 3 accounts of Galadriel and Celeborn's wanderings. One of the accounts does indeed agree with the information given by Man of the World. However, in The Road Goes Ever On Tolkien comes out in favor of the ban being imposed and enforced by the Valar. Seeing as how there are 2 conflicting accounts written by Tolkien one can not prove beyond a doubt what his intentions might have been. It really falls under what your opinion of what the relationship between Galadriel and the Valar was like. Personally I think of the Valar as forgiving and Galadriel as proud. This is just one of those things where you have to make your own judgement.

[Man-of-the-Wold]

Yes, the following quote from the Road Goes Ever On is addressed in The Unfinished Tales, with respect to the question of the "Ban" on Galadriel:

Originally posted by Tar Elenion:
JRRT actually published [a] very specific statement on her association with the Exile and the Ban in RGEO:
'The question Sí man i yulma nin enquantuva? and the question at the end of her song (Vol. I, p. 389), What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?, refer to the special position of Galadriel. She was the last survivor of the princes and queens who had led the revolting Noldor to exile in Middle-earth. After the overthrow of Morgoth at the end of the First Age <STRONG>a ban was set upon her return, and she had replied proudly</STRONG> that she had no wish to do so. She passed over the Mountains of Eredluin with her husband Celeborn (one of the Sindar) and went to Eregion. But it was impossible for one of the High-Elves to overcome the yearning for the Sea, and the longing to pass over it again to the land of their former bliss. She was now burdened with this desire. In the event, after the fall of Sauron, in reward for all that she had done to oppose him, but above all for her rejection of the Ring when it came within her power, <STRONG>the ban was lifted,</STRONG> and she returned over the Sea, as is told at the end of The Lord of the Rings. The last lines of the chant express a wish (or hope) that though she could not go, Frodo might perhaps be allowed to do so.'

Road Goes Ever On.

(emphasis added)

My perspective is to treat The Lord of the Rings as gospel, rejecting anything contradicting with it. The Silmirillion and The Hobbit are only just in the same category. In terms of everything else (UT, Letters, HoME, &c.) -- some of which I'm still trying to get at, now, finally, after nearly 20 years of withdrawal -- I attempt in my imagination to make the absolute most of it all, at least by way of generalizations, such as what I expounded above, and of course, for answering my daughter's incessant queries. So, I then consider the following questions:

Road Goes Ever On?

Where does this fit into the set of sacred text?! I remember thumbing through one years ago, and I'm not sure about its availability now, or worthiness for reading. Still, what is quoted above can be accepted at face value, especially since it does not contradict anything in The Lord of the Rings (phew!).

Therefore, Galadriel was clearly subject to some sort of ban or hinderance imposed by or through the Valar to her initially returning to Eldamar.

Still, I'm left in doubt, because in The Silmirillion the far more culpable Maedhros and Maglor are invited by Eonwe to return and seek pardon.

Moreover, the above quote is quite pithy and very much begs greater insight into the relationship and communication of Galadriel and the Valar in this regard.

My discomfort arises from trying to see this in legal or casual, human-type terms. Would the Valar have simply prevented entry, deported or imprisoned her for the lack of the proper Visa? Taking the chant literally, was Cirdan under order to not provide her with passage? But that might get at the mark, in that there was something unresolved there, with which Cirdan or others could not interfere.

Nor, is this question of pardon a simple matter of being contrite and saying "lets be friends again." Rather, I tend to look at it more in a religious/chivalrous context. Galadriel was very high in the eyes of the Eldar, as well as the Valar, and perhaps even seen as dangerous unless clearly repentent; at the same time, she may have indeed been like a wayward child still needing to learn a great lesson.

"I'm Sorry, If You're Sorry!"

The pardon of Galadriel by the Valar could have been forthcoming, and even the Road Goes Ever On excerpt suggest that it was.

But implicitly, she would have needed to sincerely accept any such pardon -- i.e., in effect, admit to the wrong of her actions, pledge fealty and beg for the reinstitution of the Valar's grace. Failing to do so, there was a ban, and she responded truthfully I believe, in that she did not have any intention of leaving Middle-Earth at the end of the First Age, anyway, for the reasons that I noted in the post above.

What you end up with is really two parties talking at cross purposes. The Valar have their doubts about her readiness and faithfulness, which they seek to address through some sort of submission on her part.

Understandably, these doubts and the expectation of an apology are insulting to Galadriel, and Ulmo and others might even have conceded that as a nonparticipant in the kinslaying, Galadriel was not necessarily guilty of anything over which the Valar should seek to deal with, because the march of the Noldor to Middle-Earth was in some ways justified and noble in intent.

Nevertheless, a ban resulted from misunderstanding.

Then, after all that she had done to show the righteousness and steadfastness of her heart, the question of her accepting a pardon became moot. She had proved herself -- 'passed the test' -- in a way far more satisfying to the Valar, as well as herself.

Christopher Tolkien and Satisfaction

One reason that I tend to the above nuanced interpretation is that in reading the The Unfinished Tales, I sense that Christopher Tolkien does not really know how to judge the statement from the Road Goes Ever On. I wish I knew more about him; clearly his work as an editor for UT, HoME, &c. is a labor of love, but he very studiously sticks to a role as neutral editor.

Reading between the lines in UT, Part Two, IV he seems, however, dissatisfied accepting the notion of a straightforward ban on Galadriel's return. Assuming this intuition is correct, it should be given great respect in light of the rarity by which he evers offers opinion, implied or otherwise.

Therefore, I think that The Unfinished Tales through C. Tolkien makes the case implicitly for the "ban" as rather an irresolvable stalemate between the Valar on the one side, expecting to have their pardon accepted, and Galadriel, who not without reason, cannot go down that path, but who finally learns that she does need to prove herself to Valar, when she has done so, unlooked for, on her own terms. (Happy ending)

The Mirror of Galadriel

Lastly, I think the view of a simplistic ban, finally waived aside when Galadriel resists the temptation of the Ring, does not fully do justice to the depth of what transpires between the Ringbearer and the Lady of the Wood. I concur with Peter Jackson, it is one of the most pivotal scenes in The Lord of the Rings.

