Was Frodo really a "hero" in the end?

[stormcrow]

I mean, at the lip of Mt. Doom, he renounced his whole mission. It was Gollum who bit his finger off and fell into the fire, thus destroying the ring. Just a thought.

And while we are at it, another thing that has always bugged me a bit was the ease with which Sam gave up the ring.

[andustar]

Well, I was going to start talking here, but then I remembered there's a looooong discussion about that, here (http://theonering.net/barlimans/hall_logs/120900.html). It's a chat log, btw, so you know how confused hey can get, ppl typing long answers to questions while everyone else has moved on... I think it gets settled by a quote from Letters :) Tolkien had something to say about the subject :). If you can't be bothered to read it (like me, I did Find on this Page ;) ) here's the quote:

"I do not think that Frodo's was a moral failure. At the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum - impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist, certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted. Frodo had done what he could and and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence) and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest could (...)

There's a better one somewhere over there

but read the rest if you want, it's quite interesting

As for Sam giving up the Ring easily... i don't know. doesn't it say a bit about that in the book? his hobbit sense and love for his master helped him. Also, he had it for very, very little time and did not use it for Command of any kind.

[andustar]

here it is! found it

"Frodo indeed 'failed' as a hero, as conceived by simple minds: he did not endure to the end; he gave in, ratted. I do not say 'simple minds' with contempt: they often see with clarity the simple truth and the absolute ideal to which effort must be directed, even if it is unattainable. Their weakness, however, is twofold. They do not perceive the complexity of any given situation in Time, in which an absolute ideal is enmeshed. They tend to forget that strange element in the World that we call Pity or Mercy…"


there you go :)

(on looking at that log again, there are some really useful quotes from Letters. Search for "Letters of JRR Tolkien, no. 246" there for a sad one... how come I never saw Frodo like that before??? darn it. Should have realised. Better still, try harder to get my hands on a copy of Letters...)

[bombcar]

Yes. Frodo's mission failed. Sam is the true hero of the book - my dad wrote an article on this many years ago - and Sam's dedication and love of his master (which is contrasted with Gollum's "Master") allowed him to serve so well, and to give up the Ring with the least pain of anyone.

[sheelova]

Yes, Frodo failed the quest in the end. However, NO ring bearer, could have destroyed the ring after bearing it for so long ( in my opinion any way). Remember that Bilbo was the only person who ever gave up the ring willingly, except for Sam who did not possess it for a long time. Even Gandalf was afraid of the control that the ring could exert over the bearer. After all of Frodo's trials I would say that, yes he was still a hero, the acceptance of the quest alone was enough for me to grant him hero statis. Could any one else have completed the quest? I should say not. I thinkthat it was a matter of the Fates, or a great Doom, such as that in the story of Beren and Luithien. But without the key players in the destruction of the ring ( Frodo, Sam, and Gollum) I do not think that the end could have been the same.

[ragnor]

i believe Frodo was suffering from ptsd by the end of the quest and needed to rest and leave the world he knew for a while.

[Ñólendil]

Welcome Ragnor! How's it fare in Dorthonion?

Helpful tip: talk to Gorlim. Make sure he knows it's neither healthy nor safe to continue to visit his old home. If he doesn't listen to you, he'll be Unhappy for sure.

[ragnor]

Dorthonian is as always. as for Gorlim, since when has he ever listened to anyone but himself! Thanks for the hello.

[galadriel]

Frodo wasn't a hero in the epic, classical sense of the word. That is, he didn't follow the standard "format" that Joseph Campbell made famous, a journey leading up to a key point in which the protagonist rises above his own faults and makes an amazing decision that transforms him into a Hero. Instead, Frodo is a more realistic, believable kind of hero. He wasn't strong enough to throw the Ring into the fire, but no one in Middle-earth could be that strong. Instead, the entire journey was his one test, and during it he survived traumas and temptations that few others could have withstood. Moreover, he didn't give up when all seemed hopeless. He may not be a conventional hero, but he's a hero nonetheless.

