Opinions: FÃ«anor, ritcheous or over-proud? [Archive]

RÃan

04-03-2003, 05:32 PM

I broke down and bought HoME 12 (PoME) last week (oh well, there goes the budget!) and really enjoyed it, esp. the Shibboleth of FÃ«anor. JRRT spoke harshly of FÃ«anor at times in Morgoth's Ring, but he goes even farther in PoME - for example, As with FÃ«anor, FinwÃ« later added prefixes to their name: the elder he called Ã‘olofinwÃ«, and the younger ArafinwÃ«. Ã‘olo was the stem of words referring to wisdom, and Ara, ar- a prefixed form of the stem Ara- ' noble'. FÃ«anor felt aggrieved both by the use of his father's name for his two younger brothers, and again by the prefixes that were added; for his pride was growing and clouding his reason: he thought himself not only the greatest master of KurwÃ« (which was true) but also of Ã‘olmÃ« (which was not true, save in matters of language), and certainly the noblest of the children of FinwÃ« (which might have proved true, if he had not become the proudest and most arrogant).

Interesting fellow! But sad that his talents and passions were unchecked by wisdom or kindness. That last part about how he 'might have' been the noblest was the saddest...

Now let's play some Ãžrabble!

(note - Curu means 'skill' - FÃ«anor's name was KurufinwÃ«/CurufinwÃ«. Ã‘olofinwÃ« was Sindarized into Fingolfin, and ArafinwÃ« was Sindarized into Finarfin.)

Ruinel

04-03-2003, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Linaewen
*Sigh* I find myself agreeing with everything Ruinel and Gwaimir are saying again. I really should think for myself!
Yes, thinking for yourself is always best. I'm not fond of thinking for people, it puts a drain on my brainpower.
Originally posted by Falagar
[BWhat's up with all this FÃ«anor-hating?! [/B]
Like I said, we really don't hate FÃ«anor. We just dislike all the stuff he did. But without all that nasty stuff he did, the stories would have been so dull. :D

Gwaimir Windgem

04-03-2003, 09:40 PM

Question: does Ã‘ pronounce as ng?

RÃan

04-03-2003, 10:25 PM

Yes, and the initial 'ng' is a rather hard sound for Caucasians (or at least Americans) to pronounce. I had a friend from Thailand work with me on it (they have that initial 'ng' sound in their language) and I got fairly good at it. I would just say a word like 'ring' then go straight into Ã‘oldor (i.e., "ri-NGoldor") until he was happy with how it sounded, then I would just kinda think 'ring' in my head before saying Ã‘oldor, now I can just say it w/o the help of saying/thinking a word like 'ring' first.

Gwaimir Windgem

04-03-2003, 10:43 PM

O, I wish I knew a Tolkien scholar in person, so they could coach me! :(

RÃan

04-03-2003, 11:15 PM

Try the ring thing, GW, it really works quite well :)

Lefty Scaevola

04-04-2003, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by Falagar
(though we would get some problems with words starting in 's').
That would be torment enough ;)

Don't be thilly.

Artanis

04-04-2003, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
No he HAS NOT! I have a few choice jokes, pranks, and torments, that he richly deserves. Tell us! :D
Don't be thilly. :p

afro-elf

04-04-2003, 03:50 AM

check this thread

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4686&highlight=Feanor+a+villian

Falagar

04-04-2003, 10:12 AM

Don't be thilly.
I am ath thilly ath I want :p

Maedhros

04-04-2003, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Ruinel
I'm not fond of FÃ«anor. He is headstrong and stubborn. As Gwaimir Windgem pointed out, he is ruled by his emotions. I had a lot of pitty for Nerdanel, being married to him.
Interesting, but people where amazed that FÃ«anor would choose Nerdanel as his wife.
From the Morgoth's Ring: Later Quentas
While still in early youth FÃ«anor wedded Nerdanel, a maiden of the Noldor; at which many wondered, for she was not among the fairest of her people. But she was strong, and free of mind, and filled with the desire of knowledge.

Originally posted by Ruinel
However, as Arien the Maia pointed out, he is interesting. What would the books be without him? Don't tell Maedhros I said this, but I think FÃ«anor's faults and weaknesses actually make the stories he is in. And certainly, he makes others look so much better when compared to him.
Hehe. But in all reality, you needed an Elf like FÃ«anor to drive the Ã‘oldor out of paradise. Who else had the skill and passion to do that?
When you think about it, FÃ«anor is in a class by himself. He is all of the elves the most brilliant, not only in matters of lore but in craftsmanship. The achievements of the others elves pales in comparison to that of KurufinwÃ«.
Also remember that it was FÃ«anor that Melkor wanted to corrupt.

Ruinel

04-04-2003, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Maedhros
Hehe. But in all reality, you needed an Elf like FÃ«anor to drive the Ã‘oldor out of paradise. Who else had the skill and passion to do that?
When you think about it, FÃ«anor is in a class by himself. He is all of the elves the most brilliant, not only in matters of lore but in craftsmanship. The achievements of the others elves pales in comparison to that of KurufinwÃ«.
Also remember that it was FÃ«anor that Melkor wanted to corrupt.
To drive the Noldor out of paradise... not exactly a good thing now was it? (Rhetorical!) I wouldn't call him brilliant. Melkor wanted to corrupt many. He usually went for those that he could use and those that would seem easy to corrupt.

Arien the Maia

04-05-2003, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by Maedhros
people where amazed that FÃ«anor would choose Nerdanel as his wife.

Maybe Feanor was one of those Elves who looked for the inner beauty of another and not just the physical appearance. :p
It is intersting though...isn't Feanor considered one of the best looking Elves?

Ruinel

04-05-2003, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by Arien the Maia
Maybe Feanor was one of those Elves who looked for the inner beauty of another and not just the physical appearance. :p
It is intersting though...isn't Feanor considered one of the best looking Elves?
IMO, Feanor was lucky to have Nerdanel.
Maybe it's a mental block, but I don't recall that ("one of the best looking Elves").

Artanis

04-05-2003, 10:28 AM

I'd say FÃ«anor married the one who best could be his match in skill and knowledge, and with strength enough to stand up to him if necessary. He wouldn't want someone tailwagging at his feet. Nerdanel also had strength enough to give him 7 sons, very impressive woman. It's a pity FÃ«anor and Nerdanel afterwards became estranged.

Too many women think they can change a man, if they only love him enough. They're wrong.

Ruinel

04-05-2003, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Artanis
I'd say FÃ«anor married the one who best could be his match in skill and knowledge, and with strength enough to stand up to him if necessary. He wouldn't want someone tailwagging at his feet. Nerdanel also had strength enough to give him 7 sons, very impressive woman. It's a pity FÃ«anor and Nerdanel afterwards became estranged.

Too many women think they can change a man, if they only love him enough. They're wrong.

Good point!!! (both)
I think that if I had 7 children, I would go insane. She would have to be strong of mind to have 7 sons as well as put up with his bull.

Maedhros

04-05-2003, 02:42 PM

Maybe it's a mental block, but I don't recall that ("one of the best looking Elves").
It is.
From the Published Silmarillion: Of the Sun and Moon and the Hiding of Valinor
For FÃ«anor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind, in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and in subtlety alike, of all the Children of IlÃºvatar, and a bright flame was in him.
I wouldn't call him brilliant.
I would call him a genius only for his work in languages.
If you look at Vinyar Tengwar # 39: Appendix D of Quendi and Eldar
In the mode that he propounded for the practical representation of Quenya he made use of the syllabic analysis of his predecessors, already embodied in the older RÃºmilian script, but he did this chiefly for the sake of compactness and brevity. The basic "letters" were consonants, and vowels were indicated by diacritic signs, usually written above the preceding consonant (that is, according to the older terminology, indicating its "colour"). Where a vowel had no preceding consonant use was made of the device already mentioned, by which the vowel signs were attached to the letter . But this no longer had in the FÃ«anorian system any consonantal value, and became merely a "carrier" for convenience in writing. FÃ«anor indeed repudiated the theory that penye tengwi were always due to consonantal loss. (Note 3)
FÃ«anor, therefore, in spite of the usual mode of spelling, held that vowels were each independent tengwi, or word-building elements, though different in functions. Vowels he called Ã³ma-tengwi or Ã³mear'y and consonants Ã±Ã¡va-tengwi or Ã±Ã¡vear. That is, those chiefly dependent on resonance of the voice, and those chiefly dependent on the movements in the mouth (including the lips) (Note 4). For Ã±Ã¡vear he later substituted the invented word patakar, taking p, t, k (as in his alphabet) to represent the chief positions of consonantal contact or friction.
FÃ«anor actually devised "for the Loremasters" separate independent letters for the vowels, distinct from the tehtar. This quanta sarme or "full writing" was indeed mainly used by the Loremasters for special purposes, until later in Middle-earth the FÃ«anorian letters were applied to other languages, such as Sindarin, in which the diacritic method of indicating vowels was inconvenient.
And that has nothing to do with his abilities as a craftsmen.

Falagar

04-05-2003, 10:04 PM

A little bit out of topic, perhaps, but: I've got a new avatar!
...which, for some reason, has always reminded me of FÃ«anor. Looks perhaps a little bit too 'happy', but...well... :rolleyes:

Ruinel

04-05-2003, 10:15 PM

Falagar, be careful... that avitar looks an awful lot like he has pointed ears. Many around here do not believe Elves have pointed ears. ;)

Maedhros, :rolleyes: ... ever the FÃ«anor defender.

Falagar

04-05-2003, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by Ruinel
Falagar, be careful... that avitar looks an awful lot like he has pointed ears. Many around here do not believe Elves have pointed ears. ;)

Who might that be? Every enlighted person knows that Elves have leaf-shaped ears ;)

Artanis

04-06-2003, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by Falagar
Who might that be? Every enlighted person knows that Elves have leaf-shaped ears ;) Enlighted to the point of being dazzled, I would say. :p

BTW, Who is the man on your avatar, if it's not FÃ«anor?

Falagar

04-06-2003, 05:00 AM

It's a hero called Lingolas, in a computer game called Age of Wonders. It was one of the developers (who I can't remember the name of right now) who did the artwork (thogh they've started with some computer-made pictures in AoW 2, which IMO aren't as pretty as the old, painted ones).

Linaewen

04-06-2003, 05:09 AM

I should probably start playing computer games, just so I can understand much of what goes on here. Some things, I think, may be related to games and because they are, I have no idea what they are about. (I think that D n D classes is one)

Today, I noticed that this song had the lyrics along the lines of 'Maybe I'm a little righteous and too proud', which I thought was ironic considering that this thread is discussing whether Feanor is the one or the other, while this singer is saying she is both. :D

Falagar

04-06-2003, 05:17 AM

Enlighted to the point of being dazzled, I would say. :p
If I hadn't had so much light in my eyes, perhaps I would have understood what you wrote :p

The works of wonder for the glory of Arda that he might otherwise have wrought only ManwÃ« might in some measure conceive. And it was told by the Vanyar who held vigil with the Valar that when the messengers declared to ManwÃ« the answers of FÃ«anor to his heralds, ManwÃ« wept and bowed his head.
I'm now rereading The Silm, and this passage sent shivers through my body...

Linaewen

04-06-2003, 05:33 AM

I wish I was rereading it. But one doesn't usually reread a book one has just finished reading.

Yes.. that passage is sad and beautiful. Like the last line in 'Of the Rings of Power'

In the twilight of autumn it sailed out of Mithlond until the seas of the Bent World fell away beneath it, and the winds of the round sky troubled it no more, and borne upon the high airs above the mists of the world it passed into the Ancient West, and an end was come for the Eldar of story and of song.

Back on topic, why are you the 'Desperate defender of Feanor', Falagar (see, I remembered your name!) Why do you like him so much? Me, I dislike him heavily.

Falagar

04-06-2003, 05:45 AM

Why I like him? Because of all of those passages quoted above. It's a sad story, an Elf who could have been such a great guy instead leads his people out on quest doomed to fail.
But I also like him because he's more "human": He isn't perfect (like some other guy :rolleyes: ). What would you have done if someone slayed your father, who you loved more than anybody else in this world? And also stole your treasures, which you could only make once? Sit down and wait? It doesn't justify all of his actions, like the kinslaying, but it explains them.

Also, he follows his own will only. No-one, not even the mightiest being in Arda, could tell him what to do.
The only one he ever took counsel from was his wife, and that was only for a while.

Linaewen

04-06-2003, 06:08 AM

Why I like him? Because of all of those passages quoted above. It's a sad story, an Elf who could have been such a great guy instead leads his people out on quest doomed to fail.

I disagree. Firstly, he wasn't a 'great guy' to begin with, he was always selfish and unfair, like when he didn't want anything to do with his brothers etc. Secondly, it's not like he didn't have a choice in leading his people on the quest. He somewhat forced his sons to take an oath, which some regretted doing later on. You make him sound like he was reluctant to go on the quest, which he wasn't.

But I also like him because he's more "human": He isn't perfect (like some other guy ). What would you have done if someone slayed your father, who you loved more than anybody else in this world? And also stole your treasures, which you could only make once? Sit down and wait? It doesn't justify all of his actions, like the kinslaying, but it explains them.

He may have been more 'human' but his flaws were quite extreme. His arrogance, self-centredness and paranoia, for example, are probably worse than many 'men'. Nothing explains the Kinslaying. That was horrific and unnecessary.

Also, he follows his own will only. No-one, not even the mightiest being in Arda, could tell him what to do.
The only one he ever took counsel from was his wife, and that was only for a while.

Another flaw, not caring about anyone else's wishes but his own, and perhaps his father's.

Sorry if any of my info is incorrect, this is what I can recall.

