Reading the Silmarillion

[fictivore.livejournal.com]

 Hello Everyone...

This is a question I've been curious about for quite some time, as a Tolkien addict. Then when I discovered this very articulate community I have finally been able to gather the courage to do so, so here goes...

There are few works of fiction existing today, with the amount of sheer detail and fascination as JRR Tolkien's works of the First Age. The incredible world-building, the stories behind the stories, narratives conceived as mythologies, histories even conversations, all provide a very rich playground for a modern fan to play in.

However, this very detail leads to a very interesting question. How do you, as writers and/or scholars of Tolkien's First Age read the Silmarillion? Mythology? History? A Revisionist History written by the victors? A collection of second-hand accounts pieced together into a compelling narrative?

The fact that the Silmarillion is fiction is not in doubt at all... But the Silmarillion is a tale about immortal beings, amazingly fallible in their nature, about gods, about Evil and Destiny and inescapable Fates.

The Quenta Silmarillion itself, in story is supposed to have been a work of historical legend having been put to the paper by various writers. Some portions seem to have been intended to be written by a mortal of the later ages, Aelfwine, who through some unknown 'magic' was able to interact with the earlier ages (a canon time-travel plot bunny!). Some of it is undoubtedly part of the works of Bilbo during his stay in Rivendell, which were themselves translation from the work of Rumil of Tirion, a Noldor. 'The Annals of Beleriand', from which we get much of our knowledge of the First Age were supposed to have been written by Pengolodh, a follower of Turgon. The LaCE is a work of Rumil, again.

So do you take into consideration the backgrounds and prejudices of the purported writers while considering aspects of canon? Do you think Tolkien consciously shaped his writing of a piece based on that?

How much of the actual events are the fault of the actions of the characters? How much is Destiny and Doom and choices of their fore-fathers (the Feanorians, Turin, even Dior)?

Very interested in hearing the views of the fannishness at large... :D

Comments

[dawn_felagund]

First of all--welcome to the group! I'm glad you gathered the courage to post with us! :)

Great questions, too. As for how I read the book, once I started delving deeper into the Silm and working with it as a writer, many of the points you mention began to influence me in major ways; some of them became defining characteristics of how I approached Tolkien-based stories.

I wrote about "canon" interpretation on the Heretic Loremaster a while back, but here are some basic points that I've found important in shaping my own personal canon. I personally view the Silm and accompanying works as historical documents and subject to the same kind of scrutiny we'd give historical documents in the real world. There is also a hearty dash of mythology in there, especially in the earlier sections of the story. Yes, I think that the fictional author of the various parts of the story is of immense importance. When looking at how the Feanorians are vilified but Earendil and Elwing get turned into heroes in the text (despite abandoning their children in pursuit of the same shiny rock), it makes tremendous sense to me that the "author" (Pengolodh) was a loremaster of Turgon, who was unequivocally opposed to the Feanorians. Much of my own writing has been focused on depicting the same history but from other perspectives: that of the Feanorians, of course, but also characters sidelined in the history as we have it, like Finarfin or most of the female characters.

Do you think Tolkien consciously shaped his writing of a piece based on that?

I hesitate to declare, "Tolkien intended ..." because, in corners of this fandom, that phrase so often prefaces attempts to silence or disregard perspectives that don't adhere to JRRT's social and religious conservatism. However, yes, as far as I'm comfortable in saying so, I think that it was conscious. For one, the direct attribution of certain texts to particular fictional authors existed from the first versions of the stories in the BoLT right through to the final versions JRRT wrote. If I'm remembering correctly, the removal of this device was a stylistic choice by CT when putting together the published Silm. Please don't quote me on that till I get a chance to look it up. (I don't have time right now but will try to do so. :)

Also ... JRRT worked with historical texts. He certainly understood, in his professional life, how the writer of a text influenced what the text said. As a philologist, he would have constantly used information about the scribe or author of a particular text when forming conclusions about the languages that shaped English. So I find it hard to believe that he would have so explicitly identified fictional authors (and given each of them a distinct history) without giving consideration to the ripple effect that created on the "truth" of his works.

Of course, this throws a wrench in the cogs of writers who want a tidy, fact-based "canon" with which to work. :)

[dawn_felagund]

(I ran out of room on the first comment. :^P)

How much of the actual events are the fault of the actions of the characters?