I'm not altogether sure why Sam didn't try to keep the Ring. He was definitely tempted. He hadn't worn it as long, so I guess it was easier to give it up. I agree with andustar, that his love for Frodo and his common sense made most of the difference.

[sheelova]

Well said Galadrial. I agree completely.
As far as Sam goes I think that the Ring's affect on one was individual specific. Because the lure of the Ring was so greed oriented, and that was so far detatched from Sam's personality, which was very selfless, it would have taken the Ring a long time to corrupt Sam. Just as it would not have taken the Ring long to corrupt someone motivated by selfish purposes.

[IronParrot]

I think the fact that Frodo succumbed to the power of the Ring is probably one of the most important reasons why LOTR is as powerful and memorable as it is.

It all comes down to the question: Who was most directly responsible for the destruction of the Ring? Because Frodo certainly didn't destroy it - far from it - and Gollum isn't really "responsible" for its destruction either.

[samwise of the shire]

It's really sad that Frodo is'nt the hero of the story but it was as much as he could do to bring the Ring to Mt Doom, I mean any 6 foot Gondorian soldier would have succumbed to the Ring instantly(well save for Faramir)and I think that the reason why Faramir,Sam and Frodo did'nt succumb to the Ring as fast as a PROUD man(like Boromir)was because they were HUMBLE. Boromir was proud and thus he was overcome easier but Frodo because he was humble did'nt succumb as fast, so I think that if a bearer was humble he would be overcome by the Ring as fast as a proud bearer.
Sam

[Ñólendil]

One point: I feel Faramir would undoubtedly have succumbed to the temptation of the Ring, had he borne it, far sooner than Frodo or even Sam. Indeed as can be seen in Window In The West (or of the West, or whatever it's name), the only way Faramir would have acquired the Ring would have been by force. Had he learned more of it, had he seen it, I am not sure (I do mean those words precisely) whether he would have ventured to take it or not. Similar (similar) things might be said of Gandalf, as holy, noble and humble as he was. Thus in their wisdom they did not desire to desire it: to handle it over much or to be its bearer (in Gandalf's case) or to handle or see it at all (in Faramir's). They greatly dreaded It and the idea of It's temptation -- because they were, like most other beings in their time in Middle-earth, vulnerable to these things.

[samwise of the shire]

I think that the Ring worked on pride. Saruman is a good example. He had never seen the Ring and yet he was proud(maybe because he was a wizard maybe because he was the head of the wizards.Illuvatar only knows)just studying about it made him evil. Gandalf on the other hand was humble and yes he was wise so as you said it helped but his humility worked hand in hand with the wisdom,he had NO desire to own the Ring and become Sauron.
Faramir showed his humility and sumbmissivness when Aragorn revealed himself as the King, Faramir who was the only heir of Denethor could have been proud and tried to take the throne but instead he submitted to Aragorns athourity and became a servant to the king, and I defiantly think Boromir would NOT have done that as it might have lowered him.
But I do think that Faramir would have been overcome by the Ring faster than Frodo because he was an heir of kings and had a proud contanece but there were others as succumbed to the Ring sooner then Faramir would've.
Sam

[ringbearer]

Frodo is a hero because;
1. He carried the Ring during the most difficult time to bear it.
2. He received wounds that others would have not been able to bear.
3. He willingly accepted a task that others would have been terrified to attempt.
4. He made it, almost, all the way to the end, and was finally overcome.
5....etc.

How far would anyone else have gone?

[Spock]

Frodo did what only he, a simple Hobbit, could do. He didn't necessarily know all that lay ahead of him yet he went forward through difficult circumstances and did what was needed. If that doesn't qualify as a hero or a patriot or something then I must go back to Vulcan.