Falagar

04-06-2003, 06:51 AM

I disagree. Firstly, he wasn't a 'great guy' to begin with, he was always selfish and unfair, like when he didn't want anything to do with his brothers etc. Secondly, it's not like he didn't have a choice in leading his people on the quest. He somewhat forced his sons to take an oath, which some regretted doing later on. You make him sound like he was reluctant to go on the quest, which he wasn't.
I did? That was not the intention. Anyway, my point is that he could have been a great guy...hadn't he turned out bad :rolleyes: As far as I know, he never forced his sons to take the oath (nor have I heard Tolkien state so anywhere else), they did so of free will.
He may have been more 'human' but his flaws were quite extreme. His arrogance, self-centredness and paranoia, for example, are probably worse than many 'men'. Nothing explains the Kinslaying. That was horrific and unnecessary.

But he cannot take the whole blame. All the Noldor who helped him (except for Fingolfin and his host, who didn't know what was going on) could have refused to do as he wanted.
Another flaw, not caring about anyone else's wishes but his own, and perhaps his father's.

Another flaw, yes, but still a flaw to admire. He doesn't do as everyone tell him, he does what he himself deem wise, however disasterous or evil it may be.

Linaewen

04-06-2003, 07:09 AM

I did? That was not the intention. Anyway, my point is that he could have been a great guy...hadn't he turned out bad As far as I know, he never forced his sons to take the oath (nor have I heard Tolkien state so anywhere else), they did so of free will.

Ok, just checking on the correct page, they did so of their own free will. But they couldn't very well not do it, could they? They were caught up in the moment, what with Feanor convincing everyone that it was the right thing to do. Uhhh.. let's just forget about the sons before I get told off for being incorrect and stupid.

But he cannot take the whole blame. All the Noldor who helped him (except for Fingolfin and his host, who didn't know what was going on) could have refused to do as he wanted.

Sorry. I didn't mean to say it was all his fault. But he lead the Noldor into the battle, saying that the Teleri renounced their friendship.

Another flaw, yes, but still a flaw to admire. He doesn't do as everyone tell him, he does what he himself deem wise, however disasterous or evil it may be.

Yes, he does what he deems wise, not caring to listen to others' advice.

Ah! So sorry anybody who also dislikes Feanor. I know my argument is weak and probably contains incorrect evidence. :(

Falagar

04-06-2003, 08:22 AM

Ah! So sorry anybody who also dislikes Feanor. I know my argument is weak and probably contains incorrect evidence. :(
You don't need any evidence to tell that he was a bad guy, and that you don't like him. I like him even though he did a lot of bad deeds, and generally was arrogant and selfish. :)

Linaewen

04-06-2003, 08:27 AM

So, do you like him because he's a bad guy then? A little bit of a role model, eh?

Falagar

04-06-2003, 08:32 AM

So, do you like him because he's a bad guy then?
More of a tragic, half evil, unwise-but-inteligent-lore-master, cool, Morgoth-defying Elf than a bad guy, really.
A little bit of a role model, eh?
Yup. Guess what I'm going to name my firstborn son ;)

Linaewen

04-06-2003, 08:37 AM

Eh? Feanor's tragic? When?
Also, that's funny. Unwise but intelligent. I guess you could have that, but it's just weird, that combination.

Feanor? Oh dear. Nar, I'm calling my son Illuvatar.:p

Falagar

04-06-2003, 08:43 AM

Eh? Feanor's tragic? When?
when:
The works of wonder for the glory of Arda that he might otherwise have wrought only ManwÃ« might in some measure conceive. And it was told by the Vanyar who held vigil with the Valar that when the messengers declared to ManwÃ« the answers of FÃ«anor to his heralds, ManwÃ« wept and bowed his head.

and in a passage from Morgoth's Ring, which I can't quote because then I would have to fetch the book (<--lazy), saying that he would have been the noblest too...

Linaewen

04-06-2003, 08:48 AM

Nar, that's more what he could have been that is tragic. I meant, something happening to him that was terribly tragic (apart from the death of his mother) Like, being caught up in fate or curse of the Noldor (is it curse? I'm also too lazy to check) like others of the Noldor.

You're just gonna take any excuse to post that passage over and over again, aren't you, Falagar?

Inderjit Sanghera

04-06-2003, 09:45 AM

meant, something happening to him that was terribly tragic (apart from the death of his mother)

Also note that the the death of his mother was one of the biggest tragedies in Arda. Death did not exist in Aman, before, and yet Feanor has to live without his mother for the rest of his life, as the 'Statute of Miriel and Finwe' says.

Other tragic things that happened to him:

The death of Finwe, his father who he loved more then anything. Wow, he was only the first Elf to have two dead paretns, def. not tragic, esp. in Aman where death was supposed to be non-existent.

The theft of his Silmarils.

The death of Amras in Losgar, which was accidentally (No he didn't climb abroad and stab him) his fault.

It seems that fate played a large part in his tragic fall, as without his deeds, even the evil ones, the fate of Arda would've been severly changed, most probably for the worst. I have always thought he was an unfortunate pawn in Eru's game of the fate of Arda. Feanor is to me a tragic hero, though he makes several Faustian errors, I think it is more fate that lead to his fall.

Lefty Scaevola

04-06-2003, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Inderjit Sanghera
The death of Finwe, his father who he loved more then anything.
Thats the official lengendary line, but it is apparent from his behavior that his narsacistic self love was MUCH greater.

Ruinel

04-06-2003, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Falagar
Who might that be? Every enlighted person knows that Elves have leaf-shaped ears ;)
There's a big discussion on another thread, Physical Description of Elves, in ME forum, where people have polarized their views on ears. I think elves have leaf shaped ears, many there do not. :D
Originally posted by Falagar
He isn't perfect (like some other guy ). o.O Watch it.
Originally posted by Linaewen
Nothing explains the Kinslaying. That was horrific and unnecessary. I agree!!!!!!!!! How could this be justified? "Yo, Teleri, give me the ships you love so dearly, or we're not friends anymore and I'll kill you." Even before that, he put a sword to his own brother (half-brother if you want to get technical on me) and threatened him. Sheesh! :rolleyes:

Attalus

04-06-2003, 03:47 PM

I have disliked Feanor (and his sons Celegorm and Curufin) ever since the first time I read the Sil. Able, certainly. Necessary to the story? Well, look at the title of the book. I have to laugh, though, thinking of him going to the parties with all three of them strapped to his forehead. Galadriel probably thought them too gaudy. Her taste is far too good to be seen wearing lightbulb-like gems.

Linaewen

04-12-2003, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by Inderjit Sanghera
Also note that the the death of his mother was one of the biggest tragedies in Arda. Death did not exist in Aman, before, and yet Feanor has to live without his mother for the rest of his life, as the 'Statute of Miriel and Finwe' says.

Other tragic things that happened to him:

The death of Finwe, his father who he loved more then anything. Wow, he was only the first Elf to have two dead paretns, def. not tragic, esp. in Aman where death was supposed to be non-existent.

The theft of his Silmarils.

The death of Amras in Losgar, which was accidentally (No he didn't climb abroad and stab him) his fault.

It seems that fate played a large part in his tragic fall, as without his deeds, even the evil ones, the fate of Arda would've been severly changed, most probably for the worst. I have always thought he was an unfortunate pawn in Eru's game of the fate of Arda. Feanor is to me a tragic hero, though he makes several Faustian errors, I think it is more fate that lead to his fall.

I agree with all that you say. When I posted that message, I didn't know how exactly to express what I was thinking. Now, I have forgotten what my line of thought was. Sorry.

Linaewen

04-12-2003, 04:50 AM

ELF GIRL clean out your pm inbox!!!

Whoops. *looks sheepish* The fullness of her PM box is partially due to me and my stupidity.

Ruinel

04-12-2003, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Linaewen
Whoops. *looks sheepish* The fullness of her PM box is partially due to me and my stupidity.
No harm, no foul. :D

Originally posted by Inderjit Sanghera
Feanor is to me a tragic hero, though he makes several Faustian errors, I think it is more fate that lead to his fall. [B]
Very true, Inderjit. However, in the end it was his own will and personality that cause his own fall. He chose to do the things he did, he has a choice and he made it. He was not a pawn in Eru's game. Typically, the Noldor were not selfish, FÃ«anor was an exception...but the Noldor were beloved of AulÃ«, and he and his people came often among them. Great became their knowledge and their skill.... And it came to pass that the mansons of the house of FinwÃ«, quarrying in the hills after stone... first discovered the earth-gems, and brought them forth in countless myriads.... [B]They hoarded them not, but gave them freely, and by their labour enriched all Valinor.
FÃ«anor hoarded the Silmarils. He should have given them to the Valar when The Trees were destroyed, but he was selfish. The Silmarils were made from The Trees and should have been shared by all, just as The Trees were.

Linaewen

04-13-2003, 10:19 AM

Yay! Thanks Ruinel! Inderjit totally convinced me there that my stance of Feanor was wrong... You've renewed by detestation!

Ruinel

04-13-2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Linaewen
Yay! Thanks Ruinel! Inderjit totally convinced me there that my stance of Feanor was wrong... You've renewed by detestation!
:D Anytime, dear friend, anytime.:D

Linaewen

04-15-2003, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Ruinel
:D Anytime, dear friend, anytime.:D

Dear friend? Oh how kind of you. I guess our completely off-topic discussions about my 'love' for Orli Bloom (who is now an elf) has made us rather close...
:D

Falagar

04-15-2003, 12:58 PM

Must...convince...Linaewen...

Looks like I'm too late, Ruinel got here first ;)

Maedhros

04-15-2003, 02:56 PM

He chose to do the things he did, he has a choice and he made it.
You mean like the choice that his mother, alone of all the Eldar gave up her hrÃ¶a in ValinÃ³rÃ«, or the one where his father was slained in there too?
How do you know how he felt looking at all the elves who had eternal life, yet his mother was not with him?
FÃ«anor hoarded the Silmarils. He should have given them to the Valar when The Trees were destroyed, but he was selfish. The Silmarils were made from The Trees and should have been shared by all, just as The Trees were.
The Silmarils were made of the Light of the Trees, not of the trees themselves.
Why did Melkor tried to influence FÃ«anor most of all, because HE was the genius amongst the elves. What would a mere say an FF could compare in the genius of him? FÃ«anor was the only elf capable of leading the Ã‘oldor out of ValinÃ³rÃ«, he was the only one who had the passion to follow his will.
I guess our completely off-topic discussions about my 'love' for Orli Bloom (who is now an elf) has made us rather close...
I always knew that Ruinel was an Legolas fan!;)

Falagar

04-15-2003, 07:27 PM

What would a mere say an FF could compare in the genius of him?
Shh! Are you trying to get us all killed? :mad: ;)

Ruinel

04-15-2003, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Maedhros
You mean like the choice that his mother, alone of all the Eldar gave up her hrÃ¶a in ValinÃ³rÃ«, or the one where his father was slained in there too? How do you know how he felt looking at all the elves who had eternal life, yet his mother was not with him?
Many go through trials in their lives and yet in adulthood make the decision to do what is right. To say that he was hurt by these things and that these hurts had the power over him to change him for the worse without his wanting it to happen is not right. Think about the many children who grow up in abused families or who are abandoned in childhood that grow up to be kind to their own children. They choose this, even though their lives were hard.

Originally posted by Maedhros
The Silmarils were made of the Light of the Trees, not of the trees themselves.
But without the trees he would not have had the light. Why should he hoard them so? The Trees were for all to share, including their light. The Trees were not placed in a private garden. No, they were placed so that all could share in their beauty. Feanor should have shared what he made. But he was selfish and greedy.
Originally posted by Maedhros
Why did Melkor tried to influence FÃ«anor most of all, because HE was the genius amongst the elves.
*snore*
Originally posted by Maedhros
What would a mere say an FF could compare in the genius of him? FÃ«anor was the only elf capable of leading the Ã‘oldor out of ValinÃ³rÃ«, he was the only one who had the passion to follow his will.
A will of greed and selfishness is not the will of a great leader! To lead is to do what is best for those you lead, not to fulfill your own selfish desires. The Noldor did not all follow Feanor, they followed the princes of the Noldor. They were not all under Feanor.
Originally posted by Maedhros
I always knew that Ruinel was an Legolas fan!;)
grrrrrrrr... *draws sword, bears teeth* you had better retract that statement or I shall run you through.

Linaewen

04-16-2003, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Falagar
Must...convince...Linaewen...

Looks like I'm too late, Ruinel got here first ;)

Oh, no. Don't worry. You can still try to convince me. ;) I am, after all, willing to look at things from different angles (as Ruinel herself said). Though I doubt what you can say will persuade me. I cannot like FÃ«anor, especially because of the Kinslaying.

Maedhros

04-16-2003, 12:32 PM

Many go through trials in their lives and yet in adulthood make the decision to do what is right. To say that he was hurt by these things and that these hurts had the power over him to change him for the worse without his wanting it to happen is not right. Think about the many children who grow up in abused families or who are abandoned in childhood that grow up to be kind to their own children. They choose this, even though their lives were hard.
And how many of those were elves who lived in paradise?
A will of greed and selfishness is not the will of a great leader! To lead is to do what is best for those you lead, not to fulfill your own selfish desires. The Noldor did not all follow Feanor, they followed the princes of the Noldor. They were not all under Feanor.
Fingolfin followed the will of FÃ«anor. No FÃ«anor, no leaving of ValinÃ³rÃ«.
grrrrrrrr... *draws sword, bears teeth* you had better retract that statement or I shall run you through.
SGH, where are you?:eek:

Elvellon

04-16-2003, 06:50 PM

Ruinel wrote:

Many go through trials in their lives and yet in adulthood make the decision to do what is right. To say that he was hurt by these things and that these hurts had the power over him to change him for the worse without his wanting it to happen is not right. Think about the many children who grow up in abused families or who are abandoned in childhood that grow up to be kind to their own children. They choose this, even though their lives were hard.

And yet, how much are we the product of the environment and fortuitous choices we make? And Feanor was not only subject to the environment, but also to the deliberate, cunning malice of Morgoth, that knew very well how to manipulate Feanor (and Fingolfin).

Sister Golden Hair

04-16-2003, 07:08 PM

SGH, where are you?Aw, don't worry Meadhros, I won't let her run you through.:)

I consider Feanor to be one of those Elves whose fea was tainted. So the tragic events that happened in his life really don't matter too much. Had his parents lived, he probably would still have been the same. His spirit was just not quite right.