I think it's much like real life: Characters find themselves in circumstances they have no control over but have the power to make their own choices within those circumstances. The outcome depends a little bit on both.

For example, a lot of people like to simplify things (imo) by heaping the blame for the fall of the Noldor on Feanor's shoulders because of his chief flaw of pride. However, this ignores the circumstances around Feanor and the influence they would have had on his life: his mother's death and his father's remarriage, coupled with being constantly told that he was fortunate to be living in a happy land of unremitting bliss, followed by the inability of the Valar to control Melkor and the subsequent theft of the Silmarils and murder of Finwe. At which point, the Valar still expect to be respected and obeyed and want Feanor to undo their mistakes. And Feanor's pride was the only thing that influenced his actions? At the same time, a character with a different personality would have reacted to those same circumstances differently, and one could say that things would have turned out "better." (Sarcastic quotes because Feanor's impelling the Noldor to Middle-earth--no matter how unfortunate the circumstances surrounding that choice--set in motion the events that resulted in Morgoth's captivity at the end of the First Age and Sauron's overthrow at the end of the Third Age. So I'm not sure that, in the long-term, things would have truly been better had Feanor been content to obey the Valar and keep himself at home.)

[silver-trails.livejournal.com]

Just had to say that I agree with all you said.

I'd add that Tolkien's own view of life was too present in his writings. The evil and the prone to anger are always dark, and the good are viewed as having fair complexions. The seeds Galadriel gives to Sam are supposed to make the soil better, and fair-haired children are born. Nowadays, it isn't politically correct to make the bad ones dark and ugly and the good ones fair and beautiful, but it was back then.

[fictivore.livejournal.com]

Interesting viewpoint, but I think there is some evidence even Tolkien had problems with this implication later in his life... Plus, all the heroes in LotR are dark actually... (except *maybe* Legolas)

In the FA Tales, definitely a lot of the purest and closest to Valar are blonde but we also have the dark-haired Luthien, and arguably almost all the Edain are dark haired excedpt when especially mentioned. I personally read, the fair-haired children as being born because Galadriel's color is gold. She is the Lady of the Golden Wood, and her especial blessing came in the form of a golden Mallorn... So it makes sense for the effect of her blessing being shown as golden haired kids?

[silver-trails.livejournal.com]

The ones who were calmer, like Finarfin, were fair-haired. The heroes in LotR are not all elves, and those who descend from elves, mostly descend from Noldor too. Noldor who left Aman in rebellion.

I don't say it is always like that, but it's almost always. The dark-haired are not necessarily evil, but impetuous, prone to rebellion...

The Easterlings have slanted eyes, and the Orcs were quite dark in the first versions. It's a tendency, due to the veiled racism of those days.

About Galadriel, it doesn't make sense at all to me. Why being golden haired would be a blessing? Being healthy and brave maybe would be a blessing to me. :)

Was Hurin not fair-haired and Turin dark-haired? When I was little and watched cowboys serials, the good guys were mostly blond, and the bad guys were dark-haired, and when faired-haired, they had been mislead by the black-haired ones.

[fictivore.livejournal.com]

Thankyou for the well-thought out comment... I've just been going through the comm and the essays on SWG and I am very very impressed by all you've done in this fandom. Now let me off to browse the Heretic Loremaster!

Okay, I just typed out a looong reply which JL ate, so now I'm going to be concise... :/

Anyway, what I meant by concious decision was that when I first read the Silmarillion, with limited time and no knowledge of HoME or even the intent for the writer having been Pengolodh, I was still struck by the fact that for all that the Feanorians are basically the guys who cause every single thing to actually happen, they are remarkably absent from the narrative. Then I recently found out about the whole Pengolodh deal and discovered HoME, and I went, 'Aha! It actually was one side of the story!'... But then I think, am I giving too much credit to the genius of Tolkien by deciding that he on-purpose decided to 'mutilate' his own personal 100% canon version of 'what *really* happened' when he was putting it down on paper, because he decided he was writing as a follower of Turgon? Did he decide that maybe Pengolodh got faulty information on this bit because he never got to personally talk to any of the survivors? Did he decide that maybe Pengolodh omitted or glossed over certain actions of Turgon and his allies because they might have been morally iffy? Did he semi-maliciously attribute wrongdoing to the Feanorians where there was none because he lost his wife on the Helceraxe? But if we start thinking like that, there is no point you can stop at, can you?