[ragnor]

i believe Faramir would not have fallen prey to the powers of the one ring. he was much more the cognitive person than his brother and had a deep sense of history and the old ways as he was taught by Gandalf regarding such. the gondorian knew his place and his role and stayed between the lines. he was the thinking mans warrior to me. as for Frodo : the guy who carries the ball most of the game is always the man in crunch time. don't blame him if the quest took everything out of him by journeys end. even the best pass the ball if they're covered.

[Ñólendil]

I think that besides Bombadil and Goldberry, the only beings who could not have been corrupted by the Ring were the Valar.

[Captain Stern]

I Think some of you are missing the point. I don't think that it was one's personality traits that enabled you to fight the influence of the ring. It was how strong willed you were. There was no one on Middle earth who could withstand Sauron's will indefinetely.

As for the only beings who couldn't have been corrupted by the Ring being The Valar, well I disagree I think.
If Feanor was still "alive" ( for lack of a better term ) I don't think he would have been corrupted by the ring, being more powerful than Sauron to begin with and being 'the most self willed of the Elves'.

[galadriel]

Feanor would have lasted very long, longer than any one else (except for Bombadil and the Valar). He would want to use the ring's power for his own benefit, and I think he would succeed in this at first. But eventually, he too would become servant of the ring. Even the strongest will would be slowly and subtly twisted by the ring, until that person was ultimately corrupted. Feanor may have been nearly as strong-willed as Sauron, but I don't think that he was powerful enough to resist the ring's power.

[Captain Stern]

I really have to disagree with you.

I can't see how the One Ring could bend someone greater than Sauron to it's will. Whether you think Feanor is greater than Sauron or not that's your oppinion, but The Silmarillion gave me the impression that Feanor was God Like, perhaps even rivalling and surpassing the Valar themselves in some aspects.

I also don't think Feanor would want to use the ring for his own benefit either as he could create more powerful creations of his own. Remember, Feanor could not be matched in the art of craft by anyone, not even by Aule or Melkor.

[Ñólendil]

Captain Stern, I think I have seen you set Faenor above the Valar before. More than any other Child of Ilúvatar on Earth, he would have succumbed to the Ring. The most self-willed indeed, that has two edges. He was the most arrogant of all the Eldar, he would have soon been corrupted (he was corrupt enough anyway), and he would have been terrible. A new Dark Lord, as great or greater than Sauron was at the end of the End of the Third Age without it. You can't use the bloody Ring, not for good, you know that. Bombadil was able to be immune to it because he was the Master. He had taken a vow of poverty, the means of power were to him quite valueless, he had no need for it: he loved and studied things completely for their own sake. Fëanáro, I'm afraid, was no humble spirit.

You speak the words of Boromir!

God Like my foot. What part of the Silmarillion gave you that impression, I wonder, if not the words of Faenor himself. Were he thrice greater, he could not have overcome any one of the Valar, so said Manwë. I'll trust the words of the Elder King most blessed and most in accord with Eru over the fiery corrupt Faenor. Anyway in later texts he was not even the greatest of the Eldar, but was second to Lúthien (with Galadriel following closely behind him).

The idea that Faenor was greater than the Valar or that he could be immune to the Rings is entirely absurd! The man was mad, he was fell and fey, and corrupt and rebellious! Besides Morgoth he's chiefly responsible for the whole bloody Fall of the Ñoldor!

I do not believe that Tulcas (admittedly greatest in deeds of contest and strength), the least of the Valar, would have been slain by what was at the most seven (but more likely less, since there were more likely less altogether) Balrogs, as Faenor was. If he was greater than the Valar he might have denied Námo when he came to Mandos, he might have built his own body and returned to the living, and overthrown the Valar and become King of Valinor and all its people, he might have contested Morgoth then, and sent a great host against him to recover the Silmarilli. That would be almost God Like -- in might. Spiritually I think Faenor was closer to Satan, that is: Morgoth, and would be, if he did all that that I just said. But he didn't because he could not.