She has not only just done the right thing, but has seen something through Frodo that had been beyond her reckoning, as well as the fulfillment of her role. This is someone who's been alive for eons, and is on some level the equal of Sauron, and the greatest of the Children of Iluvatar then dwelling in Middle-Earth!

No she's earned the right to go into the West -- with Frodo -- and to live at peace with the Valar.

In many ways, I think that she had at that point truly avenged the deaths of her grandfather and brothers, and redeemed the Noldor for their past excesses, mistakes and, yes, sins. It may be a bit much, and I know JRRT may not have intended (or at least denied) any Christian symbolism [and I agree there is no allusion to the resurrection in Gandalf] in The Lord of the Rings; nevertheless, I see the Mirror scene as very much associated with the Sacrament of Baptism, which removes all sin, so that one comes to God and rejects all evil. And a conservative Catholic such as JRRT wouldn't have placed a women in the role of the priest, if you get my drift.

**********

"but she was of the Silvan Elves, and regretted the incoming of the Elves of the West, who (as she said) brought wars and destroyed the peace of old. . . . and she dwelt alone beside the falls of the river Nimrodel to which she gave her name."

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Man-of-the-Wold ]

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Man-of-the-Wold ]

[Tar Elenion]

----------
Quothe Man-of-the-Wold:
My perspective is to treat The Lord of the Rings as gospel, rejecting anything contradicting with it.
-----------

I agree, with certain qualifications, ie some errors are noted and corrected elsewhere. A prime example is in App A. Tar-Ardamin, the nineteenth ruler of Numenor, was left out. This is corrected and commented on in UT, 'The Line of Elros' and also commented on in PoME, History of the Akallabeth.

--------------
Quote:
The Silmirillion and The Hobbit are only just in the same category.
---------------

The Hobbit yes, with qualifications, noting the intent of the story. It needs to be taken as written as a children's tale for Hobbits and thus with some embellishment for some events (for example I just can't picture Elves singing 'tra la la lally').

The published Silmarillion no. It needs to be looked at with CT statements in the Forword ('a complete consistancy is not to be looked for'), before taking anything in the Silmarillion as 'canon'. It needs to be remembered that while mostly formed from completed narratives some of these were written very early (for example the 'Fall of Gondolin' was initially written in 1917 and while certain emendations could be gleaned from later writings on the subject JRRT never did a complete rewrite to bring it in line with the rest of the legendarium, which is likely the most regrettable event in the history of the corpus) and conflict with later writings (for example the parentage of Gil-galad (later writings make him the son of Orodreth and Orodreth the son of Angrod), or Galadriel being a _queen_ of the Woodland Elves (in 'Of the Rings of Power', written in the late 40's) while other later sources not that she was not (see UT, History of Galadriel and Celeborn, Amroth and Nimrodel (pg 245) and Letter 210)). Also note that for example, 'Of the Ruin of Doriath' was cobbled together from various narrative sources with emendation from CT and Guy Kay (see CT's excursus in WotJ, pg. 354+).

----------
Quote:
In terms of everything else (UT, Letters, HoME, &c.) -- some of which I'm still trying to get at, now, finally, after nearly 20 years of withdrawal -- I attempt in my imagination to make the absolute most of it all, at least by way of generalizations, such as what I expounded above,
-------------

Yes, and use it to recognize how things might or should have been. Letters et. al. give great insight into what JRRT intended.


-----------
Quote:
Road Goes Ever On?
Where does this fit into the set of sacred text?! I remember thumbing through one years ago, and I'm not sure about its availability now, or worthiness for reading. Still, what is quoted above can be accepted at face value, especially since it does not contradict anything in The Lord of the Rings (phew!).
---------------

Considering that JRRT saw fit to publish it, and it contains his own commentary, I place it right up there with LotR as 'canon', and ahead of 'The Hobbit'. It is fully compatible with his intent as late as 1967 (when its second edition was published).


-----------
Quote:
Therefore, Galadriel was clearly subject to some sort of ban or hinderance imposed by or through the Valar to her initially returning to Eldamar.

Still, I'm left in doubt, because in The Silmirillion the far more culpable Maedhros and Maglor are invited by Eonwe to return and seek pardon.
--------------

The passage you are looking at comes from 1937 (and Galadriel had yet to be invented), but even so does not say they were pardoned or would be granted a pardon, nor were they 'invited'. They were told the _must_ return and face _judgement_ ("and to Valinor must Maidros and Maglor return and there abide the judgement of the Valar"). Maglor says that perhaps they might be forgiven, and Maedhros responds that they might not.

---------
Quote:
Moreover, the above quote is quite pithy and very much begs greater insight into the relationship and communication of Galadriel and the Valar in this regard.

My discomfort arises from trying to see this in legal or casual, human-type terms. Would the Valar have simply prevented entry, deported or imprisoned her for the lack of the proper Visa? Taking the chant literally, was Cirdan under order to not provide her with passage? But that might get at the mark, in that there was something unresolved there, with which Cirdan or others could not interfere.
--------------

Perhaps Galadriel, as one of the leaders in the Rebellion, would have had to face 'judgement' as well. There was no assurance she would be pardoned. 'Galadriel you are summoned to Valinor to face the Judgement of the Valar for your actions in the Rebellion of the Noldor', 'I will not go to be judged, for I have done no wrong', 'Then you are banned from the West', 'I have no wish to go there anyways'.