As for the 'fault' of the characters, I meant, How much veracity do you assume in the supernatural happenings in the tale, in so far as they influence the actions of characters. Leaving aside the fact, that much of the tale hinges on half the characters having actually lived among 'gods' and whether the sinking of the Beleriand and defeat of Melkor was just a conveniently timed earthquake/tsunami, we have questions like 'How much did they actually know about their 'deaths' and Mandos' punishments for wrongdoing?' More relevantly, you have the question raised by clotho123 in her essay just befor this, On The Sons of Feanor... Was the Oath of Feanor merely words or was it a semi-sentient and concious entity of the likes of the One Ring? Because, both then give rise to very very different readings of the text...

Feanor's impelling the Noldor to Middle-earth--no matter how unfortunate the circumstances surrounding that choice--set in motion the events that resulted in Morgoth's captivity at the end of the First Age and Sauron's overthrow at the end of the Third Age
There is actually something to this effect in the very canon. I think its Mandos? who says this during the debate on whether or not Finwe should keep it in his pants after the death of Miriel. He says something like, that though great evil may come of this and it may seem like it would have been better if this hadn't happened (this being the birth of beautiful Indis-spawn ;P) it will also be the cause of great good (namely, the defeat of Melkor)

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

Was the Oath of Feanor merely words or was it a semi-sentient and concious entity of the likes of the One Ring? Because, both then give rise to very very different readings of the text...

Butting in to shed some light (or otherwise cause more confusion):
In the Anglo-Saxon world, which Tolkien was extremely fond of and which no doubt influenced the Silmarillion alongside other sources, an oath was a very serious thing indeed. In the Anglo-Saxon law codes, the necessity of keeping an oath was underlined repeatedly. Ælfred the Great cleverly allowed for exceptions: Oaths did not have to be kept if fulfilling them required to commit a crime greater than oath-breaking (that is, in Ælfred's time, a crime against the king or against God). Oaths were what kept Anglo-Saxon feudal society functioning at all. In a largely illiterate society, any contract had to based on spoken words; as you cannot later on prove just what was said (no recording devices ;)), you have to pull a neat trick in order to make sure that people will "keep their word": you put them into a special mode and use special formulae that turn a statement into an oath, and that changed everything. Although an Anglo-Saxon oath was "merely words", at the same time - simply by convention and the laws of the time - it was so much more.
In fact, it still is (which is why I found the "merely words" wording a bit unfortunate). When you're in court, and you've been asked to swear to speak "the truth, and nothing but the truth", there is not actually anything that forces you to speak the truth. There are, of course, legal consequences for perjury if you're found out (so lying "under oath" is worse than lying "normally"!), and depending on your faith you might also fear supernatural retribution - but an oath is not a truth serum. You could lie. It's just laws and conventions that make it work.

How is the Anglo-Saxon understanding of an oath relevant to the Fëanorians? Well, at least half the Oath as recorded in Morgoth's Ring consists of formulae that can also be found in Beowulf (yes, really!), and the utter, under-all-circumstances importance of oath-keeping is, along with the concept of Fate, a staple of Anglo-Saxon plot devices... which in turn just might have influenced an author who loved his Anglo-Saxon epics. ;)

To come back to the original question: I don't think the Oath was an "entity". It wasn't mere words - it was a driving force - but it certainly was no entity like a monster running after the Fëanorians. (In modern terms, think of it as a neurosis: It is only in the mind, but that doesn't make it any less real!)