[Captain Stern]

Ok I may have been a bit hasty writing that and I thought after I submitted the reply ( oh **** I shouldn't have said that, no good will come of this! )

Firstly, yes I agree now that Feanor wasn't greater than the Valar in ALL ASPECTS! You are right that would be ABSURD! He may have been the greatest of the Elves but he was still bound by the laws that Illuvatar had placed upon the firstborn. I don't think it matters how powerful he was he couldn't do things such as "create another body for himself so that he could return to the living" simply because he was an Elf, no more than the Valar themselves could leave the world because like the elves Illuvatar had placed laws on the Ainur as well.

You can't deny that in terms of might, Feanor was portrayed as being super powerful in the Silmarillion and I'm not neccessarily saying that he was Tulkas level either. Yeah sure the HOME books might paint many pictures, hell Feanor even drowns in "HOME volume 1" ( I got that book from a friend :) I can't say I've taken to it yet....) but Christopher Tolkien chose the parts that his father obviously wanted. In the Silmarillion Feanor is certainly unchallanged for the title of "greatest Child of Illuvatar". How could Feanor make the Noldor rebell against the Gods if he was only the 3rd most powerful Elf in the world? The Noldor had to believe that Feanor was at least semi capable of defeating Morgoth! There is no way they'd follow him otherwise. This couldn't have been for his orratory skills alone, hell it was common knowledge in Valinor that Feanor was the greatest Child of Illuvatar.

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

"God Like my foot. What part of the Silmarillion gave you that impression, I wonder, if not the words of Faenor himself. "

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

What do you mean? You talk like Feanor was portrayed as your average run of the mill Elf Lord. There are plenty of instances in the Silmarillion where Feanor is portrayed as being God-Like. Elf lords are portrayed as being very powerful, some even standing toe to toe with the most powerful Maiar. For example there's Finrod. Although he didn't defeat Sauron he lasted quite a while in the battle against him. Fingon was gaining the upper hand against Gothmog Lord of Balrogs untill he was attacked by yet another Balrog and finnaly killed. Now if they could perfrorm such deeds then Feanor could indeed be considered God-like.
Take Feanor's battle with the Balrogs. He held his own for a long time untill they slowly began to overwhelm him. It is likely that these same Balrogs were the ones who rescued Morgoth from the bloated Ungoliant who was overwhelmed much quicker than Feanor was. Indeed this means that if Feanor had encountered Morgoth it is very likely that he would have succeeded in defeating him.


My reasoning behind my belief that Feanor wouldn't have been corrupted by the Ring is this:

Feanor, at least in my oppinion, was more powerful than Sauron. So if Feanor was more powerful and had a stronger will than Sauron how could the Ring, something lesser in power and will turn him into something that he wasn't and which he despised? Another Morgoth, a being he hated more than anything in the world.

I think that even his extreme hate for Morgoth and his kind would keep him from succumbing to the temptations of the Ring. I think that you aren't taking strength of will into account enough.

I don't know. I'm probably wrong as with most things. I bet you'll find some passage in a HOME book which proves it too! ARRGGGHHHH.

[Ñólendil]

I'm glad we agree on some points!

You can't deny that in terms of might, Feanor was portrayed as being super powerful in the Silmarillion and I'm not neccessarily saying that he was Tulkas level either.

Sure I can! I would not put it so, no indeed. Or I would not use the term 'super powerful'. He was mighty in various ways, and maybe in arms he was mightiest. Doubtless you have the quotes to prove or disprove that from the published Silmarillion, what with all the arguments of this kind you've entered into :).

Yeah sure the HOME books might paint many pictures, hell Feanor even drowns in "HOME volume 1" ( I got that book from a friend I can't say I've taken to it yet....) but Christopher Tolkien chose the parts that his father obviously wanted.