Ruinel

04-17-2003, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by Maedhros
And how many of those were elves who lived in paradise?
Fingolfin followed the will of FÃ«anor. No FÃ«anor, no leaving of ValinÃ³rÃ«.

SGH, where are you?:eek:
Paradise or no paradise, we all live by free will and make the choices for our lives, whether we be Elf or Mortal Man. But I agree with SGH, his fÃ«a was tainted. The choices he made, would have been the same regardless of his experiences. He was who he was.
Yes, I agree... FÃ«anor was the reason behind the Noldor leaving Valinor and going to ME.

I see you are still hinding behind SGH skirts, pup! roflol! *puts sword away, as Maedhros is frightened enough* :D

Maedhros

04-17-2003, 11:55 PM

The choices he made, would have been the same regardless of his experiences. He was who he was.
I disagree. If MÃ*riel had lived, then he would not had half brothers but full blood brothers. There would have been no rupture in the House of FinwÃ«. There would have been no banishing of FÃ«anor to Formenos, FinwÃ« would have still lived in Tirion and it would have been harder for Melkor to slay the Ã‘oldÃ³ran.
FÃ«anor would have never rebelled against his father. There Ã‘oldor would have been under the leadership of FinwÃ« and with the Valar they would have brought Melkor down.
Unfortunately with this scenario, ME would have been probably more devastated by such a war than the War of Wrath in the Published Silmarillion in where almost all of Beleriand was destroyed.
I see you are still hinding behind SGH skirts, pup! roflol! *puts sword away, as Maedhros is frightened enough*
Hehe. I saw your new Title. Are you sure that you got the elf name right. I thought you were a Legolas fan too.;)

Earniel

04-18-2003, 03:24 AM

Originally posted by Maedhros
I disagree. If MÃ*riel had lived, then he would not had half brothers but full blood brothers. There would have been no rupture in the House of FinwÃ«. There would have been no banishing of FÃ«anor to Formenos, FinwÃ« would have still lived in Tirion and it would have been harder for Melkor to slay the Ã‘oldÃ³ran.

You know, I'm not so sure about that. FÃ«anor was against the remarriage of his father and subsequently not fond of his half-brothers. But since he was such an hot-tempered guy I wonder whether he could have liked any brother, full blood or no.

Inderjit Sanghera

04-18-2003, 09:10 AM

But since he was such an hot-tempered guy I wonder whether he could have liked any brother, full blood or no.

Yes, very much so. Feanor had a 'bias' against any children of Finwe+Indis from the beggining, and he can even be excused for this, I mean as a young, hot tempered ;) Elf he would've seen them as ususrping his fathers love, as the Shibboleth comments. I mean I think it is a element of Fingolfin being SONS of Finwe, Feanor never had a problem with Findis or Lalwende, though he didn't really have much problems with Finarfin at that. Feanor wasn't a evil Elf, before the Noldor began to become unsettled, and it is probable that he wouldv'e greeted any full blooded siblings with delight.

IMO, his life would've been more stable with a mother+father, and if Miriel had chosen to be re-embodied when aksed and if she was able to have children my view is that he would've loved/cared for them very much.

Artanis

04-21-2003, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by Inderjit Sanghera
Yes, very much so. Feanor had a 'bias' against any children of Finwe+Indis from the beggining
[snip]
IMO, his life would've been more stable with a mother+father, and if Miriel had chosen to be re-embodied when aksed and if she was able to have children my view is that he would've loved/cared for them very much. Agree. FÃ«anor's problem was the (seemingly) rejection of his mother MÃ*riel. That's why he resented Indis and had a grudge against her sons even before they were born. His father giving the name FinwÃ« also to his half-brothers didn't make things better, neither did the shibboleth thing. Nothing of this were aimed at him, but FÃ«anor read it as a personal attack on his mother and himself, being imo almost obsessed with the resentment of his father's second marriage. Fingolfin claiming the High Kingship of the Ã‘oldor was the last blow.

I don't know whether his fÃ«a was tainted, but I'm convinced that MÃ*riel's was, and FinwÃ«'s too, I think.
Originally posted by Elvellon
And yet, how much are we the product of the environment and fortuitous choices we make? And Feanor was not only subject to the environment, but also to the deliberate, cunning malice of Morgoth, that knew very well how to manipulate Feanor (and Fingolfin).Exactly. Now FÃ«anor's temper and overproudness made him a thankful victim for Morgoth's manipulation. But if Fanor was the leader of the rebellion, many others followed more than willingly, among them Fingolfin, Galadriel, and Finrod.

Attalus

04-22-2003, 06:16 PM

I would like to point out that in Unfinished Tales, JRRT came to the final conclusion that Galadriel was unfriends forever with Feanor and took no part in his rebellion or the Kinslaying, but went to Middle-Earth in a ship she and Celevborn had made. Indeed, she seems rather obsessed with her half-brother and his deeds.

Inderjit Sanghera

04-22-2003, 06:22 PM

Indeed, she seems rather obsessed with her half-brother and his deeds

Galadriel did not have a Half-Brother-unless you are refering to Feanor who was her Half-Uncle.

Falagar

04-22-2003, 06:23 PM

Attalus

04-22-2003, 06:39 PM

Whoops, you are right, half-uncle is correct.

Ruinel

04-22-2003, 07:25 PM

She wasn't obsessed with FÃ«anor's (half-uncle is correct, btw) deeds nor with him. She just saw him for what he was, that made her dislike him. (She was very wise.)

Attalus

04-22-2003, 11:21 PM

I agree. She saw him as he was, hateful, and breeding hateful sons.

Inderjit Sanghera

04-23-2003, 03:51 AM

I agree. She saw him as he was, hateful, and breeding hateful sons.

I'm confused as to what you are getting at? Hateful sons? Galadriel never had any bias -only Feanor himself.

From her earliest years she had a marvellous gift of insight into the minds of others, but judged them with mercy and understanding, and she withheld her good will from none SAVE FEANOR ONLY

I really don't see how the sons of Feanor were 'hateful' in Aman. It is probable that whilst in Tirion (Though it is probable that the Finarfians spent a lot of time in Alqualonde) the Third Gen Finweans mixed quite a bit, as shown by this passage from the Shibboleth of Feanor:

And when his sons in their childhood asked why their kin in the house of Finwe used S for P

Also, not the various inter-Finwean friendships, such as Fingon and Maedhros, Curufin and Celegorm and Aredhel and the fact that Maedhros ands Maglor, pre-oath were as wise and noble as any Elves, and Amrod and Amras, as shown by the shibboleth were pretty 'innocent' characters.

Ruinel

04-23-2003, 08:33 AM

Inderjit, I see your point that pre-oath sons of Feanor were quite different from post-oath sons of Feanor. And I see your point that the oath changed them, somewhat in their personality.

However, I have to point out that there had to be a seed of malice within them for the oath to fertilize.

Feanor was not a meek and mild Elf in Aman. It would be safe to say that his sons would follow in his footsteps, wanting his approval. That's what children do. They try to be like dad, or mom, to win the approval of their parent.

As for his followers in the mass exit from Aman, many followed because they were stirred by his words. Some went on the journey, not because they followed him but because of their loyalty to kin (be that kin him or others) and could not be parted from that kin.

Galadriel did not follow Feanor because she wanted to obtain the Silmarils. She did so because she was restless, she wanted to see ME, and she wanted a rule of her own. Finrod followed because of his close bond with his cousins, not because of Feanor.

Attalus

04-23-2003, 02:57 PM

Here, I am speaking only of Celegorm and Curufin, because of their actions in Nargothond. Thus they broke off their hunt and returned to Nargothond, and Luthien was betrayed; for they held her fast and took away her cloak, and she was not permitted to pass the gates or to speak with any save the brothers, Curufin and Celegorm. For, now believing that Beren and Felagund were prisoners beyond hope of aid, they purposed to let the King perish, and to keep Luthien, and force Luthien to give her hand to Celegorm. That is despicible conduct.

Ruinel

04-23-2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Attalus
Here, I am speaking only of Celegorm and Curufin, because of their actions in Nargothond. That is despicible conduct.
I whole heartedly agree! And it was not done because of any great love of Luthien, but to advance their power in ME. She was the only daughter of a powerful king, and would have made a great trophy for Celegorm.

Linaewen

04-24-2003, 06:46 AM

Back to FÃ«anor...

JRRT said this in the LotR Appendix A:

FÃ«anor was the greatest of the Eldar in arts and lore, but also the proudest and most self-willed.

So there you go. (In response to the thread title)

Sorry, I just had to post this - I am the Desperate Attacker of FÃ«anor, after all... You may resume your conversation...

Maedhros

04-24-2003, 10:38 AM

As for his followers in the mass exit from Aman, many followed because they were stirred by his words. Some went on the journey, not because they followed him but because of their loyalty to kin (be that kin him or others) and could not be parted from that kin.
Galadriel did not follow Feanor because she wanted to obtain the Silmarils. She did so because she was restless, she wanted to see ME, and she wanted a rule of her own. Finrod followed because of his close bond with his cousins, not because of Feanor.
The Ã‘oldor followed because they wanted to rule new realms withouth the supervision of the Valar. FÃ«anor was the one who dared to voice that, simple.
In the later versions, Galadriel was going to ME with Celeborn, but the whole rebellion occurred and she was caught in the Doom of Mandos too. As for FF, he followed the rebellion because he thought that his loyalty towards his cousins greater than his loyalty to his father. Ironically, that is something that FÃ«anor would have done.

Ruinel

04-24-2003, 10:57 AM

:confused: Isn't that what I said? :confused:

BelegS

04-24-2003, 12:11 PM

As for FF, he followed the rebellion because he thought that his loyalty towards his cousins greater than his loyalty to his father. Ironically, that is something that FÃ«anor would have done.

But surely Feanor loved his father more then anything else and he would never have given anything preference over his father?

Artanis

04-24-2003, 12:15 PM

Nice avatar, Ruinel :)
Originally posted by Ruinel
:confused: Isn't that what I said? :confused: No? You said the Ã‘oldor left Aman because they were misled by FÃ«anor, or followed those who followed him. Maedhros said the Ã‘oldor in general left Aman for their own reasons, misled by Melkor. I think. :confused: Please correct me if I'm wrong. Originally posted by Maedhros
In the later versions, Galadriel was going to ME with Celeborn, but the whole rebellion occurred and she was caught in the Doom of Mandos too.Do you hold to that version? Tolkien changed the history of Galadriel and Celeborn so many times, and this version he wrote at the very end of his life. It is inconsistent with everything else that is written about Galadriel and Celeborn in the first age. I think that version is too - well - unfinished.Originally posted by BelegS
But surely Feanor loved his father more then anything else and he would never have given anything preference over his father?I think that's exactly what Maedhros is trying to say :)

Fat middle

04-24-2003, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Artanis
Do you hold to that version? Tolkien changed the history of Galadriel and Celeborn so many times, and this version he wrote at the very end of his life. It is inconsistent with everything else that is written about Galadriel and Celeborn in the first age. I think that version is too - well - unfinished.[/B]
I agree with you. To begin with, it's hardly consistent with LOTR's prologue because the most credible reason for Celeborn not to ride to the Havens with Galadriel is that he had never lived in Aman so his love to ME was greater.

Tolkien wanted that all the history of the Ancient Ages were consistent with what he had published in LOTR, so i think that he woud have reject that version if he had the time.

Attalus

04-24-2003, 02:24 PM

I dunno. I kind of like it that Galadriel was planning on leaving, anyway, and then got caught up in the whole rebellion thing and received the Ban of the Valar as a result. One more thing to chalk up against Feanor, from Galadriel's point of view. About Celeborn, that would have been easy to change, IMHO.

Sister Golden Hair

04-24-2003, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Attalus
I dunno. I kind of like it that Galadriel was planning on leaving, anyway, and then got caught up in the whole rebellion thing and received the Ban of the Valar as a result. One more thing to chalk up against Feanor, from Galadriel's point of view. About Celeborn, that would have been easy to change, IMHO. Well, Galadriel hated him from the time he asked for a lock of her hair, so the rest was easy for her.

I (heehee) agree about Celeborn.:)

Ruinel

04-24-2003, 08:26 PM

Ah, but it was more than his petulance in asking for a lock of her hair. She percieved him for who he really was, in all his weaknesses.

Attalus

04-25-2003, 03:37 PM

I agree. From Unfinished Tales: Galadriel was the greatest of the Noldor, except Feanor maybe, though she was wiser than he, and her wisdom increased with the long years. Her mother name was Nerwen (man-maiden), and she grew to be tall beyond even the measure of the women of the Noldor; she was strong in body, mind, and will, a match for both the loremasters and the athletes of the Eldar in the days of their youth. Even among the Eldar she was accounted beautiful, and her hair was held a marvel unmatched. It was golden like the hair of her father and her foremother Indis, but richer and more radiant, for its gold was touched by some memory of the starlike silver of her mother; and the Eldar said that the light of the Two Trees, Laurelin and Telperion, had been snared in her tresses.
Many thought that this saying first gave to Feanor the thought of imprisoning and blending the light of the Trees that later took shape in his hands as the Silmarils. For Feanor beheld the hair of Galadriel with wonder and delight. He begged three times for a tress, but Galadriel would not give him one hair. These two kinsfolk, the greatest of the Eldar of Valinor, were unfriends forever. And From her earliest years she had a marvellous gift of insight into the minds of others, but judged them with mercy and understanding, and she withheld her goodwill from none save Feanor. In him she perceived a darkness that she hated and feared, though she did not perceive that the shadow of the same evil had fallen upon the minds of all the Noldor, and upon her own.- from "The History of Galadriel and Celeborn"

Maedhros

04-25-2003, 08:55 PM

Ah, but it was more than his petulance in asking for a lock of her hair. She percieved him for who he really was, in all his weaknesses.
And with her own narrow mind, she didn't perceive that she was tainted too. The sad thing is that by refusing to give him a lock of her hair, she showed arrogance and petulance too.