How much veracity do you assume in the supernatural happenings in the tale, in so far as they influence the actions of characters

That is a fantastic question that has given rise to some great fan fiction, and that every reader gets to answer for his or her self. Personally, I tend to take the "supernatural happenings" as they're explained in the Silm at face value, but I also like to play with the idea that there are perfectly good "natural" explanations. For the characters - caught in their "knowledge" of supernatural powers, divine retribution etc. etc. - I think it's all real, though. They don't stand there and say "Oh come on, that was only a major earthquake!"; they go "Oh shit War of Wrath!". But even that is up for everyone to decide; perhaps it was just poetic Pengoloð who liked to write about things allegorically? ;)

[fictivore.livejournal.com]

Okay... That is very interesting! And makes a lot of sense in a social historical context. More for me to ruminate on...... :D

I myself haven't actually read any of the Anglo-Saxon writings which influenced Tolkien (apart from general wiki-stuff ;P) so I'm probably missing out on a few things... But, again using the context of the Oath, I think in-text a lot of random events and decisions by people other than the Sons is attributed to 'the stirring of the Oath' and the like... So is that Pengoloð making excuses for his heroes? o.0

Anyway, thanks for sharing your way of reading the Silm... Which is actually quite a bit like what I tend to do... So, yay! C:

[angualupin.livejournal.com]

Hmm. While I certainly agree with you with respect to the societal and cultural origins of the Oath -- and all the other oaths that pepper Tolkien's mythos* -- I'm not entirely sure that I would agree that this means that the Oath wasn't functionally an entity. I view the Oath as an integral part of the mythic aspect of the story -- that is, it is not to be treated as part of the normal world, but instead as part of the mythological world inhabited by heroes and gods. Like heroes and gods, the Oath is a larger-than-life, quasi-supernatural representation of something in the real world. The Oath is a functioning entity, because it is what society wants real oaths to be -- if you do honestly believe that the oath you just took is a entity which will ensure Bad Things happen to you if you don't keep the oath, you are much more likely to keep the oath. As part of a mythology, therefore, the Oath is not to be treated as functioning in the same way as an oath taken in the real world.

I am not saying, of course, that Tolkien was writing his mythos to instruct and represent real-world societies in the same way that the ancient mythologies did. But he was writing his mythos in the same style and manner as those mytholgoies, and so the same rules generally apply.

*Despite knowing the historical societal norms that Tolkien based his cultures on, I am still consistently struck by how important oaths of allegiance are taken in the mythos. It is explicit that one of the tragedies caused by the Oath is the violation of such oaths -- specifically, that some Elves choose to disobey their lieges and not participate in the second and third Kinslaying, and that this is accounted a tragedy almost as great as the tragedy of the Kinslayings themselves. To a modern perspective, a choice between obeying your superior and committing what is effectively genocide, or not obeying your superior and thereby not committing genocide, is no choice at all. But in the cultural context of the mythos, it is a choice between two evils -- the Kinslaying is evil, but so is violating your oath of allegiance, and those who chose to do so rather than participate in the Kinslaying were actually guilty of doing wrong.

PS Icon love.

[pandemonium-213.livejournal.com]

Hi, fictivore! Love your moniker and icon. My yammering in response to your post follows:

There are few works of fiction existing today, with the amount of sheer detail and fascination as JRR Tolkien's works of the First Age. The incredible world-building, the stories behind the stories, narratives conceived as mythologies, histories even conversations, all provide a very rich playground for a modern fan to play in.

Agreed that it is a rich playground due to the richness of JRRT’s secondary world. However, some detail is lacking, namely in depth characterization of the players. To a certain extent The Silmarillion offers a mythic view from 30,000 feet, as opposed to The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit in which the reader becomes much better acquainted with the characters. From my viewpoint, it is this lack of detail that proves so enticing as both a reader and writer of Silmarillion (and HoMe) based fan fiction. But, yes, the rich foundation is definitely there for the playground equipment.

However, this very detail leads to a very interesting question. How do you, as writers and/or scholars of Tolkien's First Age read the Silmarillion? Mythology? History? A Revisionist History written by the victors? A collection of second-hand accounts pieced together into a compelling narrative?

Although I am Second Age writer (although strictly speaking, I write "multi-age" which spans pre- and primeval Arda to the 21st century), I’ll answer as a reader who has pored over The Silmarillion many times and who avidly reads First Age fan fiction. I read The Silmarillion and ancillary works as...all of the above, that is, mythology, history, and history as seen through the lenses of scribes who write through the filters of their own experiences.

So do you take into consideration the backgrounds and prejudices of the purported writers while considering aspects of canon?

Indeed I do.

Do you think Tolkien consciously shaped his writing of a piece based on that?

He certainly wrote from a hobbit-centric standpoint! But in other parts of the legendarium, his own biases come through loud and clear. Those biases prompted me to take up fan fiction.