I'm afraid that wouldn't have even been possible. I'm talking about the later HoMe books, I'm talking about Morgoth's Ring, War of the Jewels and Peoples of Middle-earth, which don't deal with the Book of Lost Tales. One can see in these books (especially the former two: The History of the Silmarillion) that Christopher Tolkien greatly regretted many elements in his published Silmarillion, and he even questioned whether it should have been attempted. There are many later decisions by JRR Tolkien (by which I do not include that proposed new mythology that was in accord with our science) that did not contradict published material in his lifetime that Christopher did not follow.

I just started to give a few examples of the many, but I realized there are too many. The Silmarillion as published definitely does not reflect JRR Tolkien's final wishes or those therein that do not contradict other material published in his life. Not by a long shot. I might single out Ruin of Doriath as being easily the most bogus, or anyway an entirely bogus chapter. He completely altered what his father wrote because it was unfinished. I can't get into it here, but Christopher seems to have regretted this the most.

There can be no doubt that Tolkien's latest word involved a decline in importance of Fëanáro. In that text which is called The Shibboleth of Fëanor (written in the last four years of the author's life), published in Peoples of Middle-earth, it is revealed that 'Fëanáro' was not a prophetic name. MÃ*riel lived until her son was full grown, and she gave that name because of his character. When she died, Curufinwë also waited a little with his father by her in Lórien. It is also revealed in that text that he was not the greatest of all the Eldar. He is stated to be the greatest in technical skill and invention, he is stated not to be the greatest in knowledge and Philosophy (that is given to his brother Nolofinwë {Fingolfin}), and it is stated that he would have been the noblest Elda in Aman, had he not been the proudest and most arrogant (the noblest seems to be Arafinwë {Finarfin}).

He is still the greatest of the Eldar of Aman, Galadriel is a close second (she is however stated to be wiser than him). There is nothing later than this essay that reinstates Fëanáro as the greatest of all Elves, and the statement that the greatest of the Eldar were in order Lúthien, Faenor and Galadriel does not contradict any material published in Tolkien's lifetime, which Tolkien would have felt bound by had he remembered it. Surely, then, we should accept this as true? The only reason we do not see this in the Silmarillion is because it never touched narrative, and for Christopher to incorporate it would require much more than edition (he nonetheless does much more than edition in the Ruin of Doriath).

It is also certain that the alteration of Faenor's story is not due simply to forgetfulness on the part of the author. On the contrary he had earlier texts which is in accord with the stuff you read in the published Silmarillion in front of him when he wrote the Shibboleth.

How could Feanor make the Noldor rebell against the Gods if he was only the 3rd most powerful Elf in the world?

The same way he did it in the account you read. Why must one be the greatest of all the Children in order to pursuade most of his people to rebellion? Tolkien obviously didn't think it impossible, as that's what he decided on!

The Noldor had to believe that Feanor was at least semi capable of defeating Morgoth!

Ofcourse! Most of them believed they could win in a war against Morgoth. Of course they could not, whether Faenor was the greatest of the Children or not. Faenor was not capable of defeating Morgoth or any other one of the Valar.

This couldn't have been for his orratory skills alone, hell it was common knowledge in Valinor that Feanor was the greatest Child of Illuvatar.

It wouldn't be for his orratory skills alone. Some unimportant person who was a great speaker could not have convinced all but one tithe they should head for Middle-earth, no indeed. But Fëanáro was the heir to the first King of the Noldor, he was the greatest of the Eldar in Valinor, he was mighty, and his voice was probably the most potent of all his people. There's more, everything else you've read about him in the Silmarillion, practically. Reducing him to be lesser than Lúthien does not take away everything else about him!

What do you mean? You talk like Feanor was portrayed as your average run of the mill Elf Lord.

Show me an Elf Lord who was 'run of the mill'. But I meant only that Faenor was not God Like. In the Silmarillion as published he was the greatest of the Children of Ilúvatar (which as has been said was decided against later), I don't think that makes him Godlike. Possibly it may make him godlike in other sorts of mythologies, such as Greek Mythology, where a Man may become a god.