Wayfarer

04-25-2003, 09:44 PM

He begged three times for a tress, but Galadriel would not give him one hair. Anyone connected this with Gimli's similar request?

Feanor begged repeatedly for a tress of her hair, and was given nothing- while Gimli, upon humbly requesting a single hair, was given three.

Incidentally... Galadriel was the tallest of the Noldor women, and she was given a height of two Rangar- 6'4". That was /average/ height for men during the second age.

Artanis

04-26-2003, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Maedhros
And with her own narrow mind, she didn't perceive that she was tainted too. Galadriel's major fault was her strong desire for power and dominion. You're right to say she didn't see her own faults at the time in Aman, but she didn't have a narrow mind. She saw more clearly than any into the minds of others, but she showed both mercy and understanding. And I don't think she was tainted, I'm not sure if FÃ«anor was tainted either. But they both were ensnared by the lies of Melkor.

I think she unconsciously understood that the darkness she saw in FÃ«anor was the darkness that had touched herself and all the Ã‘oldor, and that's why she hated and feared it so strongly. The sad thing is that by refusing to give him a lock of her hair, she showed arrogance and petulance too. You're very strict on Galadriel now. A woman's hairlock as a gift is a very personal gift, something you don't give away to anyone but the nearest and dearest.Originally posted by Wayfarer
Anyone connected this with Gimli's similar request?

Feanor begged repeatedly for a tress of her hair, and was given nothing- while Gimli, upon humbly requesting a single hair, was given three.Galadriel was grown far more mature and wise by then, and Gimli deserved it, both by Galadriel's demand to name what he wished for, and his contribution to the Fellowship.

Attalus

04-26-2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Maedhros
And with her own narrow mind, she didn't perceive that she was tainted too. The sad thing is that by refusing to give him a lock of her hair, she showed arrogance and petulance too. Ah, but she and all the other Noldor were but touched by the shadow of the same evil had fallen upon the minds of all the Noldor, and upon her own. Feanor had the full evil that Galadriel sensed.

Some definitions: (Merriam-Webster)
petulant-1 : insolent or rude in speech or behavior
2 : characterized by temporary or capricious ill humor : PEEVISH

arrogance- a feeling or an impression of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims

I don't think that Galadriel was insolent or rude in refusing such a personal request from someone she disliked heartily, and doubt she was manifesting an overbearing manner or made presuptuous claims. On the other hand, such an obsession with his niece argues an unhealthy state of mind.

Falagar

04-26-2003, 03:19 PM

Anyone thinks that FÃ«anor's acts may have been different if she had given him a tress? He probably bacame very bitter after her refusal...

Attalus

04-26-2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Falagar
Anyone thinks that FÃ«anor's acts may have been different if she had given him a tress? He probably bacame very bitter after her refusal... LOL, the first time I skimmed your post, I read "dress" for "tress." That called up a really strange mental picture. Seriously, I don't think so. It was in his character to be self-willed and self-absorbed, and I doubt one "hank of hair" would have changed it much. Though, come to think of it, it really seemed to change Gimli... :D

Maedhros

04-26-2003, 10:07 PM

but she didn't have a narrow mind. She saw more clearly than any into the minds of others, but she showed both mercy and understanding. And I don't think she was tainted, I'm not sure if FÃ«anor was tainted either.
I think she was narrow minded. She deliberately withheld a future great work of FÃ«anor. It's funny but they condemn FÃ«anor for not wanting to share the Silmarils and yet they don't care that because of Galadriel a great work was not even made.
From the Published Silmarillion: Of the Sun and Moon and the Hiding of Valinor
For FÃ«anor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind, in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and in subtlety alike, of all the Children of IlÃºvatar, and a bright flame was in him. The works of wonder for the glory of Arda that he might otherwise have wrought only ManwÃ« might in some measure conceive.

Artanis

04-27-2003, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by Maedhros
She deliberately withheld a future great work of FÃ«anor. It's funny but they condemn FÃ«anor for not wanting to share the Silmarils and yet they don't care that because of Galadriel a great work was not even made.Uh? I don't understand you. :confused: The Valar mourned for FÃ«anor's abilities that was never utilized for the good and glory of Arda, but that was due to Melkor's corruption, and not a fault of Galadriel. Add one sentence to the quote you gave:And they mourned not more for the death of the Trees than for the marring of FÃ«anor: of the works of Melkor one of the most evil. For FÃ«anor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind, in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and in subtlety alike, of all the Children of IlÃºvatar, and a bright flame was in him. The works of wonder for the glory of Arda that he might otherwise have wrought only ManwÃ« might in some measure conceive.

Ruinel

04-27-2003, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Artanis
Uh? I don't understand you. :confused: The Valar mourned for FÃ«anor's abilities that was never utilized for the good and glory of Arda, but that was due to Melkor's corruption, and not a fault of Galadriel.
Go, Artanis, go!

Maedhros, now you are blaming what Feanor did or didn't do on Galadriel? I think she was right to withhold her hair from him. I think if my creepy uncle came up to me and asked for a lock of my hair, I'd tell him to shove off also. Yeah, you heard me... creepy... you got it right. Who else but a creep would have insighted and carried out the Kinslaying? (That is a rhetorical question, Maedhros.)

Gwaimir Windgem

04-27-2003, 05:27 PM

For FÃ«anor was made the mightiest in all parts of body

Eep. That puts images in the mind. :eek: :eek: :eek:

-goes to gouge out his eyes-

Ruinel

04-27-2003, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Eep. That puts images in the mind. :eek: :eek: :eek:
For FÃ«anor was made the mightiest in all parts of body
-goes to gouge out his eyes-
*thinking* hmmmm... maybe I should check this Feanor out a little closer....hmmmm.... you know, just for research.
ACK!!! What am I saying!!!!!
*beats head against wall until bad thoughts are all gone*
bad...visions...*bang!* ...go... *bang!* ...away... *bang!* ...go ... *bang* ...away... *bang!* ...bad... *bang!* ...bad... *bang!* ...bad ... *bang!*...sheElf... *passes out in a heap on the floor*

Maedhros

04-28-2003, 12:23 AM

The Valar mourned for FÃ«anor's abilities that was never utilized for the good and glory of Arda, but that was due to Melkor's corruption, and not a fault of Galadriel.
I'm saying that because of the fact that Galadriel didn't give to FÃ«anor a piece of her hair, prevented the creation of something great by FÃ«anor.
I think she was right to withhold her hair from him. I think if my creepy uncle came up to me and asked for a lock of my hair, I'd tell him to shove off also.
There is one reason that ManwÃ« is the noblest of the Valar.
From Ã“sanwe kenta
How otherwise would you have it? Should ManwÃ« and the Valar meet secrecy with subterfuge, treachery with falsehood, lies with more lies? If Melkor would usurp their rights, should they deny his? Can hate overcome hate? Nay, ManwÃ« was wiser; or being ever open to Eru he did His will, which is more than wisdom.
It's sad the attitude of Artains in her denial, it just demeans her.

Sister Golden Hair

04-28-2003, 12:41 AM

I'm saying that because of the fact that Galadriel didn't give to FÃ«anor a piece of her hair, prevented the creation of something great by FÃ«anor. How so? It says in UT that her hair is what first gave him the idea of creating the Silmarils. He still created them.

Artanis

04-28-2003, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by Ruinel
*thinking* hmmmm... maybe I should check this Feanor out a little closer....hmmmm.... you know, just for research.
ACK!!! What am I saying!!!!!
Ehem - if you're in need for an assistant, I'll be happy to do the - ehem - 'dirty' work for you *cough*
Research - observation, experiments, measurements *cough* :D

Artanis

04-28-2003, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by Maedhros
I'm saying that because of the fact that Galadriel didn't give to FÃ«anor a piece of her hair, prevented the creation of something great by FÃ«anor.I'm still lost. :confused: I fail to see the connection between Artanis' denial and the supposed prevention of FÃ«anor's creations. Explain please?It's sad the attitude of Artains in her denial, it just demeans her.'Sad' I can agree with. 'Demeans her' no, it's too strong.

Attalus

04-28-2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Maedhros
I'm saying that because of the fact that Galadriel didn't give to FÃ«anor a piece of her hair, prevented the creation of something great by FÃ«anor.

It's sad the attitude of Artains in her denial, it just demeans her. Let me get this straight. Galadriel, even though she feels that her creepy uncle (good phrase) is evil, she is supposed to do anything that he asks, even if she didn't want to? Just on the basis of some hypothetical creation that Feanor, maker both of the Silmarils and the Kinslaying, might possibly have come up with? How does she know he doesn't just want to fondle them? I think that Artanis has been quite consistent, and that the text does not support your statements.

Falagar

04-28-2003, 03:09 PM

Ruinel

04-28-2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Artanis
Ehem - if you're in need for an assistant, I'll be happy to do the - ehem - 'dirty' work for you *cough*
Research - observation, experiments, measurements *cough* :D
*hands Artanis lab assistant application* just a formality, dear, I need it for my records, you're hired. :D Help me set up the equipment... *notices Falagar*
Oh, wait, your first job is to...
Originally posted by 'meat of the day' Falagar
*backs slowly out of this thread*
...Grab him!!!!!!!!!

Artanis

04-28-2003, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by Ruinel
...Grab him!!!!!!!!! Hey, wait a minute! FÃ«anor is the object of research, not Falagar!

Ruinel

04-28-2003, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Artanis
Hey, wait a minute! FÃ«anor is the object of research, not Falagar!
Oh, yes, you're right... sorry, I got caught up in the moment. Thanks for correcting me.

*unties Falagar and gives him back his clothes*

Sorry, hope you'll forgive me Falagar. No harm, no foul... right? hehehe

Maedhros

04-28-2003, 07:30 PM

Galadriel, even though she feels that her creepy uncle (good phrase) is evil, she is supposed to do anything that he asks, even if she didn't want to?
Can hate overcome hate? Nay, ManwÃ« was wiser; or being ever open to Eru he did His will, which is more than wisdom.
So Artanis should just hate him because he fears him. There was this thing called kindness and being the better person. Was some of her hair that hard to give away?
Just on the basis of some hypothetical creation that Feanor, maker both of the Silmarils and the Kinslaying, might possibly have come up with?
At that time, there was no Kinslaying. That FÃ«anor was pretty inventive.
From the Published Silmarillion
He became of all the Noldor, then or after, the most subtle in mind and the most skilled in hand. In his youth, bettering the work of RÃºmil, he devised those letters which bear his name, and which the Eldar used ever after; and he it was who, first of the Noldor, discovered how gems greater and brighter than those of the earth might be made with skill. The first gems that FÃ«anor made were white and colourless, but being set under starlight they would blaze with blue and silver fires brighter than Helluin; and other crystals he made also, wherein things far away could be seen small but clear, as with the eyes of the eagles of ManwÃ«. Seldom were the hands and mind of FÃ«anor at rest.
How does she know he doesn't just want to fondle them?
Sad really that someone would think such a thing.
I think that Artanis has been quite consistent, and that the text does not support your statements.
My statements that Artanis not giving the a little part of her hair to FÃ«anor is wrong. That hate should be met by hate.
That FÃ«anor could have created something unique with them.
In the Published Silmarillion that I read, ManwÃ« which is the noblest of the Valar gave Melkor another chance, he met his past transgressions with a new chance of redemption. He had hope and mercy instead of hate and fear.
It was only ManwÃ« the one who could see what things FÃ«anor could have done, because they would have been great.
From the Published Silmarillion
The works of wonder for the glory of Arda that he might otherwise have wrought only ManwÃ« might in some measure conceive.
I don't know which books you have read but the ones I have do support my statements.

Attalus

04-28-2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Maedhros

At that time, there was no Kinslaying. That FÃ«anor was pretty inventive.That is correct, but the two different things sprang from the same brain: Feanor's. Galadriel was right to mistrust him.

Sad really that someone would think such a thing.Yes, but such things do happen. I repeat, Galadriel was well within her rights to refuse such a personal gift to anyone, especially one that she felt to be touched with some evil. Many strange stories are told of the power that the gift of a lock of one's hair to someone not of good intent.

My statements that Artanis not giving the a little part of her hair to FÃ«anor is wrong. That hate should be met by hate.
That FÃ«anor could have created something unique with them.
In the Published Silmarillion that I read, ManwÃ« which is the noblest of the Ainur gave Melkor another chance, he met his past transgressions with a new chance of redemption. He had hope and mercy instead of hate and fear.
It was only ManwÃ« the one who could see what things FÃ«anor could have done, because they would have been great.
From the Published Silmarillion

I don't know which books you have read but the ones I have do support my statements.[COLOR=orangered]Support what statements? That Feanor was a great craftsman? Of couse he was. That forgiveness is a fine thing, and that the quality of mercy is not strained? Of course it is. But, you will have to admit, Manwe's forgiveness didn't turn out all that well, and there is no guarantee that it would not have been so with Galadriel's. I feel she was right to mistrust him.