How much of the actual events are the fault of the actions of the characters?

Quite a lot actually. As Lyra pointed out, Tolkien slathers on thick the Anglo-Saxon concept of Fate, but there is also plenty of free will at play. So destiny and doom are themes, yes, but characters make choices, too. They are not automatons or marionettes dangled by divine strings.

[fictivore.livejournal.com]

Thankyou! :3 And thankyou for sharing...

I completely agree with your assessment of Silm's 30,000 feet view. In fact, as you pointed out, that very lack of absolute details, characterizations and irrefutable canon which makes it so very interesting a playground! Frankly, a playground where everything you can or cannot do is controlled by the teachers, isn't really that much fun, is it? (Though it might be infinitely safer, no doubt)... Much more fun playing in the wild jungle of a playground imo! ;p

[pandemonium-213.livejournal.com]

Frankly, a playground where everything you can or cannot do is controlled by the teachers, isn't really that much fun, is it? (Though it might be infinitely safer, no doubt)... Much more fun playing in the wild jungle of a playground imo! ;p

IMO, too! I see canon (the playground controlled by teachers) as being useful for scholarly discussions [1] of Tolkien's work, but for fan fiction? Not so much, save for some aspects, e.g., the Noldor as a whole tended to have dark hair, etc. Tolkien created a mythology (mythopoeia), and mythology is far more slippery than canon, which, by definition, is set by an authority that measures standards. But Tolkien claimed his world is mythopoeia (The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales and HoMe offer prime examples), and mythology is indeed a wild jungle of a playground.

[1] Some scholarly discussions are so speculative that they tread along the boundaries of fan fiction, just not as entertaining (usually) to read. ;^)

[neji-chan.livejournal.com]

Interesting questions and funny how I've recently been thinking about some of them!

I see two different ways to read the Silmarillion. One is to think of them as deviations of 'real' stories. The truth is that there were no gods, no elves, no dragons, no curses, etc. Those were just deformations of real events with real (human) people and natural disasters that couldn’t be explained. In this case, you could write a fic in which the devastation of Ard-galen wasn’t caused by a dragon but by volcanic activity, for example.

Then you have the opposite way or reading it: those stories really did happen. And that is the way I read it, so the answer to your other questions have that in mind.

So do you take into consideration the backgrounds and prejudices of the purported writers while considering aspects of canon?

Yes. In my view, The Silmarillion derives from Bilbo’s Translations from the Elvish, which were translated from various books in Rivendell. For example, the Quenta Silmarillion was attributed to Pengolodh, an elf from Gondolin. That means that most of what we know about the Sons of Fëanor and their actions comes from elves that weren’t exactly sympathetic towards them (which makes sense, of course). So you have to have that in mind when writing about anything that involves Fëanorians… we don’t know their side of the story. That opens a lot of doors for fanfic writers :)

How much of the actual events are the fault of the actions of the characters? How much is Destiny and Doom and choices of their fore-fathers (the Feanorians, Turin, even Dior)?

Destiny and Doom are real, but so is free will. Therefore, while some things couldn’t be avoided, the way they happened could have been different. Take the fall of Gondolin and the fall of Nargothrond. Both kingdoms were destined to fall; we knew that, Turgon and Finrod knew that, hell all the Noldor knew that nothing they built would endure. The Doom of Mandos was real. Does that mean neither Turgon nor Turin were at fault? In my opinion, they were. If Turgon had paid heed to Ulmo’s warning, then most likely most of Gondolin’s citizens would have survive. If Turin hadn’t been so confident (among other things), then most likely he wouldn’t have been the main reason Nargothrond was destroyed. It would have fallen but by other circumstances, because of other people.

So, I believe most of the bad things that happened had two components: the magical/supernatural/divine/whatever you choose to call it part, in the form of destiny, doom and curses; and the “human” part, that is they way the personality and human traits like greed, pride, etc. influences our actions.