----------
Quote:
Nor, is this question of pardon a simple matter of being contrite and saying "lets be friends again." Rather, I tend to look at it more in a religious/chivalrous context. Galadriel was very high in the eyes of the Eldar, as well as the Valar, and perhaps even seen as dangerous unless clearly repentent; at the same time, she may have indeed been like a wayward child still needing to learn a great lesson.
--------------

Galadriel being 'high' in the eyes of the Valar at this early stage in her life (she was still relatively young at this point) come from late writings when JRRT was considering these changes to her history and character.

----------
Quote:
"I'm Sorry, If You're Sorry!"
<snip>
---------

An interesting way to interpret it. I agree with some parts, but I think the Ban is explicit, and a 'misunderstanding' contrived. I actually think my interpretation above ('summoned to face judgement', 'no') is more likely, especilly given her pride, so early in her youth.


----------
Quote:
Christopher Tolkien and Satisfaction
<snip>
-----------

I do not read into it that CT was 'dissatisfied'. He notes that while JRRT doubtless intended to make these major changes, he also notes that JRRT was increasingly reluctant to change things that had already appeadred in print.


-------------
Quote:
The Mirror of Galadriel

Lastly, I think the view of a simplistic ban, finally waived aside when Galadriel resists the temptation of the Ring, does not fully do justice to the depth of what transpires between the Ringbearer and the Lady of the Wood.
--------------

I think the late sanitization of her history and motivations actually lessens her character. Rather than a character with 'human' flaws who has to grow and learn she becomes, in effect, 'Virgen Mary' as was suggested by for example Father Robert Murray (see letter 142).

---------------
Quote:
This is someone who's been alive for eons, and is on some level the equal of Sauron, and the greatest of the Children of Iluvatar then dwelling in Middle-Earth!
----------------

That's a little overboard.

--------------
Quote:
No she's earned the right to go into the West -- with Frodo -- and to live at peace with the Valar.
--------------

Yes, but the point is she had to earn that right. Of course that is also my bias, I prefer the flawed Galadriel, who grows and learns through time and experience, not the sanitized version.

[Man-of-the-Wold]

In response to Tar-Elenion

Your arguments with me seem to fall into two categories, on which of course we are not far apart, with regard to issues of little genuine importance. So, please don’t be offended if I seem argumentative.

First would be the proper treatment of the various books, and Second would be how I treat Galadriel.

You seem to think that I put her on a pedestal. Yes, perhaps, in terms of her greatest, which I find perfectly correct in view of the totality of Tolkien’s work, as I’ll explain below, but to say I characterize her as saintly reveals a careless review of my words.

With some possible exceptions, Tolkien portrays hardly anyone as all good or worthy, and if he does in the case of Gandalf or Aragorn, potentially, it is with sound reason in terms of the choices they have made in their lives.

No, I see Galadriel as a complex character, whose flaws, virtues and mistakes are simplistic neither in nature nor in origin, but have the depth that one might associate with a real person or an important literary character. Likewise, even the Valar are shown as flawed, in my opinion, in this and other respects. But first the books, whether as canon or canard:

The Books.

We seem to both agree that The Lord of the Rings is the ultimate benchmark, beyond reproach, except for technical problems mostly found in certain word usages or the appendices’ dates and listings, for which correction is easily accepted based on The Unfinished Tales or Letters . . ..

The Hobbit you downplay because of its child-oriented narration. Well, it is actually a very rich story, I feel, even if not up to the perfection of Rings. I can think of no significant fact that cannot be seen in some way as consistent with Rings, semantics aside, and I see no problem with even very silly-acting High Elves, which the narrator says is often thought of them, but is not true. In a way, if derived from Bilbo, as opposed to Frodo, it offers some contrast of perception about Middle-Earth and its history. I only wish more dimension of vantage point was there. I think of how Faulkner wrote stories that touched on the same events as told from different persons and contexts.

As for the The Silmarillion, I sense that you have a desire to disregard it, which seems somewhat common among “Barrow-downers.” But still, it’s a finished work of stories, and not just writings about writings. The criticism seems like whining in the “could’uv”, “would’uv” and “should’uv” vein. Yes! … it could have been better done, including by Christopher Tolkien with his own hindsight; it would have been done differently by JRR Tolkien (but when? . . . does anyone outside of Middle-Earth really live so long?!), and of course, many things in it should have been otherwise. And, I cannot recall any particular point from The Silmarillion that significantly contradicts something clearly said in Rings.

So, I accept as Christopher Tolkien describes in the Forward to The Book of Lost Tales, Part I:

“By the publication of ‘The Silmarillion’ the ‘longitudinal’ was cut ‘tranversely’, and a kind of finality imposed.” (emphasis added).

I also think that it is a fine and beautiful book, despite it’s problems, and thankfully free of endless annotation.

As for the Letters, The Unfinished Tales and The History of Middle-Earth, the best that can be done with them is to round out the lore and understanding, by maximizing as much as possible that is consistent with the above works. And, of course, to marvel at the other ideas and constructions that JRR Tolkien had.

For me it seems somewhat pointless to argue about “intentions”. JRR Tolkien had numerous intentions, which changed and changed again, evolved, and mixed ideas from various manuscripts. Where he was on a particular concept when he died, even if known, is of little help, because it would have changed again, before finally being ever published. There is often no way to reach firm conclusions that cannot be argued to death about what someone would have meant to do.

Nevertheless, except for various renditions of the Galadriel & Celeborn history, I find The Unfinished Tales to be much like The Silmarillion, despite the annotation.

I appreciate your point about The Road Goes Ever On being on a par with the sacredness of Rings, and I’ll have to find a copy, maybe at a used bookstore. But my sense is that it really doesn’t have that much to say about Middle-Earth, other than a few ‘Letters-like’ comments, such as the one concerning Galadriel.

Will the Real Galadriel Please Stand Up?