Maedhros

04-28-2003, 08:06 PM

Galadriel was right to mistrust him.
Fight fire with fire, is that it then. Not a noble thing to do. But if that is the way you think then, FÃ«anor going after Morgoth isn't a bad thing, after all he was fighting hate with hate too.
I repeat, Galadriel was well within her rights to refuse such a personal gift to anyone, especially one that she felt to be touched with some evil. Many strange stories are told of the power that the gift of a lock of one's hair to someone not of good intent.[/
She had the right of course, but was it a good thing to do. No. Would a better person have done that? No. Could FÃ«anor have created a great work with them? Yes. What was achieved by Artanis mistrust? Nothing.
But, you will have to admit, Manwe's forgiveness didn't turn out all that well, and there is no guarantee that it would not have been so with Galadriel's. I feel she was right to mistrust him.
Is that according to who? Not JRRT of course.
From Morgoth's Ring: Myths Transformed
But, if we dare to attempt to enter the mind of the Elder King, assigning motives and finding faults, there are things to remember before we deliver a judgement. ManwÃ« was the spirit of greatest wisdom and prudence in Arda. He is represented as having had the greatest knowledge of the Music, as a whole, possessed by any one finite mind; and he alone of all persons or minds in that time is represented as having the power of direct recourse to and communication with Eru. He must have grasped with great clarity what even we may perceive dimly: that it was the essential mode of the process of 'history' in Arda that evil should constantly arise, and that out of it new good should constantly come. One especial aspect of this is the strange way in which the evils of the Marrer, or his inheritors, are turned into weapons against evil. If we consider the situation after the escape of Morgoth and the reestablishment of his abode in Middle-earth, we shall see that the heroic Noldor were the best possible weapon with which to keep Morgoth at bay, virtually besieged, and at any rate fully occupied, on the northern fringe of Middle-earth, without provoking him to a frenzy of nihilistic destruction. And in the meanwhile, Men, or the best elements in Mankind, shaking off his shadow, came into contact with a people who had actually seen and experienced the Blessed Realm.
In their association with the warring Eldar Men were raised to their fullest achievable stature, and by the two marriages the transference to them, or infusion into Mankind, of the noblest Elf-strain was accomplished, in readiness for the still distant, but inevitably approaching, days when the Elves would 'fade'.
The last intervention with physical force by the Valar, ending in the breaking of Thangorodrim, may then be viewed as not in fact reluctant or even unduly delayed, but timed with precision. The intervention came before the annihilation of the Eldar and the Edain. Morgoth though locally triumphant had neglected most of Middle-earth during the war; and by it he had in fact been weakened: in power and prestige (he had lost and failed to recover one of the Silmarils), and above all in mind. He had become absorbed in 'kingship', and though a tyrant of ogre-size and monstrous power, this was a vast fall even from his former wickedness of hate, and his terrible nihilism. He had fallen to like being a tyrant-king with conquered slaves, and vast obedient armies.
The war was successful, and ruin was limited to the small (if beautiful) region of Beleriand.

Attalus

04-28-2003, 09:44 PM

Maedhros

04-29-2003, 12:07 AM

*Shrugs* "Oft evil will/Shall evil mar." That does not make the evil any less so, and that is why Manwe trusted in Iluvatar's plan, to make good out of evil. Perhaps good came out of the Kinslaying, but you cannot tell me (so that I believe it, anyhow), that Feanor's transport to Middle earth, along with his partners-in-crime, could not been done without harm to the Telerii. He did evil, and I believe that, though not originally so, became blackest evil. We have JRRT's saying that Sauron was not originally so. Let the bodies of the Telerii attest to the goodness of Feanor's heart, along with Celebrimbor's body borne on a pole, of Sauron's good will.
Hehe. I notice that you stopped arguing the case of Artanis.
I look at it in the bigger picture. The death of an elf is the death of an elf. Was the killing of elves by FÃ«anor evil? Yes. Was the killing of elves by Morgoth evil? Yes.
If the Ã‘oldor weren't sundered from the Valar when they reached ME, Morgoth wouldn't have had time to disperse his power as he did, therefore in an alternate War of Wrath, Morgoth would have been more powerful himself and such a battle would have destroyed more of Middle-earth than the original did, causing more deaths, and that includes Teleri too.

RÃan

04-29-2003, 12:30 AM

But here you're getting into the question of whether an evil action (killing the Teleri) is made ok if that causes less 'evil' down the road (your assumption of "Morgoth wouldn't have had time to disperse his power as he did, therefore in an alternate War of Wrath, Morgoth would have been more powerful himself and such a battle would have destroyed more of Middle-earth than the original did, causing more deaths, and that includes Teleri too.")

First of all, that IS only an assumption - how do we know that? We can't. Here's another assumption - if the Ã‘oldor and the Valar had healed the breach that was between them, then together they would have become so powerful that they would have totally whomped Morgoth, causing even less loss of life.

I don't think an evil action can become 'good' if the results of that evil action are judged to be good (i.e., less dead elves). An evil action is evil, no matter what.

Yes, the killing of elves is evil - but there are worse things than death, IMO - such as the marring of a heart by evil choices. The elves that died doing right seem to spend very little time with Mandos before they are released.

Gwaimir Windgem

04-29-2003, 12:41 AM

Really? So Namo is like the keeper of Purgatory?

Attalus

04-29-2003, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
.

I don't think an evil action can become 'good' if the results of that evil action are judged to be good (i.e., less dead elves). An evil action is evil, no matter what.

Yes, the killing of elves is evil - but there are worse things than death, IMO - such as the marring of a heart by evil choices. The elves that died doing right seem to spend very little time with Mandos before they are released. Hear, hear. The Valar deplored the marring of Feanor as the worst of Morgoth's deeds, because of all the good he could have done, and also because of the evil that he certainly did do.

Maedhros

04-29-2003, 02:32 PM

if the Ã‘oldor and the Valar had healed the breach that was between them, then together they would have become so powerful that they would have totally whomped Morgoth, causing even less loss of life.
Hehe. An erroneous assumption of course.
From Morgoth's Ring: Myths Transformed
If we consider the situation after the escape of Morgoth and the reestablishment of his abode in Middle-earth, we shall see that the heroic Noldor were the best possible weapon with which to keep Morgoth at bay, virtually besieged, and at any rate fully occupied, on the northern fringe of Middle-earth, without provoking him to a frenzy of nihilistic destruction.
You are right that the Ã‘oldor and Valar would have been a greater force but such an outcome would have had far worse consequences in Arda that the Original War of Wrath did.
From Morgoth's Ring: Myths Transformed
The last intervention with physical force by the Valar, ending in the breaking of Thangorodrim, may then be viewed as not in fact reluctant or even unduly delayed, but timed with precision. The intervention came before the annihilation of the Eldar and the Edain. Morgoth though locally triumphant had neglected most of Middle-earth during the war; and by it he had in fact been weakened: in power and prestige (he had lost and failed to recover one of the Silmarils), and above all in mind. He had become absorbed in 'kingship', and though a tyrant of ogre-size and monstrous power, this was a vast fall even from his former wickedness of hate, and his terrible nihilism. He had fallen to like being a tyrant-king with conquered slaves, and vast obedient armies.
I don't think an evil action can become 'good' if the results of that evil action are judged to be good (i.e., less dead elves). An evil action is evil, no matter what.
Yes. The hate that Galadriel had for FÃ«anor was bad too.

Originally posted by Attalus
and that the text does not support your statements.
I really like the way that you continually change the subject of the Topic. We were discussing Galadriel and then drop that and shifted to FÃ«anor.
Where is it that my text does not support my statements?

Attalus

04-29-2003, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Maedhros
I'm saying that because of the fact that Galadriel didn't give to FÃ«anor a piece of her hair, prevented the creation of something great by FÃ«anor. That is not supported by the text. You ignore the obvious fact that Galadriel hated Feanor for the evil she sensed in him, and caused him to commit the Kinslaying, which all your special pleading cannot get around.

Ruinel

04-29-2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Attalus
That is not supported by the text. You ignore the obvious fact that Galadriel hated Feanor for the evil she sensed in him, and caused him to commit the Kinslaying, which all your special peading cannot get around.
Not to mention abandoning the other Noldor on the shore and the burning of the ships.

Sister Golden Hair

04-29-2003, 07:54 PM

From what UT says, the only reason that he wanted a lock of her hair was because it reminded him of the light of the Trees. This was what gave him the idea for the Silmarils. What else could he have possibly created involving her giving him a lock of hair?

Ruinel

04-29-2003, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
From what UT says, the only reason that he wanted a lock of her hair was because it reminded him of the light of the Trees. This was what gave him the idea for the Silmarils. What else could he have possibly created involving her giving him a lock of hair?
'Creepy uncle' reasons, me thinks.

Maedhros

04-29-2003, 08:40 PM

You ignore the obvious fact that Galadriel hated Feanor for the evil she sensed in him, and caused him to commit the Kinslaying, which all your special pleading cannot get around.
And caused him to commit the Kinslaying? The evil in FÃ«anor? So no pity for the devil then. Did Galadriel know that FÃ«anor would commit such act as the Kinslaying?
Newsflash, that isn't in the books. To use the Kinslaying as an excuse is not logical.
It's funny how you shift your arguments from Galadriel then FÃ«anor then back to Galadriel.
Of course FÃ«anor didn't do a great work with the hair of Galadriel because he was denied that. I thought that was obvious, well not to you it seems.
You seem to ignore that no good ever came out of her denying her hair. That hate and fear were not overcome by her, in fact you agree with the fact that her denial was a good thing. Such a Melkorian attitude.
Fight hate with hate is what Morgoth does not ManwÃ«, and that is in the books with no speacial pleading that goes around.
What else could he have possibly created involving her giving him a lock of hair?
I guess we will never know, would we?

Ruinel

04-29-2003, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by Maedhros
So no pity for the devil then.
That's right.
Originally posted by Meadhros
That hate and fear were not overcome by her, in fact you agree with the fact that her denial was a good thing.
It is wise to have a healthy fear of your enemy. And it seems that Feanor liked to make enemies, even his half-brothers... who forgave him of his wrongs against them. And Galadriel did not 'hate' Feanor. Like you said, it isn't in the books, only that they were 'unfriends' forever. That is not hate.
Originally posted by Maedhros
Such a Melkorian attitude.
Anyone who has an opinion that is against Feanor is 'Melkorian' to you. What kind of argument is that? Quit whining.

Sister Golden Hair

04-29-2003, 09:14 PM

From Unfinished Tales.

Galadriel was born in the bliss of Valinor, but it was not long, in the reckoning of the Blessed Realm, before that was dimmed; and thereafter she had no peace within. For in that testing time amid the strife of the Noldor she was drawn this way and that. She was proud, strong, and selfwilled, as were all the descendants of Finwe 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 she would 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 marvellous gift of insight into the minds of others, but judged them with mercy and understanding, and she withheld her goodwill from none save only Feanor. In him she perceived a darkness that she hated and feared, though she did not perceive that the shadow of the same evil had fallen upon the minds of all the Noldor, and upon her own.

Sister Golden Hair

04-29-2003, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by Ruinel

Anyone who has an opinion that is against Feanor is 'Melkorian' to you. What kind of argument is that? Quit whining. Let's keep things civil folks.

Attalus

04-29-2003, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Maedhros
And caused him to commit the Kinslaying? The evil in FÃ«anor? So no pity for the devil then. Did Galadriel know that FÃ«anor would commit such act as the Kinslaying?
Newsflash, that isn't in the books. To use the Kinslaying as an excuse is not logical.
It's funny how you shift your arguments from Galadriel then FÃ«anor then back to Galadriel.
Of course FÃ«anor didn't do a great work with the hair of Galadriel because he was denied that. I thought that was obvious, well not to you it seems.
You seem to ignore that no good ever came out of her denying her hair. That hate and fear were not overcome by her, in fact you agree with the fact that her denial was a good thing. Such a Melkorian attitude.
Fight hate with hate is what Morgoth does not ManwÃ«, and that is in the books with no speacial pleading that goes around.

I guess we will never know, would we? No, Maedrhos, the evil in Feanor caused him to commit the Kinslaying. I really do not think any stretch can lay that at Galadriel's door. Galadriel did not know what evil act Feanor would commit, only that his evil was so great that some hideous thing would come of it. I am glad that Galadriel denied him her tress. Who knows what monstrous evil he could have hatched? And, hate is not in itself an evil. I can hate Hitler, and by literary extension, Morgoth and Sauron, and I absolve myself, because such evil deserves hate. So, I hate Feanor, because his evil is only a little less.

RÃan

04-30-2003, 12:08 AM

And I"ll add my view as a woman on the hair thing - I would certainly not give anything so personal as a lock of hair to someone that I did not care for, and I don't think it is wrong of me in any way whatsoever to think that way.

RÃan

04-30-2003, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Really? So Namo is like the keeper of Purgatory?

(I PMed GW, and the part he was wondering about was the length of time staying with Mandos being related to how good/bad the person was. Does anyone recall the reference? I seem to remember it being in HoME 10, MR, and so does SGH, but can't find it right off the bat)

RÃan

04-30-2003, 12:48 AM

ah-HA! I happened to flip right to it! (doncha love when that happens! :D)

From HoME 10, Morgoth's Ring, The Later Quenta Silmarillion (II), Laws and Customs among the Eldar, "Of Re-birth and other dooms of those that go to Mandos": For there was, for all the feÃ¤r of the Dead, a time of Waiting, in which, howsoever they had died, they were corrected, instructed, strengthened, or comforted, according to their needs or deserts. If they would consent to this. But the feÃ¤ in its nakedness is obdurate, and remains long in the bondage of its memory and old purposes (especially if these were evil).

(Italics are Tolkien's own)

(For those who don't have HoME books, "feÃ¤" roughly corresponds to a persons' spirit or soul; "feÃ¤r" is plural)

Gwaimir Windgem

04-30-2003, 01:06 AM

Thanks much, Rian. :)

RÃan

04-30-2003, 01:16 AM

You're welcome!

There's various other references scattered around, but that was one of the better ones.

Artanis

04-30-2003, 03:56 AM

Why did FÃ«anor want a tress of Galadriel's hair? I don't think he meant to make something out of it, I think he just wanted to possess and cherish it, as a thing of immense beauty.Even among the Eldar she was accounted beautiful, and her hair was held a marvel unmatched. It was golden like the hair of her father and her foremother Indis, but richer and more radiant, for its gold was touched by some memory of the starlike silver of her mother; and the Eldar said that the light of the Two Trees, Laurelin and Telperion, had been snared in her tresses. Many thought that this saying first gave to Feanor the thought of imprisoning and blending the light of the Trees that later took shape in his hands as the Silmarils. For FÃ«anor beheld the hair of Galadriel with wonder and delight. He begged three times for a tress, but Galadriel would not give him even one hair.When I read this again I'm wondering about FÃ«anor. From what we are told about him elsewhere, it seems completely out of character for him to beg for anything, and moreover three times! Apparently there's more to this Elf than we think.