Otherwise I don't think he was Godlike, which in Eä must mean Eru-like. I don't even think he was angelic-god-like, i.e., Vala-like either. In the published Silmarillion he was close I think to being Angelic, in might, after the fashion of his Race (as Thingol was in appearance when he emerged from Nan Elmoth). Certainly. But Godlike? No, that's too high for him. Fëanáro doubtless would not hesitate to say that, he thought himself greater than all the Valar, he thought in his pride and madness that even the Valar would follow him eventually, which you disagree with. He'd tell you he's Godlike, that's the reason for half of what you quoted: 'if not the words of Faenor himself. '

Look at your examples: Sauron, Gothmog, Balrogs, Ungoliant. Angels (or Demons), not Angelic Gods, and not close to God. I was afraid you would bring Balrogs up again. They weren't Angelic in the narratives where they slew Fëanáro. They were a Race of creatures bred by Morgoth. Tolkien never wrote about the new kind of Balrogs battling Faenor, or Fingon, or Ecthelion, or Glorfindel. But, as I have said many times, they were far more terrible and powerful, and there were 'say three or at most seven' of them.

I doubt now whether Ecthelion could have slew Gothmog unaided if Gandalf had to give his life in order take the life of a lesser Balrog. I think it's quite possible it was just Gothmog and one other Balrog that took care of Faenor. At the most three Balrogs, I think. Well, I'm not that sure. If there were more than three (three we know have been slain, by Ecthelion, Glorfindel and Gandalf, if there were more than three some or all the rest of them perished in the War of Wrath), than maybe Faenor actually slew one after a long battle. Maybe. It would seem he would need help for that. I don't know, it took Gandalf ten days to slay one, and there was much magic involved and he died himself. Could Faenor have done the same? I'm sure you think so. Possibly, I think, but against more than one the battle wouldn't have been that long and I don't think he could have slain one. If it had been a ten or a five day battle, other Elves would have found him. Maybe his Sons would have joined him, I don't know. But if there were only three Balrogs altogether, I think it possible it was only Faenor and Gothmog. Mind you, no one else save Lúthien among the Elves could have put up the sort of fight Fëanor must have, and maybe he could have done what Gandalf did.

Even assuming Faenor, the second greatest of the Eldar, was indeed greater than a spirit who was at least the greatest of the Maiar of Aule (and later Melkor), I don't think it would make him immune to the Ring. The Ring was evil, and in the hands of a corrupt person it will further corrupt them. Faenor would have been quite capable of overthrowing Sauron with the Ring, but he would be the Dark Lord in his place. The Ring would have fed his ambition and increased his evil. Whether he was mightier than Sauron or not, the Ring would have increased his evil and his power, with it he would demolish Sauron (but not forever), and being evil and ambitious he would set up in Sauron's place and rule.

Faenor had great strength of will, yes. But he wouldn't want to resist. He wouldn't see it as resisting. What's to resist? Isildur fought Sauron, he knew Sauron was evil, (and unlike Faenor Isildur was a good person), but he didn't see the Ring as such. Faenor on the other hand, must have seen the Ring as a great weapon. That is, he would have. The use and one might say 'desire' of the Ring was in accord with his own. It could only help him in his quest to destroy the Dark Lord, and being very powerful he would probably succeed, and being very corrupt he would take his place.

IMPO.

But the argument is rather silly, isn't it? Faenor was in Mandos (presumably) when the Ring was made. Ah, who cares, I'll continue if you want to for the argument's sake. :)

[Captain Stern]

As you can probably tell I'm a big fan of Feanor :) I suppose in a way I should be thankful that Christopher Tolkien didn't use his father's latest ideas because I certainly wouldn't have enjoyed reading a Silmarillion where Feanor's importance is decreased.