So, given that Road is sacred, then there must have been a ban, which I accept now as being as explicit as communications between Valar and Elves get. But the following quote, seems to suggest that you do not see Galadriel simply getting the equivalent one day of a telegram or Email that says “Stay Away and Clean out Your Locker”:

“There was no assurance she would be pardoned. 'Galadriel you are summoned to Valinor to face the Judgement of the Valar for your actions in the Rebellion of the Noldor', 'I will not go to be judged, for I have done no wrong', 'Then you are banned from the West', 'I have no wish to go there anyways'.”

So, I don’t think anyone would see a problem in her having an opportunity to go and be pardoned, but that perhaps the only major stumbling block would be having to humble herself. She would have been wrong and prideful to so avoid contrition. But just the same, she had good reasons for not wanting to leave Middle-Earth for good, and even putting aside her flaws, she was not really guilty of anything that should make her necessarily answerable or beholden to the Valar. Tolkien is ever careful not to equate them with actually being “gods”.

What I’m saying is that neither side is perfect. Whatever the pretext, the Valar may not have been entirely in the right to ban her, however obstinate she may have been. When I talked before about a “misunderstanding” I was thinking more in emotional terms, rather than informational confusion. It’s fair to say that the Valar and Galadriel continued to love each other, but fear and hurt got in the way.

Whatever the case, she was banned, but more meaningfully, it was not her fate that she return then. For her own sake, most of all, I would submit.

Obviously, Galadriel was an important project for Tolkien, which he wanted to develop as shown in the diverse tales with which he experimented. Unfortunately, he never finalized the best conception for himself, but I think there is more than enough in both finished and unfinished works to get a sense of the proper depth and significance of her role among the Noldor and throughout the first Three Ages of the Sun.

On this, you took me to task, but I feel that one is compelled to assume a rather “nuanced” perspective on the “ban” cited in Road, and my sense is that C. Tolkien is all but saying as much in The Unfinished Tales, when he stresses different accounts regarding in particular why she didn’t go back, in “The History of Galadriel and Celeborn” (which is curiously much more “unfinished” then the other tales), but this intuition on my part is something you either share or don’t.

What exactly the correct nuance should be or would have been is not necessarily important. But I raise the following:

“These two kinsfolk [Fëanor and Galadriel], the greatest of the Eldar of Valinor, were unfriends for ever.” * * * She [Galadriel] was proud, strong, and selfwilled [sic], as were all the descendants of Finwë save Finarfin; and like her brother Finrod, of all her kin the nearest to her heart, she had dreams of far lands and dominions that might be her own to order as should without tutelage. Yet deeper still there dwelt in her the noble and generous spirit of the Vanyar, and a reverence for the Valar that she could not forget. From her earliest years she had a marvelous gift of insight into the minds of others, . . .”.
—The Unfinished Tales, IV

Elsewhere in another “account” she is likewise equated in stature to Fëanor. That other portions of these accounts deviate (sometimes greatly) from published works, does not mean that one can’t rely on the above characterization of Galadriel as amenable to Tolkien’s general conception of here dating back to when he wrote Rings. Factually, there’s no contradiction with The Silmarillion in which she is a key rebellion leader and confidant of none other than Melian. Indeed, she is described above as someone both great and flawed; the comparison to Fëanor may work on several levels.

I don’t understand your argument that she would have been in some way a “young” rebel who is not greatly respected in the eyes of the Valar. She was not physically much younger than any of Indis’ other grandchildren, even if she was the youngest one. Elves despite their long lives seem to have and raise families within relatively short time frames; Elladan/Elrohir precede Arwen by 111 years. But in our terms, Galadriel had probably been alive for the equivalent of at least several millennia at the start of the First Age.

She was probably no less mature than Fingon, Finrod or Turgon, although she was of different gender, of course. But nowhere is there any hint of the näivetë ascribed to Aredhel. And again, she could have been even older than Fëanor was when he made the Silmarils.

I am also surprised by your dismay at my description of her as nearly Sauron’s equal and the greatest of the Children of Ilúvatar. Surely, you recognize the following line from Appendix B of Rings:

“Three times Lórien had been assailed by Dol Guldor, but besides the valour of the elven people of that land, the power that dwelt there was too great for any to overcome, unless Sauron had come there himself.”

And at the close of the Third Age, or anytime during it, who among Elves or Men in Middle-Earth would have been even her equal? Probably only Elrond, Círdan and Celeborn. Perhaps, it’s that gender thing again.

Moving on, in The Silmarillion it says in the context of Eönwë's answer to the pleas by the two remaining Sons of Fëanor:

“The light of the Silmarils should go now into the West, whence it came in the beginning; and to Valinor must Maedhros and Maglor return, and there abide the judgment of the Valar by whose decree alone would Eönwë yield the jewels from his charge.”

I’m not really concerned about when that was penned by Tolkien; he wasn’t a computer, but I think it points to a consistently given impression of the Valar as forgiving and open-minded at the close of the First Age, and not wrathful and retributive towards the Noldorin exiles. I do not interpret it as saying that these Sons of Fëanor were to be dragged off to Valinor in chains, if they didn’t go willingly. Rather, they were morally obligated to seek judgment, and could not have gotten the last two Silmarils otherwise. Probably these would never have been surrendered, as Maedhros knew. That these two brothers should have such a chance, after committing three (count’em) Kinslayings, and that their followers are allowed back, suggest the Valar were inclined to pardon. Moreover, Finrod and probably others were even released from the Halls of Mandos.

All of this makes it perfectly logical to assume that Galadriel had reasonable opportunity to return, apologize and be forgiven, but was unwilling to give the Valar the satisfaction to have prevented imposition of the "ban." In this, I reiterate, both sides could be at fault. Despite being among the Wise, Galadriel had something to learn. But the Valar seem to hold her leadership role against her, unfairly perhaps in fear of some future unrest in Eldamar again (because she is not insignificant!). Otherwise, it makes little sense in light of her crimes. The Noldor were free to be have been led out of Aman, and Galadriel was certainly not even an accomplice in any of the Kinslayings.