Why did Galadriel deny FÃ«anor some of her hair? Because, as has been pointed out, a gift of hair is a very personal thing, and Galadriel did not have a friendly relationship with FÃ«anor. Now one may say this was a sad circumstance, but quite understandable from her point of view, since she clearly saw the darkness that had fallen upon him. Her fault was not the denial as such, but her lack of insight into herself and the rest of her people. If she had recognized the true sorce of evil and realised that the shadow had fallen upon all of the Ã‘oldor, then perhaps she would not have singled out FÃ«anor the way she did.

Sister Golden Hair

04-30-2003, 01:10 PM

You know, Elves were very gifted in foresight and insight, especially those among the Exiles. Although Galadriel may not have perceived the shadow that had fallen upon all of the Noldor and upon herself, she must have sensed somehow that Feanor was the one that would be the cause of all the griefs of the Noldor.

Artanis

04-30-2003, 01:58 PM

Well, that would explain the hate and fear she felt. But why then did she take such an active part in the rebellion, which was led by FÃ«anor? If she thought he would cause the Ã‘oldor grief, it would be foolish to go along with his actions the way she did (I'm ruling out the late, unfinished version of Galadriel's part here).

Sister Golden Hair

04-30-2003, 02:47 PM

Well there were two hosts, Feanor's and Fingolfin's. The Sil says that not all the Noldor were of a mind to follow Feanor, or to have him as king. What she wanted was to see the eastern land, and have a realm of her own, and the Rebellion was a chance to do that, but it still defied the Valar who had told them not to go.

RÃan

04-30-2003, 03:01 PM

(OT, but in reference to Mandos mentioned earlier - I added the bold for emphasis)

Also from MR - "The length of time that they dwelt in Waiting was partly at the will of Namo the Judge, lord of Mandos, partly at their own will"; and "...and their spirits went back to the halls of Mandos, and there waited, days or years, even a thousand, according to the will of Mandos and their deserts."

And on-topic - Even in the Sil, Galadriel never seemed to want to rebel against the Valar - she just kept quiet, and "no oaths she swore" - "she yearned to see the wide unguarded lands and to rule there a realm at her own will." So it seems that she was just taking advantage of an opportunity to go to ME with some well-armed company. And it was ok for them to leave, at this point, as the messenger from ManwÃ« said ("as ye came hither freely, freely shall ye depart") - it was just called "the folly of FÃ«anor". Also at this point, only FÃ«anor had been singled out and exiled, due to his oath.

Tolkien's original intent seems to be that Galadriel was not rebelling, IMO, and he even rewrote her story later on to make it even more apparent that she was not rebelling, in the version when she leaves separately from FÃ«anor.

Finarfin seems to be the only one who really acted gallantly in this situation, IMO - "Finarfin spoke softly, as was his wont, and sought to calm the Noldor, persuading them to pause and ponder ere deeds were done that could not be undone...."

Artanis

04-30-2003, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by R?an
And it was ok for them to leave, at this point, as the messenger from ManwÃ« said ("as ye came hither freely, freely shall ye depart")But the Ã‘oldor still went forth against the councel and warning of the messenger of ManwÃ«:Go not forth! For the hour is evil, and your road leads to sorrow that ye do not foresee.If Galadriel had this foresight concerning FÃ«anor, why didn't she put this together with the severe warning at this moment, and turned back?

Tolkien's original intent seems to be that Galadriel was not rebelling, IMO, and he even rewrote her story later on to make it even more apparent that she was not rebelling, in the version when she leaves separately from FÃ«anor.I don't agree with you RÃ*an. From letter #297 (my emphasis): The Exiles were allowed to return - save for a few chief actors in the rebellion of whom at the time of the L. R. only Galadriel remained.
And from The Shibboleth:
So it came to pass that when the light of Valinor failed, for ever as the Noldor thought, she joined the rebellion against the Valar who commanded them to stay; and once she had set foot upon that road of exile she would not relent, but rejected the last message of the Valar, and came under the Doom of Mandos. Even after the merciless assault upon the Teleri and the rape of their ships, though she fought fiercely against FÃ«anor in defence of her mother's kin, she did not turn back. Her pride was unwilling to return, a defeated suppliant for pardon; but now she burned with desire to follow FÃ«anor with her anger to whatever lands he might come, and to thwart him in all ways that she could. Pride still moved her when, at the end of the Elder Days after the final overthrow of Morgoth, she refused the pardon of the Valar for all who had fought against him, and remained in Middle-earth.Galadriel is very fixed on going. She follows her own purpose, and here we also see her as a revengeful person.

I do not take into account the last version Tolkien wrote about Galadriel's actions in Aman. He did try to alter much of the mythology in his later days, some ideas he succeeded with, and some he abandoned. We don't know whether he would have abandoned the last version concerning Galadriel, if he had had the time to explore it.

Lefty Scaevola

04-30-2003, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by Artanis
I do not take into account the last version Tolkien wrote about Galadriel's actions in Aman. He did try to alter much of the mythology in his later days, some ideas he succeeded with, and some he abandoned. We don't know whether he would have abandoned the last version concerning Galadriel, if he had had the time to explore it.

If you are refering the bit where Celeborn is a Falmari Elf of Aman, and Galadriel and he sail separately to Beleriand and Amroth is their son, I believe that predates eitherThe Shibboleth, (or perhaps some other writing which I am remmebering) and is thus abandoned. However, dating much of his ruminations is problematical. In any case he decided sometime after the revised LOTR was published that he would not alter any 'facts' published therin, including the appendecies.

Artanis

04-30-2003, 05:07 PM

Yes, that's what I'm referring to. I'll check the dates.

Artanis

04-30-2003, 05:26 PM

Letter #298 was written in 1967, Shibboleth in 1968 or later. The differenting story of Galadriel and Celeborn is not dated, but according to CRT it is (UT) "the last writing of my father's on the subject of Galadriel and Celeborn, and probably the last on Middle-Earth and Valinor, set down in the last month of his life". However, the story of Amroth being the son of G. and C. was an early idea, I believe.

And yes, Tolkien felt bound by the published LotR, he strove to get his ideas consistent with it, as in "The problem of Ros".

Lefty Scaevola

04-30-2003, 05:33 PM

Yes, it must have been the Amroth bit in the UT chapter on Galadriel that I remebered as an earlier date.

Falagar

04-30-2003, 06:32 PM

*edited*

Ragnarok

05-01-2003, 05:49 PM

I found him to be over-proud and definitely not a role model but he was one of the more interesting characters in the Sil. He does set the stage and help shapes alot of the events that occurs later in the book.

Maedhros

05-03-2003, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Attalus
No, Maedrhos, the evil in Feanor caused him to commit the Kinslaying. I really do not think any stretch can lay that at Galadriel's door. Galadriel did not know what evil act Feanor would commit, only that his evil was so great that some hideous thing would come of it. I am glad that Galadriel denied him her tress. Who knows what monstrous evil he could have hatched? And, hate is not in itself an evil. I can hate Hitler, and by literary extension, Morgoth and Sauron, and I absolve myself, because such evil deserves hate. So, I hate Feanor, because his evil is only a little less.
This is just sad beyond words. You know, when I read the LOTR and The Hobbit, I got a different vision. Both Bilbo and Frodo could have killed Gollum. In fact, Bilbo almost did it, but there was something inside him that changed his mind. It's a thing called pity. It was because of that that the quest could be achieved. Evil deserves hate? Not in the world of JRRT. That is what makes it fascinating to me, the idea of redemption.
ManwÃ« is indeed wiser, because he can see more clearly the mind of IlÃºvatar.
So hate is not evil. Such evil deserves hate. That is what FÃ«anor did, he met the evil of Morgoth with hate. It seems that you have more in common with the person that you hate than I would ever have.
Isn't that ironic and sad.

Ruinel

05-03-2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Maedhros
This is just sad beyond words. You know, when I read the LOTR and The Hobbit, I got a different vision. Both Bilbo and Frodo could have killed Gollum. In fact, Bilbo almost did it, but there was something inside him that changed his mind. It's a thing called pity. It was because of that that the quest could be achieved. Evil deserves hate? Not in the world of JRRT. That is what makes it fascinating to me, the idea of redemption.
ManwÃ« is indeed wiser, because he can see more clearly the mind of IlÃºvatar.
So hate is not evil. Such evil deserves hate. That is what FÃ«anor did, he met the evil of Morgoth with hate. It seems that you have more in common with the person that you hate than I would ever have.
Isn't that ironic and sad.
It was Fate that destroyed the Ring. Not Gollum. Gollum was despicable. He killed his best friend to gain The One Ring.

It was Fate that both Bilbo and Frodo were prone to such pitty. In fact Frodo was talked into having pity for Gollum in the first place by Gandalf. Frodo had felt Bilbo should have killed Gollum. Then it was only later when he felt the power of the One Ring himself pulling at him and weakening and ever gaining more and more control over him that he truly understood the pain and suffering of pitiful Gollum. That stayed his hand then, and the words previously spoken to him by the wizard! It was Fate that caused Gollum to fall into the Crack of Doom! It was his own joy at being unioned once more with the one thing that he most longed for. And all of this comes together. That is FATE.

Are you comparing the Silmarils with The One Ring? You are saying that the Silmarils caused the Kinslaying. That isn't true. The Silmarils were not evil, The One Ring was. The Silmarils placed no such influence over FÃ«anor that The Ring had over Gollum and eventually Frodo as well. The decision to murder the Teleri at AlqualondÃ« was brought on by FÃ«anor's greed and pide, not some power of Melkor!
[FLAME DELETED] This is unacceptable for this forum.

Last edited by Sister Golden Hair

Falagar

05-03-2003, 11:12 AM

It was Fate that destroyed the Ring. Not Gollum. Gollum was dispicable. He killed his best friend to gain The One Ring.

It was Fate that both Bilbo and Frodo were prone to such pitty. In fact Frodo was talked into having pity for Gollum in the first place by Gandalf. Frodo had felt Bilbo should have killed Gollum. Then it was only later when he felt the power of the One Ring himself pulling at him and weakening and ever gaining more and more control over him that he truly understood the pain and suffering of pitiful Gollum. That stayed his hand then, and the words previously spoken to him by the wizard! It was Fate that caused Gollum to fall into the Crack of Doom! It was his own joy at being unioned once more with the one thing that he most longed for. And all of this comes together. That is FATE.
...or Eru. Had a quote, can't find it right now.
Anyway, dispicable? Then you have interpreted Tolkien's texts in another way than I have done. I look at Gollum as a very sad and tragic creature...

(Btw, couldn't find 'dispicable' in any wordlist but I assume it is bad :p)

Are you comparing the Silmarils with The One Ring? You are saying that the Silmarils caused the Kinslaying. That isn't true. The Silmarils were not evil, The One Ring was. The Silmarils placed no such influence over FÃ«anor that The Ring had over Gollum and eventually Frodo as well. The decision to murder the Teleri at AlqualondÃ« was brought on by FÃ«anor's greed and pide, not some power of Melkor!
You are talking out of your bung hole! That is what is sad.
I can't see anywhere in his text that he compares the Silmarilli to The One Ring. But The Silmarilli made people want them like the Ring did, just look at Thingol. And the Dwarves of Nogrod.
In fact, they were very much alike. Greed is a central point in Tolkien's texts, and both jewels made other people want them, they cast a kind of special "spell" on others. The difference is that the Ring was evil. The Silmarilli made others "evil".

(badly formed sentence, I know...)

I think Maedhros made a very good point here. In Tolkien's books, evil is not defeated by hate. It's defeated by pity.

Artanis

05-03-2003, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Falagar
I think Maedhros made a very good point here. In Tolkien's books, evil is not defeated by hate. It's defeated by pity. I agree, if you adjust it to 'evil capable of redemption'. The tricky thing is to decide when evil is no longer redeemable.

(BTW, I think it is 'despicable' ;) )

Ruinel

05-03-2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Falagar

despicable. sorry, typo. :)

I can't see anywhere in his text that he compares the Silmarilli to The One Ring. But The Silmarilli made people want them like the Ring did, just look at Thingol. And the Dwarves of Nogrod.
In fact, they were very much alike. Greed is a central point in Tolkien's texts, and both jewels made other people want them, they cast a kind of special "spell" on others. The difference is that the Ring was evil. The Silmarilli made others "evil".
He brings into his argument as a comparison Gollum's role in the quest to destroy the One Ring and FÃ«anor's greed to keep the Silmarils and then his pursuit for them after he loses them, at any cost, including (but not limited to) the Kinslaying (for which he is wholly to blame). They are two entirely differnt things.
In Tolkien's books, evil is not defeated by hate. It's defeated by pity. Well, then FÃ«anor was the biggest loser of them all. For he only had hate for the one who had stolen his prized possessions and murdered his father, not pity.