In "The Silmarillion" Feanor bestrode the begining of the 1st Age like a Titan. This made the rebellion of the Noldor seem hugely epic to me. I doubt a version with a toned down Feanor would be remotely as powerful in the telling.

When I described Feanor as God-like I assumed you'd realise that I meant it in the general "he fought like a god" sense, if he didn't rival the Valar in this way then at least he aproached their power and yes comparing him to Eru is ludicrous! What a terrible missunderstanding!


As to you disagreeing with me to an extent about Feanor's might then what do you think of:

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

Take Feanor's battle with the Balrogs. He held his own for a long time untill they slowly began to overwhelm him. It is likely that these same Balrogs were the ones who rescued Morgoth from the bloated Ungoliant who was overwhelmed much quicker than Feanor was. Indeed this means that if Feanor had encountered Morgoth it is very likely that he would have succeeded in defeating him.

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

Another person mentioned this on another board and it seemed to settle the long ( and misunderstood in my oppinion ) debate as to whether Feanor or Fingolfin was the mightiest in arms.

As to the whole Balrog 'stages', I understood that there were 3 'stages'. The first were as you said 'demons bred by Morgoth'. I am sure that these AREN'T the Balrogs in the Silmarillion, these were the Balrogs that Tuor slew in Gondolin? He slew 3 of them if i'm correct.

In the Silmarillion it actually describes the Balrogs as being corrupted Maiar in 'Of the Enemies' in 'Valaquenta'. So i think that if they aren't the 3rd stage Balrog, the kind that battled Gandalf
then they are at least the 2nd stage Balrog, still Maiar but not as powerful as Tolkien had later intended for them to be.

[Captain Stern]

Do you think that this quote in "Of Feanor and the Unchaining of Melkor" holds any significance in relation to the whole Ring arguement:

--------------------------------------------------------------
"For Feanor was driven by the fire of his own heart only, working ever swiftly and alone ; and he asked the aid and sought the councel of none that dwelt in Aman, great or small, save only and for a little while of Nerdanel the wise, his wife."

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

I think a few things could be deduced from this quote.
For one, it's debatable that had the Ring existed during the time of the rebellion whether he'd have used it or not, the quote would suggest that the ring would hold little or no sway over him.

Secondly, had Feanor used the Ring and defeated Morgoth could Feanor be 'driven' by the influence of something or someone else extinguishing the the fire of his own will? So Considerable that it was.

[Ñólendil]

As to you disagreeing with me to an extent about Feanor's might then what do you think of:

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

Take Feanor's battle with the Balrogs. He held his own for a long time until they slowly began to overwhelm him. It is likely that these same Balrogs were the ones who rescued Morgoth from the bloated Ungoliant who was overwhelmed much quicker than Feanor was. Indeed this means that if Feanor had encountered Morgoth it is very likely that he would have succeeded in defeating him.

I've already told you what I thought of this. I think that's what sparked my Balrog comments.

I will say again: the 'first Balrogs' as you call them largely are the Balrogs in the Silmarillion.The later conception of Balrogs never touched the narratives. There is a little that is influenced by the Balrog from the Lord of the Rings, like the world 'winged speed over Hithlum', but otherwise those are the Book of Lost Tales Balrogs. That's why I don't think it's a good idea to talk about them as though they're of the same kind seen in the Lord of the Rings. They're completely different creatures with the same name. Christopher Tolkien had to use those old narratives in many case, however, because they were never revised. So, as I said, he cut out specific descriptions of the old Balrogs that contradicted the Lord of the Rings, and left them in. There was no he could implement the three or seven Balrogs of far greater power and majesty. There's no narrative written by JRR Tolkien in which Faenor battles those newer and greater Balrogs.