That through her encounter with Frodo and her constant struggles against Sauron, I felt that she had figuratively “earned” the right to go back with the Ringbearers. You retorted that she “had” to earn it. I would agree that in her own heart and for her own sake she needed to feel deserving and fulfilled enough to return. It was as much of a self-imposed “test” that she passed.

Technically, this may have been what the Valar were looking for, in order to lift the ban, which is what you may be driving at, assuming the Valar had it all worked out in such a mechanical way. Alternatively it seems just as likely, and more meaningful that the Valar also moved beyond their prior assessment and treatment of Galadriel, and understood better themselves the fullness of what that Child of Ilúvatar was all about.

Finally, I’ll emphasize again, that I was not sanitizing Galadriel, much less comparing her with the Virgin Mary. Nevertheless, I do see obvious symbolism between the ‘Mirror’ scene with Frodo and the Sacrament of (adult) Baptism, but on a deeper level: I view Frodo (as I hinted) as being the one in the role of the Minister or Priest. By freely offering her the One Ring he really throws here for loop. She then utterly refuses the path of pride and power even to do good. In a sense, she “rejects Satan.” As a result her (and her kin’s) sins are washed away. Even flaws can be forgiven.

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: Man-of-the-Wold ]

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: Man-of-the-Wold ]

[Thingol]

Agreed with Man of the Wold, the ban might have been in place but I don't think the Valar would have hindered Galadriel's return. The Valar said that no elf was a prisoner in Aman. Galadriel did not participate in the kinslaying and her only crime was being decieved by Feanor. The Valar were in a forgiving mood at the end of the first age and I don't see why they would have forbid Galadriel from coming back when they allowed Feanor’s people to return who were far moe guilty than Galadriel. This is the way I see it, the Valar state that those who return to Aman must face the judgement of the Valar. Maedhros and Maglor are afraid to face this judgement, but they are not forced to return. Galadriel at the time is too proud to return to Aman to face the judgement of the Valar and refuses the summons. It is not until the Third Age that Gladriel can swallow her pride and return to Aman to face judgement. By refusing the Ring Galadriel demonstrates that she has forsaken her pride and she is now ready to face the judgement of the Valar. However, I don't believe that the refusal of the Ring was necessary for her to return, she could have sailed to Aman at any time, but she would still have had to face the judgement of the Valar. She was unwilling to do this until the power of Nenya had been broken and her pride humbled.

[Aralaithiel]

Tar Elenion:for example, I just can't picture the Elves signing "tra la la lally".

Give us enough miruvor and we'll sign just about anything! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
I love your arguments, Man of the Wold! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
We are on the same page, so to speak!

[Lush]

What lengthy posts you men write! Why is the "gender thing" of any importance when it comes to Galadriel? She seems to me the strongest character in LotR as much in her refusal to accept the One Ring when it finally comes to her (and remember, it's one thing to fantasize about the Ring, but quite another to view it and feel the evil that comes with it), as in her power. She is the main reason why I can never accept those "Tolkien was sexist!" arguments that are uttered from time to time. Well, she and Eowyn. And Luthien.

[Man-of-the-Wold]

Originally posted by Aralaithiel:
<STRONG>
I love your arguments, Man of the Wold! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
We are on the same page, so to speak!</STRONG>

Then throw me a few bones. My member rating is dreadful. It makes me cry.

[Tar Elenion]

Originally posted by Man-of-the-Wold:
In response to Tar-Elenion

Your arguments with me seem to fall into two categories, on which of course we are not far apart, with regard to issues of little genuine importance. So, please don’t be offended if I seem argumentative.

O.K.

First would be the proper treatment of the various books, and Second would be how I treat Galadriel.

The first is perhaps correct. The second is not. I have no problem with how you treat (or envision) Galadriel (except perhaps equating her in power with Sauron). I however envision her differently. I think I said the 'flawed' version was _my_ bias or preference.

You seem to think that I put her on a pedestal. Yes, perhaps, in terms of her greatest, which I find perfectly correct in view of the totality of Tolkien’s work, as I’ll explain below, but to say I characterize her as saintly reveals a careless review of my words.

Please point out where I said 'you characterize her as saintly'. What I think I said was I do not like the late version that sanitizes her character, this is my veiw not a statement of how you characterize her.

The Books.
We seem to both agree that The Lord of the Rings is the ultimate benchmark, beyond reproach, except for technical problems mostly found in certain word usages or the appendices’ dates and listings, for which correction is easily accepted based on The Unfinished Tales or Letters . . ..

The Hobbit you downplay because of its child-oriented narration. Well, it is actually a very rich story, I feel, even if not up to the perfection of Rings. I can think of no significant fact that cannot be seen in some way as consistent with Rings, semantics aside, and I see no problem with even very silly-acting High Elves, which the narrator says is often thought of them, but is not true. In a way, if derived from Bilbo, as opposed to Frodo, it offers some contrast of perception about Middle-Earth and its history. I only wish more dimension of vantage point was there.

I have actually read The Hobbit more than LotR. It many ways I enjoy it more than LotR. I wish JRRT had been able to complete a fuller version of it. JRRT himself had problems with it:

Letter 131
The generally different tone and style of The Hobbit is due, in point of genesis, to it being taken by me as a matter from the great cycle susceptible of treatment as a 'fairy-story', for children. Some of the details of tone and treatment are, I now think, even on that basis, mistaken. But I should not wish to change much. For in effect this is a study of simple ordinary man, neither artistic nor noble and heroic (but not without the undeveloped seeds of these things) against a high setting - and in fact (as a critic has perceived) the tone and style change with the Hobbit's development, passing from fairy-tale to the noble and high and relapsing with the return.