Falagar

05-03-2003, 03:08 PM

Well, then FÃ«anor was the biggest loser of them all. For he only had hate for the one who had stolen his prized possessions and murdered his father, not pity.
Which is what Maedhros said:
That is what FÃ«anor did, he met the evil of Morgoth with hate.
I like FÃ«anor, not because he is a likeable character (which he indeed is not) but because he is a complex and strong-willed character, however evil his deeds were. So you may think he is the greatest loser of them all, you won't convince me. :p

Maedhros

05-03-2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Ruinel
It was Fate that destroyed the Ring. Not Gollum. Gollum was despicable. He killed his best friend to gain The One Ring.
I guess that the pity showed by Bilbo and Frodo had nothing to do with that then.
From the Letters of JRRT # 153
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
From the Letters of JRRT # 181
But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own 'salvation' is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time. He did rob him and injure him in the end â€“ but by a 'grace', that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any one cd. have done for Frodo! By a situation created by his 'forgiveness', he was saved himself, and relieved of his burden.
I guess we would have to take Ruinel's word over that of JRRT. Not.
Originally posted by Ruinel
It was Fate that both Bilbo and Frodo were prone to such pitty. In fact Frodo was talked into having pity for Gollum in the first place by Gandalf. Frodo had felt Bilbo should have killed Gollum.
You cannot make people be receptive to pity.
From The Hobbit: Riddles in the Dark
Bilbo almost stopped breathing, and went stiff himself. He was desperate. He must get away, out of this horrible darkness, while he had any strength left. He must fight. He must stab the foul thing, put its eyes out, kill it. It meant to kill him. No, not a fair fight. He was invisible now. Gollum had no sword. Gollum had not actually threatened to kill him, or tried to yet. And he was miserable, alone, lost. A sudden understanding, a pity mixed with horror, welled up in Bilbo's heart: a glimpse of endless unmarked days without light or hope of betterment, hard stone, cold fish, sneaking and whispering. All these thoughts passed in a flash of a second. He trembled. And then quite suddenly in another flash, as if lifted by a new strength and resolve, he leaped.
And he had the one ring for only a moment.
Originally posted by Ruinel
Then it was only later when he felt the power of the One Ring himself pulling at him and weakening and ever gaining more and more control over him that he truly understood the pain and suffering of pitiful Gollum. That stayed his hand then, and the words previously spoken to him by the wizard! It was Fate that caused Gollum to fall into the Crack of Doom! It was his own joy at being unioned once more with the one thing that he most longed for. And all of this comes together. That is FATE.
From LOTR: The Taming of SmÃ©agol
`Very well,' he answered aloud, lowering his sword. 'But still I am afraid. And yet, as you see, I will not touch the creature. For now that I see him, I do pity him.'
Without the Ring, Frodo would have still pitied him. The Ring only could give you more insight into things, yet it couldn't change you who where for the good only for the worse. Don't give me the obnoxious idea that it was because of the Ring that Frodo pitied Gollum, it demeans his character.
Originally posted by Ruinel
Are you comparing the Silmarils with The One Ring? You are saying that the Silmarils caused the Kinslaying. That isn't true. The Silmarils were not evil, The One Ring was. The Silmarils placed no such influence over FÃ«anor that The Ring had over Gollum and eventually Frodo as well. The decision to murder the Teleri at AlqualondÃ« was brought on by FÃ«anor's greed and pide, not some power of Melkor!

I'm talking in chinese here. Why is it that you like to put words in my posts that are not there.
Originally posted by Ruinel
You are talking out of your bung hole! That is what is sad.
Regardless of what I feel, I will not lower myself to such words as you do Ruinel.
The fact that the Quest was achieved is because of the pity of both Bilbo and Frodo. Because of that they were granted a grace, it was not the other way around. They had pity because they were good persons, not because they had a part to play in the Quest.
It's sad that after reading it, you missed the most important point of the book. The evil of the world was defeated by people who used pity for their enemies. Good defeated evil. It was no mere luck.

Ruinel

05-03-2003, 03:23 PM

I think FÃ«anor was a necessary evil to make the stories work. His story was the basis for nearly the entire Sil. But I refuse to put him up on a pedestal and to say that FÃ«anor was a great Elf only because he made the Silmarils and took a whole people away from Valinor and ignore the terrible things that his character did would not be right.

Attalus

05-03-2003, 03:49 PM

Falagar

05-03-2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Attalus
Actually, Hate is not a sin or evil in and of itself. God is said to hate the sin and love the sinner. So, Hate is indeed the appropriate response to Evil. Feanor, however much you like him, was marred by the Evil within him, able to murder his kinsmen and disrupt the lives of countless more, all because of material goods, admittedly very beautiful stones, which seemed to have the virtue of letting Earendil get to Aman. This is classed as Worshipping False Gods, and puts him forever beyond the pale in my sight. If he had ever repented, I might feel differently, but, he did not.
But then, who defines evil? I am not a christian, so I cannot say I care for that quote. It's probably relevant, since Tolkien was a christian. But I remember Jesus said that you shall love your enemies, and I think Tolkien wrote more from that point of view.

I can't say I've ever heard of him not repenting. On the other hand I've never heard that he did, either, but I think that after some time in Mandos he would repent. He was "marred by the evil within him" indeed, but I believe I've read somewhere that all marring could be healed in Mandos...

Ruinel

05-03-2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Falagar
But then, who defines evil? I am ot a christian, so I cannot say I care for that quote. But I remember Jesus said that you shall love your enemy.

I can't say I've ever heard of him not repenting. On the other hand I've never heard that he did, either, but I think that after some time in Mandos, he repented.

I'm not a Christian either, Falagar. So, let me define 'evil': harmful or injurous to others (ie, The Kinslaying); anything that causes harm to others (bringing the Noldor from Valinor); morally wrong or bad (greed, which was against the nature of the Noldor to begin with).

Is this enough?

Falagar

05-03-2003, 04:30 PM

I'm not a Christian either, Falagar. So, let me define 'evil': harmful or injurous to others (ie, The Kinslaying); anything that causes harm to others (bringing the Noldor from Valinor); morally wrong or bad (greed, which was against the nature of the Noldor to begin with).
I've never said that FÃ«anor didn't do evil (I've even stated the opposite), but I was speaking more generally (actually, I was planning to bring politics into it, but thought the better of it ;)).

Ruinel

05-03-2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Falagar
I've never said that FÃ«anor didn't do evil (I've even stated the opposite), but I was speaking more generally (actually, I was planning to bring politics into it, but thought the better of it ;)).
Love your enemies... then they humiliate you and crucify you quite publicly... that's the thanks? No, thanks.
If the world had that attitude in WWII, there would be no more Jews in the world, mentally handicapped people would be killed at the first sign of their 'imperfections', homosexuals would be killed if they were ever found out, and the world would be a living hell! You may thank whatever god or gods you believe in that the world did not take a Christian view of Hilter. (ooops, politics and religion... two subjects to stay plenty clear of. Sorry!)

Artanis

05-03-2003, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Attalus
Actually, Hate is not a sin or evil in and of itself. God is said to hate the sin and love the sinner.But isn't that exactly what Frodo and Bilbo was able to do (Gollum), but Galadriel and FÃ«anor could not? They hated both the sin and the sinner.

Falagar

05-03-2003, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Ruinel
Love your enemies... then they humiliate you and crucify you quite publicly... that's the thanks? No, thanks.
If the world had that attitude in WWII, there would be no more Jews in the world, mentally handicapped people would be killed at the first sign of their 'imperfections', homosexuals would be killed if they were ever found out, and the world would be a living hell! You may thank whatever god or gods you believe in that the world did not take a Christian view of Hilter. (ooops, politics and religion... two subjects to stay plenty clear of. Sorry!)
Must...resist...;)

But Tolkien was a christian, and probably lived (and wrote, as you can see in his works) after those lines.

That's actually an argument for FÃ«anor :p He attacked and hated his enemy, who was planning to make the world a living hell. If he hadn't done what he did (even if it wasn't in his intention) there would be no more CÃ*rdan.

I think the difference here is that Tolkien's philosofy was not attack when you don't have to. Frodo didn't have to attack Gollum, and he didn't.

Ruinel

05-03-2003, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Falagar
(1) Must...resist...;)

(2)But Tolkien was a christian, and probably lived (and wrote, as you can see in his works) after those lines.

(3) That's actually an argument for FÃ«anor :p He attacked his enemy.
I think the difference here is that Tolkien's philosofy was not attack when you don't have to.

(1) ??? :confused: ??? Resist what??
(2) I know JRRT was a Christian (actually, a Catholic) and I know that he wrote (especially in his later years) with the same Christian values and morality that he was raised on. I was trying to define 'evil' from a humanistic perspective, not Christian perspective.
(3) And that should be everyone's philosophy. Do not turn a blind eye to the injustices and evils of the world, but stand and defend those that need to be defended, your brothers and sisters in humanity.
But FÃ«anor's reasons were not so noble. In fact they were quite the opposite. He reasons were for his own personal gain and for his own pride and for revenge for evils against himself only. He was not coming to the rescue of those that suffered in ME before he came to it. His heart and mind were bent upon only one thing: get the Silmarils from Melkor. That is not a noble cause.

Maedhros

05-03-2003, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Attalus
Actually, Hate is not a sin or evil in and of itself. God is said to hate the sin and love the sinner. So, Hate is indeed the appropriate response to Evil. Feanor, however much you like him, was marred by the Evil within him, able to murder his kinsmen and disrupt the lives of countless more, all because of material goods, admittedly very beautiful stones, which seemed to have the virtue of letting Earendil get to Aman. This is classed as Worshipping False Gods, and puts him forever beyond the pale in my sight. If he had ever repented, I might feel differently, but, he did not.
Not in the JRRT mythos.
From Ã“sanwe-kenta
How otherwise would you have it? Should Manwe and the Valar meet secrecy with subterfuge, treachery with falsehood, lies with more lies? If Melkor would usurp their rights, should they deny his? Can hate overcome hate? Nay, Manwe was wiser; or being ever open to Eru he did His will, which is more than wisdom.
Hate will never be the appropiate response.
I think FÃ«anor was a necessary evil to make the stories work. His story was the basis for nearly the entire Sil. But I refuse to put him up on a pedestal and to say that FÃ«anor was a great Elf only because he made the Silmarils and took a whole people away from Valinor and ignore the terrible things that his character did would not be right.
What happened to the FATE arguement?
It is interesting that the people who really dislike FÃ«anor, are the ones who would treat him the same way that he treated Morgoth. Fight fire with fire then.

Attalus

05-03-2003, 07:00 PM

Actually, we are hating a purely literary creation in a literary way. We did not kill or cause to be killed our kinsmen, rebel against our God because of a few bits of Elvish glass, and desert our followers to hardship and death. We are free to react to Feanor with hatred, or dislike, if the word is better, because we are not in JRRT's cosmos. We are in what we call the real world, and to me, at least, the actions of Feanor were wrong, despicible, and to be roundly condemned, especially since he never repented.

Falagar

05-03-2003, 07:04 PM

We are in what we call the real world, and to me, at least, the actions of Feanor were wrong, despicible, and to be roundly condemned, especially since he never repented.

Can you give me the quote were it says that he never repented? (of course, he never repented in life but he may have done so in the halls of Mandos. Unless you have read something else)

RÃan

05-03-2003, 07:42 PM

Wow, lots of complex topics here... this might take a few posts to finish...

re the "love your enemies" quote -
it goes on to say "and pray for those that persecute you." There's several ideas behind this, IMHO (as a long-time Christian) :D - I'll have to extremely over-simplify, but...

(1) The main idea behind this, IMO, is - it's never right to hate a person, but just the wrong things they do. Praying for your enemies is a way to love them, which is always right. I think righteous anger is perfectly justified - cf. Jesus chasing the moneychangers out of the temple with a whip of cords, because their actions distorted what the temple represented. Cf. also an interesting verse in the Bible that says "Be angry, and yet do not sin...." (Ephesians 4:26). So anger in itself is not wrong, it's what you're angry about (e.g., "she's prettier than I am" would be wrong; "that guy just hit that little kid" would be appropriate), AND what you DO as a result of the anger (e.g., helping the little kid out would be right).
I never 'hated' the character of FÃ«anor; as I've said before, the main emotion I have when I think about him is sorrow. But I am properly angry with the terrible things he did. And his bad ACTIONS seem to come out of his bad ATTITUDES, which is usually the order of things.

(2) re the practical aspect of loving your enemies - I've found that a person that you hate/are angry with/can't forgive, has power over you - you are constantly fuming over them, etc. Now, praying for them and loving them (I'm not talking about mushy, loving feelings here, but the concrete acts of love, such as kindness, prayer, etc.) breaks that power. I've been really mad at a few 'Mooters here on occasion, and when I stop and pray for God to bless them and help them in whatever difficult circumstances they're in, it just seems to break the anger cycle. And if I'm mad at someone near me (as opposed to on the Internet), then I can do more concrete acts of kindness (if I'm mad at my husband, I can choose to make a special effort to make his favorite dinner that night as an act of love, for example). The goal of loving your enemies is to bring good to them, which is always right.

Also -- I've always liked Finarfin's reaction to FÃ«anor - it says in the Shibboleth that Finarfin chose how to speak (thorn/not thorn sound) based on what he, himself, thought was RIGHT - NOT based on being on FÃ«anor's side, or showing up FÃ«anor, etc. I think that's the right way to choose. Also, Finarfin chose to leave Valinor for love of his people, which is also a good motive. FÃ«anor seemed to choose to leave Valinor for love of the Silmarils. The anger that FÃ«anor felt due to their being stolen was right and appropriate, IMO (he was indeed the victim of a terrible crime), but the actions he chose based on that anger were wrong.

Also #2 -- BTW, "then they humiliate you and crucify you quite publicly" - the crucifixion of Jesus was a CHOICE made by him, to bring about a way of reconciliation to God - it is quite clearly stated that he could at any time have called legions of angels to his aid; also, when he chose, his mere words would knock people to the ground (as right before He was betrayed) - it is clear He CHOSE to let this happen.

Christians are NOT to be doormats, but powerful agents for GOOD. "Turning the other cheek" and "loving your enemies" is NEVER to be a doormat type of thing, IMO, but a choice made when it will bring good to another person, even at your expense. And also it seems to be only referring to a PERSONAL wrong - you don't "turn the other cheek" for someone doing wrong to someone else.

Hope this wasn't too OT, but I thought it was applicable to the discussion.

Falagar

05-03-2003, 08:01 PM

Another point, I think, is that FÃ«anor never forced his people (or could have done so) to go with him.
True, he had a very powerful voice, but many of the Elves (among them Finarfin) were not swayed by his words.
Thus, I think they had a lust for going to M-E already before FÃ«anor showed up, and his words persuaded them.

However, the Kinslaying was a completely free-will thing, though his words were "still burning hot within them".
The Elves of FÃ«anors host could have turned and walked away, but they didn't.

RÃan

05-03-2003, 08:01 PM

ps - Maedhros, I love that quote from Ã“sanwe-kenta:

How otherwise would you have it? Should Manwe and the Valar meet secrecy with subterfuge, treachery with falsehood, lies with more lies? If Melkor would usurp their rights, should they deny his? Can hate overcome hate? Nay, Manwe was wiser; or being ever open to Eru he did His will, which is more than wisdom.