I don't think Tuor slew any Balrogs in Gondolin. I suppose he might of in the old Tale of Tuor (I think published in Shaping of Middle-earth, one of the HoMe books), I haven't reached that part yet. When Tolkien was rewriting that story on the grand scale, he only reached Tuor's coming to Gondolin, as can be seen in Unfinished Tales. So Christopher had to go back to the old tale for the rest of the chapter in the Silmarillion. I don't think Tuor's slaying of Balrogs appears in the published Silmarillion, so if it happened JRR must have decided against it. Glorfindel and Ecthelion each slew a Balrog and perished as well in the old tale. JRR Tolkien kept this idea, but noted Glorfindel's battle may need revision.

In the Silmarillion it actually describes the Balrogs as being corrupted Maiar in 'Of the Enemies' in 'Valaquenta'. So i think that if they aren't the 3rd stage Balrog, the kind that battled Gandalf
then they are at least the 2nd stage Balrog, still Maiar but not as powerful as Tolkien had later intended for them to be.

Those notes are derived from revisions by JRR Tolkien in the old texts, in the Valaquenta, after the publication of the Lord of the Rings. But the battles with the Balrogs were still never revised, and Christopher had to use the old ones, cutting out some of the passages that obviously contradicted the Lord of the Rings.

It must be understood JRR Tolkien didn't have the same chapters you read in the published Silmarillion in front of them, updating them now and then. As can be seen in the History of Middle-earth, Christopher Tolkien had to undertake a great amount of research to put together the Silmarillion, from all sorts of different texts (and he understandably overlooked many things, seeing them only afterwards in his work on the HoMe). Many elements are derived from essays (linguistic and philosophical) that were not even in JRR's Silmarillion writings.


__________

I don't think the quote you posted sheds any light on the Ring debate at all. Faenor was stong-willed and stubborn, and he only took any advice at all from his wife, and that for a little while. I think that's all the passage implies. I don't see it makes him immune to the Ring, which I think could only happen in a spirit that was free from evil.

Secondly, had Feanor used the Ring and defeated Morgoth could Feanor be 'driven' by the influence of something or someone else extinguishing the the fire of his own will?

Yes. If the Ring had existed when Faenor was alive, and if the wording was more specific to magical devices made by other persons, I might follow you.

[Captain Stern]

I didn't finish the sentance "these were the Balrogs that Tuor slew in Gondolin? He slew 3 of them if i'm correct."

I remember someone here sying that in a HOME book somewhere that Tuor had slain 3 Balrogs in the siege of Gondolin, and no it doesn't say anywhere in The Silmarillion that he did.

Well doesn't this prove that the Balrogs in The Silmarillion are not 'Bred demons' and are in fact Maiar, be it lesser in power than the final version of the Balrog which killed Gandalf in Lord of the Rings? If Glorfindel killed and was killed by a single Balrog then how on earth could Tuor kill 3 Balrogs?!

[galadriel]

if i can get a word in here....

I think that Feanor was certainly "great", the same way that, say, Hitler was great. He was powerful in words, arms, and spirit, but he was corrupt, and would use the ring for his own purposes, to make himself and his own works great. Moreover, he was still just an elf, although an incredibly powerful one. It stands to reason that Sauron, a Maia, would be more powerful than him, and the Ring would overtake him eventually.

While Feanor's extremely strong will would help him stay in control for a long time, eventually he would start to do Sauron's dirty deeds instead of his own, maybe even without realizing it. I'll agree that Feanor *would* last the longest, even longer than either Luthien or Galadriel--while Galadriel was wiser and Luthien was all-around amazing, Feanor's will was the strongest of any non-Vala or non-Maia.

[Ñólendil]

I remember someone here sying that in a HOME book somewhere that Tuor had slain 3 Balrogs in the siege of Gondolin, and no it doesn't say anywhere in The Silmarillion that he did.

Oh. What you probably heard was that only three Balrogs went to the Siege of Gondolin (i.e., there were only three Balrogs). I remember someone (probably M.M.) saying that, to combat some argument in a Balrog debate about armies of them attacking the Hidden Kingdom.

I can agree with that galadriel.