Letter 153
But I do not agree (if you admit that fairy-story element) that my trolls show any sign of 'good', strictly and unsentimentally viewed. I do not say William felt pity - a word to me of moral and imaginative worth: it is the Pity of Bilbo and later Frodo that ultimately allows the Quest to be achieved - and I do not think he showed Pity. I might not (if The Hobbit had been more carefully written, and my world so much thought about 20 years ago) have used the expression 'poor little blighter', just as I should not have called the troll William. But I discerned no pity even then, and put in a plain caveat.

Letter 163
The Hobbit was originally quite unconnected, though it inevitably got drawn in to the circumference of the greater construction; and in the event modified it. It was unhappily really meant, as far as I was conscious, as a 'children's story', and as I had not learned sense then, and my children were not quite old enough to correct me, it has some of the sillinesses of manner caught unthinkingly from the kind of stuff I had had served to me, as Chaucer may catch a minstrel tag. I deeply regret them. So do intelligent children.

Letter 165
My work did not 'evolve' into a serious work. It started like that. The so-called 'children's story' [The Hobbit] was a fragment, torn out of an already existing mythology. In so far as it was dressed up as 'for children', in style or manner, I regret it. So do the children.

Letter 215
When I published The Hobbit - hurriedly and without due consideration - I was still influenced by the convention that 'fairy-stories' are naturally directed to children (with or without the silly added waggery 'from seven to seventy'). And I had children of my own. But the desire to address children, as such, had nothing to do with the story as such in itself or the urge to write it. But it had some unfortunate effects on the mode of expression and narrative method, which if I had not been rushed, I should have corrected. Intelligent children of good taste (of which there seem quite a number) have always, I am glad to say, singled out the points in manner where the address is to children as blemishes.
[and]
I think that The Hobbit can be seen to begin in what might be called a more 'whimsy' mode, and in places even more facetious, and move steadily to a more serious or significant, and more consistent and historical. .... But I regret much of it all the same. ....

Man_of_the_Wold wrote:
As for the The Silmarillion, I sense that you have a desire to disregard it, which seems somewhat common among “Barrow-downers.” But still, it’s a finished work of stories, and not just writings about writings. The criticism seems like whining in the “could’uv”, “would’uv” and “should’uv” vein. Yes! … it could have been better done, including by Christopher Tolkien with his own hindsight; it would have been done differently by JRR Tolkien (but when? . . . does anyone outside of Middle-Earth really live so long?!), and of course, many things in it should have been otherwise. And, I cannot recall any particular point from The Silmarillion that significantly contradicts something clearly said in Rings.

'The Silmarillion' is finished because CT put it together from a variety of sources. The problem with accepting the Sil. as canon, is not that it contradicts LotR (which it does in some cases), but rather that it is 'contradicted' by other writings of JRRT that were also published posthumously. The other writings may be more 'canonical' than the Sil because they show a later intent, and usually are developed in line with the mythology as presented in LotR. I do not disregard the Silmarillion as published. I however lok at it in the veiw of the other writings also published.

So, I accept as Christopher Tolkien describes in the Forward to The Book of Lost Tales, Part I:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“By the publication of ‘The Silmarillion’ the ‘longitudinal’ was cut ‘tranversely’, and a kind of finality imposed.” (emphasis added).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You emphasize 'finality', but I would look to 'kind of'.
I accept that CT spent 25 years of his life publishing his fathers papers to show what could have been.

As for the Letters, The Unfinished Tales and The History of Middle-Earth, the best that can be done with them is to round out the lore and understanding, by maximizing as much as possible that is consistent with the above works. And, of course, to marvel at the other ideas and constructions that JRR Tolkien had.

I think the best that can be done with them is they can show what JRRT actually intended.

For me it seems somewhat pointless to argue about “intentions”. JRR Tolkien had numerous intentions, which changed and changed again, evolved, and mixed ideas from various manuscripts. Where he was on a particular concept when he died, even if known, is of little help, because it would have changed again, before finally being ever published. There is often no way to reach firm conclusions that cannot be argued to death about what someone would have meant to do.

This is the problem with the Silmarillion. It was not finalized by or published by JRRT. It can not be used as a firm conclusion, that is why the otherworks are necessary to truly study the Legendarium. The Silmarillion as such is only an 'intention'.

I appreciate your point about The Road Goes Ever On being on a par with the sacredness of Rings, and I’ll have to find a copy, maybe at a used bookstore. But my sense is that it really doesn’t have that much to say about Middle-Earth, other than a few ‘Letters-like’ comments, such as the one concerning Galadriel.

It is my understanding that a new edition is to be released this summer. To me, any information it gives is welcome especially when it can be used to clarify other conceptions.

Will the Real Galadriel Please Stand Up?
<snip>
Obviously, Galadriel was an important project for Tolkien, which he wanted to develop as shown in the diverse tales with which he experimented. Unfortunately, he never finalized the best conception for himself, but I think there is more than enough in both finished and unfinished works to get a sense of the proper depth and significance of her role among the Noldor and throughout the first Three Ages of the Sun.

On this, you took me to task, but I feel that one is compelled to assume a rather “nuanced” perspective on the “ban” cited in Road, and my sense is that C. Tolkien is all but saying as much in The Unfinished Tales, when he stresses different accounts regarding in particular why she didn’t go back, in “The History of Galadriel and Celeborn” (which is curiously much more “unfinished” then the other tales), but this intuition on my part is something you either share or don’t.

The 'nuance' that I take on the Ban, is that the Valar banned her. She was not repentant of her deeds or actions, and her pride and desires demanded she stay.