RÃan

05-03-2003, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by Falagar
Another point, I think, is that FÃ«anor never forced his people (or could have done so) to go with him. True, he had a very powerful voice, but many of the Elves (among them Finarfin) were not swayed by his words. Thus, I think they had a lust for going to M-E already before FÃ«anor showed up, and his words persuaded them.
Yes, I think that's very true, Falagar - I would say they definitely had a desire to go to ME, and FÃ«anor's speech made them "imprudently" decide to follow thru with that desire (IOW, I think they could have gone to ME in a better way, and with a better motive/attitude, instead of the "oh, the heck with it - let's take off!" attitude they seemed to have).

I'd probably give a little more credit to FÃ«anor's words than you would, though, in getting them on the road, because he was so nervous about the Noldor "cooling down" and changing their minds, but that 's just a difference of opinion about a matter of degree of influence.

I think Finarfin was pretty exceptional in not being influenced by FÃ«anor, though.

Attalus

05-03-2003, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by Falagar
Can you give me the quote were it says that he never repented? (of course, he never repented in life but he may have done so in the halls of Mandos. Unless you have read something else) Just "...Feanor bid them halt, for his wounds were mortal, and he knew that his hour was come. And looking out from the slopes of Ered Wethrin, he beheld far off the peaks of Thangorodrim, mightiest of the towers of Middle-Earth, and he knew with the foreknowledge of death that no power of the Noldor would ever overthrow them; but he cursed the name of Morgoth thrice, and laid it onto his sons to hold to their oath, and avenge their father." Nothing of repentence, there. Of what might have happened in the Halls of Mandos, I know nothing.

Falagar

05-03-2003, 09:22 PM

Artanis just gave a quote from The Prophecy of Mandos:
Thereafter shall the Silmarils be recovered out of sea and earth and air; for EÃ¤rendel shall descend and yield up that flame that he hath had in keeping. Then FÃ«anor shall bear the Three and yield them unto Yavanna PalÃºrien; and she will break them and with their fire rekindle the Two Trees, and a great light shall come forth; and the Mountains of Valinor shall be levelled, aso that the light goes out over all the world. In that light the Gods will again grow young, and the Elves awake and all their dead arise, and the purpose of IlÃºvatar be fulfilled concerning them.
Though I don't know how much we can thrust it, Tolkien may have rejected it later...

Attalus

05-03-2003, 11:44 PM

Falagar - as you, I am not sure how much to trust it. I would dearly love for it to be true, but, ???

Gwaimir Windgem

05-04-2003, 01:15 AM

Wow...that's a beautiful passage to envision...

Artanis

05-04-2003, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by Falagar
Artanis just gave a quote from The Prophecy of Mandos:Thanks Falagar, I was about to post it here, but then I was interrupted. :)

Fat middle

05-04-2003, 05:05 AM

I haven't been following this thread much, so perhaps i'm repeting something already said. I agree that Mandos would never release Feanor till the end of time; but he will release him at the end of all things.

I think that almost all of the prophecy of Mandos has to be considered rejected by Tolkien. What he never rejected AFAIK is the vague idea that there would be a new life also for elves after Arda had dissapeared. In that life all elves -those who never had died, those who had been released by Mandos and those who never had been released by Mandos- would live again, but surely in a new way because their hroa couldn't be the same after Arda had passed.

But not until the End, when Feanor shall return who perished when the Sun was young and sitteth now in the Halls of Awaiting and comes no more amongst his kin; not until Sun passeth and the Moon falls shall it be known of what substance they were made.

This is all i have found to support the idea that Feanor would return to life. It is from the Annals of Aman, so it's nearer to Tolkien's "last conception" than the prophecy of Quenta Noldorinwa.

Falagar

05-04-2003, 05:25 AM

This is all i have found to support the idea that Feanor would return to life. It is from the Annals of Aman, so it's nearer to Tolkien's "last conception" than the prophecy of Quenta Noldorinwa.
But merely the idea that FÃ«anor would repent, which the Prophecy gives, is interesting. It tells us that at least at one time Tolkien had this thought.

I was going to write that I was going to quote one of MM's articles, but that it was down. When I clicked the link, it wasn't. So here it is:

A funny thing happened on the way to the canon
(...)The Law of Mandos stipulates that, whenever Turin or Morgoth become the focus of discussion, someone will inevitably drag in the "Second Prophecy of Mandos". This little gem has no relevance to The Lord of the Rings, but is frequently cited as proof that Morgoth will return at the end of Time, and that Turin will slay him. The inconvenient fact that Tolkien abandoned the prophecy in the 1930s, and ultimately only considered restoring it in a substantially different form (due to Andreth, an Edainic woman of Beleriand, whose prophecy foretells of Turin's temporary return at the end of the First Age), is either unknown to the faithful or disputed in some fashion.

Of course, Turin and Morgoth have little relevance to The Lord of the Rings, as they are barely mentioned in it. But the Second Prophecy is not mentioned or referred to in any way in The Silmarillion. It's not even pointed to in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, but there are pious souls who reverently insist it is a vital part of the canon. Woe unto he who points out that the Turin of The Silmarillion cannot become a Vala, even at the end of Time. And never mind the fact that all references to a Last Battle are obscure and incomplete, making no mention of Turin.
I don't have The Shaping of Middle Earth, so I can't really comment on the validness of the Prophecy...

Attalus

05-04-2003, 01:35 PM

Interesting quote, Falagar. I would really hope that Feanor would have one final chance to repent of the evil that he caused and the good he could have done. Surely, he and Mandos had some interesting talks through the ages.

Maedhros

05-04-2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
ps - Maedhros, I love that quote from Ã“sanwe-kenta:
Thanks RÃ*an. It's good to see that they are still nice people in this forum. Unlike others you resort to flaming you when their arguments are fated to crumble.
Originally posted by Attalus
So, Hate is indeed the appropriate response to Evil.
I would like to see proof of this statement. I don't take your word as fact.
Originally posted by Attalus
Actually, we are hating a purely literary creation in a literary way.
Then all the more reason to use pity then.
For a more detailed discussion about the Second Prophecy of Mandos look here:

TÃºrin and the Second Prophecy of Mandos (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7508)

Attalus

05-04-2003, 05:16 PM

As I have said, the Bible says that "God loves the sinner and hates the sin." Sin is by definition evil, from God's point of view. Q.E.D.

RÃan

05-04-2003, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Maedhros
Thanks RÃ*an. It's good to see that they are still nice people in this forum. Unlike others you resort to flaming you when their arguments are fated to crumble.
You're welcome :)

I think there's lots of nice, well-informed people on this forum. There's also differing opinions, and it's fun and interesting to discuss them, as long as there's no flaming, as you say. I have no problem disagreeing with people, as long as it remains friendly.

I also think there's just no "right" answer to some of these topics - sometimes Tolkien is vague about things, or even changes his mind about things (one of the best examples - Galadriel and Celeborn).

I think informed conjecture is also fun and interesting to share, and of course, conjecture can't be "proven". We all need to be able to disagree considerately, and we usually can. Let's remember the main thing we all share - a love of Tolkien's works.

[/"bliss ninny" mode :D ]

ps - that quote that you shared reminds me of the bit in the Sil where it says that even tho Tulkas disagreed with letting Melkor go, he obeyed the decision - something like "for those who would uphold authority against rebellion cannot themselves rebel". IOW, you can't fight wrong with wrong.

Maedhros

05-04-2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Attalus
As I have said, the Bible says that "God loves the sinner and hates the sin." Sin is by definition evil, from God's point of view. Q.E.D.
You are going to have to be more specific than that.

Attalus

05-04-2003, 05:49 PM

Ooh-kay, how about Psalm 5, verses 4-6: "For thou art not a God that has pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity, Thou shall destroy those that speak leasing ( falsehood -R.V.), the Lord will abhor the bloody and deceitful man."

Maedhros

05-04-2003, 06:02 PM

How about this then:
From Luke 6:27
"But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.
:eek:
Is the christian belief is to hate the hater?

Falagar

05-04-2003, 06:05 PM

And as far as I know, God is also a forgiveful God, he forgives the sinner...

My knowledge on Christianity doesn't extend into such deep matters, as you may have noticed.

Attalus

05-04-2003, 06:24 PM

The Luke passage has to do with the Christian's conduct. God is not addressed in it, and he is expressly shown to hate people who do evil. Sin, in fact. Of course, God forgives the sinner. The repentent sinner. And, as I have said before, I am enjoined to good to those that hate me. As far as I know, Feanor does not hate me, or any other real person, and is not my enemy, or any other real person. He is a literary character, and Christians are free to hate him or love him, and his evil acts.

RÃan

05-04-2003, 06:27 PM

Christianity, as opposed to Judaism, is based on the "new covenant" of faith, not the "old covenant" of the law (verses supplied upon request :) ), to the best of my understanding (almost 30 years of being a Christian). So if you're talking about Christianity, I think the New Testament verses are more appropriate.

I think the main theme of the Old Testament was showing that God is righteous and holy, and rightly abhors any sinful behavior (just as we, made in His image, rightly abhor evil acts). The New T builds upon the Old T - if we don't know we're sinful (as shown in the Old T), which separates us from a holy God, then we don't realize we need salvation (as provided by Jesus in the New T), which reconciles us to God.

And God provides forgiveness, if we ask for it and accept the way He has provided - some people don't want to ask...

But this might be gettng too OT...

Attalus

05-04-2003, 06:38 PM

The New Testament's verses are indeed more appropriate to me, and indeed the Psalm does not address the individual, only God. I, as a Christian, am not allowed to hate the Nazis, say, but I am free to deplore their evil conduct, and to prevent it if I can. Again, the whole confusion is between a literary character and the real thing. I may also point out that the Psalm is more appropriate, since the First Age was before the birth of Christ.

RÃan

05-04-2003, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Attalus
I, as a Christian, am not allowed to hate the Nazis, say, but I am free to deplore their evil conduct, and to prevent it if I can.
I totally agree with you there.

I may also point out that the Psalm is more appropriate, since the First Age was before the birth of Christ.
LOL! Great point, Attalus! :) And I'll just add Hebrews 13:8 - "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever." and Malachi 3:6a - "For I, the Lord, do not change;"

Have you had a chance to read the bits in Morgoth's Ring, Attalus, about the fall of man? Very interesting.

Falagar

05-04-2003, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I totally agree with you there.

[b]
LOL! Great point, Attalus! :) And I'll just add Hebrews 13:8 - "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever." and Malachi 3:6a - "For I, the Lord, do not change;"

Have you had a chance to read the bits in Morgoth's Ring, Attalus, about the fall of man? Very interesting.
I don't know if Attalus have, but I have at least. A very interesting essay, which is the only I have ever read that actually describes what happend when Men fell under the shadow.

RÃan

05-04-2003, 07:08 PM

Yes, the quiet "First Voice" and the devious "Second Voice" are very interesting.

*wonders how long Attalus can hold out buying Morgoth's Ring, if he doesn't already have it :D*

Maedhros

05-04-2003, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Attalus
The Luke passage has to do with the Christian's conduct. God is not addressed in it, and he is expressly shown to hate people who do evil. Sin, in fact. Of course, God forgives the sinner. The repentent sinner. And, as I have said before, I am enjoined to good to those that hate me. As far as I know, Feanor does not hate me, or any other real person, and is not my enemy, or any other real person. He is a literary character, and Christians are free to hate him or love him, and his evil acts.
Certainly a christian, that being one who tries and follows the teachings, should try and overcome their hate and be the better person. Every one is free to do whatever they want. But in Tolkien's mythos and in The New Testament, the idea that hate should be met with hate is discarded as a no no.

Attalus

05-04-2003, 07:14 PM

Again, only as far as living beings are concerned. Then your attitude might cause you to commits acts contrary to charity, or, God forbid, violence. But, nowhere is it stated that one is forbidden to abhor or hate evil actions, or literary characters. This, I believe, would have quite the reverse effect. And, again, hating Feanor is not returning hate with hate, since he can only hate withing the confines of a story.

Attalus

05-04-2003, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Yes, the quiet "First Voice" and the devious "Second Voice" are very interesting.

*wonders how long Attalus can hold out buying Morgoth's Ring, if he doesn't already have it :D* Oh, I have it, and all of the HoME, but I regard them with some suspicion, and agree with Michael Martinez that they are not Canon, merely a collection of speculations that JRRT may or may not have come to believe. Falagar, I think you posted something to this point, or I might be mistaken.

RÃan

05-04-2003, 07:24 PM

But they're enjoyable and interesting speculations, IMHO :) and at the very least, show some of this thoughts on things. And some are very well-developed.

Ta, all, I'm off!

Falagar

05-04-2003, 07:25 PM

Oh, I have it, and all of the HoME, but I regard them with some suspicion, and agree with Michael Martinez that they are not Canon, merely a collection of speculations that JRRT may or may not have come to believe. Falagar, I think you posted something to this point, or I might be mistaken.
I think so.

That essay about Men when they were 'corrupted' is something I'm very suspicious to, since it's not mentioned anywhere else and Tolkien several times state that nothing is told of what happened to Men when Morgoth came to them.

But it is still very interesting, Tolkien must have written this down once and thus also had the idea. If he meant to implent it in the Silm. we will never know...

Personally, I believe it to be more of a "test version", to see how it turned out.

Ok, I'm rambeling, off to get some sleep :)

Artanis

05-05-2003, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by Falagar
That essay about Men when they were 'corrupted' is something I'm very suspicious to, since it's not mentioned anywhere else and Tolkien several times state that nothing is told of what happened to Men when Morgoth came to them.All right, but Tolkien wrote the Athrabeth (I assume that's the story you're all referring to) late in life, and perhaps we should translate his previous statements about Men and Morgoth to 'nothing is told yet' ;) I also find it natural that it is not mentioned elsewhere in the books, since they are concerned about Elvish myths and not Mannish. Of course, Adanel's story in the Athrabeth is to be read with a critical eye, as should in general all Mannish myths more than the Elvish, since stories and legends passing through several generations are more likely to be altered.

Attalus, have you visited the Athrabeth thread? Did you enjoy the story, in spite of your suspicion? I'm not a Christian, but this story made me think of Christianity more than anything else Tolkien has written. It's a wonderful piece.