What exactly the correct nuance should be or would have been is not necessarily important. But I raise the following:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“These two kinsfolk [Fëanor and Galadriel], the greatest of the Eldar of Valinor, were unfriends for ever.” * * * She [Galadriel] was proud, strong, and selfwilled [sic], as were all the descendants of Finwë save Finarfin; and like her brother Finrod, of all her kin the nearest to her heart, she had dreams of far lands and dominions that might be her own to order as should without tutelage. Yet deeper still there dwelt in her the noble and generous spirit of the Vanyar, and a reverence for the Valar that she could not forget. From her earliest years she had a marvelous gift of insight into the minds of others, . . .”.
—The Unfinished Tales, IV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elsewhere in another “account” she is likewise equated in stature to Fëanor. That other portions of these accounts deviate (sometimes greatly) from published works, does not mean that one can’t rely on the above characterization of Galadriel as amenable to Tolkien’s general conception of her dating back to when he wrote Rings. Factually, there’s no contradiction with The Silmarillion in which she is a key rebellion leader and confidant of none other than Melian. Indeed, she is described above as someone both great and flawed; the comparison to Fëanor may work on several levels.

I don’t understand your argument that she would have been in some way a “young” rebel who is not greatly respected in the eyes of the Valar. She was not physically much younger than any of Indis’ other grandchildren, even if she was the youngest one. Elves despite their long lives seem to have and raise families within relatively short time frames; Elladan/Elrohir precede Arwen by 111 years. But in our terms, Galadriel had probably been alive for the equivalent of at least several millennia at the start of the First Age.

Did I argue that she was not greatly respected? I said that she was young and her being 'high' in the eyes of the Valar while still young come from late writings. Those are observations, not arguments.
Well I will note that in the account you quoted from above Galadriel's youth is mentioned several times. Particularly where you insereted the '* * *' wherein it is noted that though born in the Bliss of Valinor it was not long before that Bliss was dimmed. It is even noted in the essay proper that the a particular liguistic change (which Feanor was upset about, and thought it was a plot on the part of the Valar to cast him aside) took place before her birth, and that the Lament in LotR harkens back to her days of youth in Valinor. Galadriel at the time of the Rebellion was around 1200 years old.

She was probably no less mature than Fingon, Finrod or Turgon, although she was of different gender, of course. But nowhere is there any hint of the näivetë ascribed to Aredhel. And again, she could have been even older than Fëanor was when he made the Silmarils.

Feanor was around 25 or 26 hundred years old, when he began making the Silmarils.
Turgon and Finrod were about 1800 years old.
What naivete of Aredhel? What is interesting about Aredhel is that (who is, by the way, the same age as Galadriel) in Beleriand she went out into dangerous lands, and put herself at risk. Galadriel, as you point out, remained for the most part with Melian. Safe here behind the Girdle. When things started looking bad in Beleriand, she fled out of Beleriand.

I am also surprised by your dismay at my description of her as nearly Sauron’s equal and the greatest of the Children of Ilúvatar. Surely, you recognize the following line from Appendix B of Rings:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Three times Lórien had been assailed by Dol Guldor, but besides the valour of the elven people of that land, the power that dwelt there was too great for any to overcome, unless Sauron had come there himself.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And at the close of the Third Age, or anytime during it, who among Elves or Men in Middle-Earth would have been even her equal? Probably only Elrond, Círdan and Celeborn. Perhaps, it’s that gender thing again.

Sauron is neither Elf nor Man. She was not his equal. The quote you supply indicates that had Sauron come, she would have lost. In fact, the only way Galadriel could have been Sauron's equal was with the One Ring, and JRRT indicates even that was not likely:

Letter 246
Of the others only Gandalf might be expected to master him [Sauron] - being an emissary of the Powers and a creature of the same order, an immortal spirit taking a visible physical form. In the 'Mirror of Galadriel', 1381, it appears that Galadriel conceived of herself as capable of wielding the Ring and supplanting the Dark Lord. If so, so also were the other guardians of the Three, especially Elrond. But this is another matter. It was part of the essential deceit of the Ring to fill minds with imaginations of supreme power. But this the Great had well considered and had rejected, as is seen in Elrond's words at the Council.

Man_of_the_Wold wrote:
Moving on, in The Silmarillion it says in the context of Eönwë's answer to the pleas by the two remaining Sons of Fëanor:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The light of the Silmarils should go now into the West, whence it came in the beginning; and to Valinor must Maedhros and Maglor return, and there abide the judgment of the Valar by whose decree alone would Eönwë yield the jewels from his charge.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not really concerned about when that was penned by Tolkien; he wasn’t a computer,

I find it very important to recognize 'when'. It shows changing concepts, and further development within the Legendarium.

but I think it points to a consistently given impression of the Valar as forgiving and open-minded at the close of the First Age, and not wrathful and retributive towards the Noldorin exiles. I do not interpret it as saying that these Sons of Fëanor were to be dragged off to Valinor in chains, if they didn’t go willingly. Rather, they were morally obligated to seek judgment, and could not have gotten the last two Silmarils otherwise. Probably these would never have been surrendered, as Maedhros knew. That these two brothers should have such a chance, after committing three (count’em) Kinslayings, and that their followers are allowed back, suggest the Valar were inclined to pardon. Moreover, Finrod and probably others were even released from the Halls of Mandos.

I read the passage "and to Valinor must Maedhros and Maglor return and there abide the judgement of the Valar" as they were ordered to do exactly that. There was no gaurantee of forgiveness. They were however able to refuse. The Valar were not allowed to use force against the Children (though I suppose the other Elves could have done so).

All of this makes it perfectly logical to assume that Galadriel had reasonable opportunity to return, apologize and be forgiven, but was unwilling to give the Valar the satisfaction to have prevented imposition of the "ban." In this, I reiterate, both sides could be at fault. Despite being among the Wise, Galadriel had something to learn. But the Valar seem to hold her leadership role against her, unfairly perhaps in fear of some future unrest in Eldamar again (because she is not insignificant!). Otherwise, it makes little sense in light of her crimes. The Noldor were free to be have been led out of Aman, and Galadriel was certainly not even an accomplice in any of the Kinslayings.

She was a leader in the rebellion. And the acts that took place in the rebellion were wrong. That she may have had no active part in certain actions, but she went along anyways. She did not turn back when she had the chance, wanting a realm of her own to rule, and when the Valar were ready to forgive she said no. She had much to learn.

That through her encounter with Frodo and her constant struggles against Sauron, I felt that she had figuratively “earned” the right to go back with the Ringbearers. You retorted that she “had” to earn it. I would agree that in her own heart and for her own sake she needed to feel deserving and fulfilled enough to return. It was as much of a self-imposed “test” that she passed.

An interesting way to interpret it, but I read the implications and statements in LotR and RGEO differently. The Valar banned her from the West. The Ban was lifted after she overcame her own pride and desires. I feel that she literally earned forgiveness by her struggles aginst the Dark (including that within herself).

Finally, I’ll emphasize again, that I was not sanitizing Galadriel, much less comparing her with the Virgin Mary.

I will also emphasize again, that I did not say you were doing that. I said that was what I felt the late versions did to her character and those are not how I prefer to see her.

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: Tar Elenion ]

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: Tar Elenion ]

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: Tar Elenion ]

[Thingol]

I still can't believe that the Valar would be unwilling to allow Galadriel to return to Aman if she were willing to repent. This is not consistent with the theme of pity and mercy in Tokien's works. It is Galadriel who is at fault; unwilling to humble herself, she is too proud to admit that she was wrong to the Valar. Not allowing Galadriel to return, even if she truely repented seems vindictive to me and I do not see the Valar as vindictive. I do not see the ban as an absolute denial of entrance to Aman, but as a conditional ban. If Galadriel is willing to submit to the judgement of the Valar she may return. It is Galadriel's pride that will not allow her to return, not the Valar's vindictivenes.

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[Tar Elenion]

I think that is the point of the Ban. RGEO says the Ban was applied to her. It says she in her pride did not wish to return to Aman. It is entirely possible that she was told she could return and (face judgement for her actions) and she refused. So a ban was set on her return. Some of the other writings suggest that she refused pardon.

[Lush]

Originally posted by Man-of-the-Wold:
<STRONG>

Then throw me a few bones. My member rating is dreadful. It makes me cry.</STRONG>

Please don't cry over silly ratings. Really, people mustn't be so vindictive when someone writes something they disagree with. I've enjoyed reading your posts.

[Man-of-the-Wold]

Originally posted by Tar Elenion:
[QB]

I will also emphasize again, that I did not say you were doing that. I said that was what I felt the late versions did to her character and those are not how I prefer to see her.

QB]

My mistake, I guess that I felt implicated with those "late versions" whatever those might be. Late versions of Tolkien's? It seems as if preferences play a big role for everyone. But someone like Tolkien didn't just change his mind from one version to the next, so much as let his imagination evolve, mutate and sometimes end up where it started.

"Some Minds that Wander Are Lost (for Awhile)".

Hence, the book of Lost Tales.

But I for one accept now that there was a bona fide "ban", which is not necessarily inconsistent with refusing pardon, and a ban can be lifted not only because of proper action or sentiment by the "bannee", but also because of a change of heart or of perception by the "banner". RGEO I don't believe is clear on which it was, or whether it couldn't be a little of both.

Again, I have trouble, given their past errors and reversals of the Valar sitting up somewhere all high and mighty and omniscient, even if their intentions were always good.

I have yet to study your latest replies to my replies in detail. Nevertheless, I'll try to forego responding any further, lest I lose all semblance of a real life. So, forgive me, if I let the thread stand as is for my part, for a while. Thanks for the debate.

[Man-of-the-Wold]

Originally posted by Lush:
<STRONG>

Please don't cry over silly ratings. Really, people mustn't be so vindictive when someone writes something they disagree with. I've enjoyed reading your posts.</STRONG>

Oh Thanks. I feel much better. Or was I being facetious before? There I go again!

Oh if only I could have disagreed with Denethor or Turin.

[Man-of-the-Wold]

Originally posted by Tar Elenion:
<STRONG>

I have actually read The Hobbit more than LotR. It many ways I enjoy it more than LotR. I wish JRRT had been able to complete a fuller version of it. JRRT himself had problems with it:</STRONG>

So, I think we all agree that The Hobbit is a fine book. Your quotes of the Great One confirm what I've heard of him as a perfectionist. [i]The Hobbit[i/] is wonderful for all the reasons that I and others have said, and I feel he's being much too hard on himself. It isn't the masterpiece that Rings is perhaps, but that the way of masterpieces.

As for The Silmarillion, I think C. Tolkien did a commendable job of turning what he had into a complete work that was true to what his father had actually written in sufficiently finished and publishsable form. The problem I have with the other published works is that they aren't complete stories, but studies of the various ideas of one man. So, even as they suggest many great and richer things than The Silmarillion, your still left choosing among various alternatives, after flipping through pages of annotation.

The Silmarillion provides a beautiful vision and scenes to stroll through, not glimpses of a Legendarium which hardly exists in a coherent form.

"Finality" is like pregnancy is finality, even if just "sort of", which is sort of an oxymoron. Aren't you either final or not. In any case, I often wanter if his own temerity or his father's wishes prevented C. Tolkien from putting it all together into something really maximizing the potential, and establishing full consistency with his father's work. He seems to have the writing skills.

Oh well. Now, I'm really going to stop. No more posting. Sorry Galadriel. You're great. Ban you, Babe. I don't think so.

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: Man-of-the-Wold ]

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Oh, don't whine about bones - I have no rating at all!

[img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Maril

[Aralaithiel]

Ratings-schratings! Ignore them! They are but mindless drivel. Heck, I haven't even read mine yet, and I probably won't ever! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]