I hope that makes sense, my English fails me when it comes to expressing my ideas in discussions :P

[fictivore.livejournal.com]

Thank you for sharing! The many many different ways it is possible to read the Silmarillion is one of its more amazing aspects for me, really... :D

My sorta obsession/interest in the concept of supernatural Fate/Doom etc for the heroes is mostly because various interpretations of that question manage to completely change the context and/or morality of a lot of actions in the Silmarillion. Taking Turin himself as an example. Okay, personally I read it less as over-confidence and more as a blind hatred for Morgoth and a 'Fuck You Destiny!' mindset where he would try to do impossible things just because he was supposed to fail, but anyway... So, if Turin's Destiny is merely a literary/mythological device we can definitely talk about how his attitude/behaviour/actions made him responsible for so much destruction. But if it really is a real and tangible curse by a literal 'god', then really he's just screwed over, isn't he? He is literally suffering not for anything he has done but for the virtue of his father. In this case, the fact that he can be an asshole is completely incidental. He could have been a total saint, he could have been bleeding Mother Teresa and he still would have ended up just as screwed over. In fact, in that case, even his assholish-ness can be read as a direct cause of the Curse. In that case, we have no idea what a curse-free Turin might have been like. In the absence of a supernatural curse, would a Turin who had undergone more or less the same set of circumstances, would he have made the same choices? Would he even have had the same basic personality, even?

[neji-chan.livejournal.com]

Turin is a great subject for the question "How much influence had the Valar over the fate of Men?”

Before I start I want to say, for the record, that I love Turin, so I might be biased. He’s very flaw but that’s what makes him so human, imo. I can relate to him because I would react in much the same way he did. Maybe that doesn’t say good things about me… XD

I believe both Fate (in this case Morgoth’s curse to Húrin) and Turin’s personality were to blame for what happened.* But those two things are also intertwined, because his some of his personality was shaped by the curse**. That makes his story and his character so fascinating, in my opinion; the fact that you can’t pinpoint a cause… you can’t blame it entirely on him nor entirely on Morgoth. Tolkien’s stories aren’t black or white but the Tale of the Children of Húrin is as grey as they come.

The moments I see are entirely Morgoth’s fault are:
- Beleg’s death. The way the sword slipped and for the trick of light Turin saw an orc instead of his friend? I can’t think of that as merely bad luck. The way Turin reacted was understandable, given the circumstances. This is a case where the curse directly affected his decisions. Beleg’s death caused him to focus more strongly on his hatred against Morgoth, with Nargothrond as the direct consequence***.
- Glaurung and his spell.

I think I said all I needed to say on that third paragraph. Everything else was unnecessary ::lol::

*Not only that, but the actions of those around Turin. His mother, for deciding to stay behind instead of going to Doriath with him (I think of Turin as very attached to his mother, and that that separation had a great impact on him and can be partially responsible for his morose mood as a child) and later for not heeding Thingol’s advice and going with Mablung and co.. Beleg, for not listening to Melian’s warning regarding the sword. Many of the elves of Nargothrond agreed to build that bridge, you can’t say it was his deed alone
**Turin was described to have inherited his mother mood. The way I read that, his personality wouldn’t have been that much different if he were curse-free. I think he was rash and sometimes too confident in his abilities (not without reason), two things that brought him trouble and would have brought him the same trouble even without the curse.
***Side note on Nargothrond, the place was doomed already, as I said. Turin in this case was a convenient tool for the fulfillment of Mando’s curse. However, it was his personality and his state of mind by this time that made him so convenient. Personality was all his own, state of mind Morgoth’s fault… again, can’t say one or the other. Someone with a different personality might have reacted differently.

[fictivore.livejournal.com]

Oh Turin's story is definitely one of my favourites too! The main reason for that id definitely is numerous ways it can be interpreted. The way I see it, Turin's fate can actually be assigned as any of the following cases: Complete and utter puppet to Morgoth's curse; Almost completely a product of personal bad decisions and arrogance with a side order of bad luck and bad timing (and bad Dragon... Glaurung as a direct agent of Morgoth's curse is actually a rare device in Tolkien) or a balanced and (un)healthy mix of the two. ;p

Taking, again, just the moment with Beleg. It is actually not inconceivable that a man who has just been tortured to unconciousness wakes up to someone cutting him with a sword (accidentally yes, but half-unconscious Turin didn't know that), and in the absence of clear daylight assumed it to be one of his torturers. Really, that is a not a sequence of events that requires the presence of a curse...

But, the sad sad timing and sheer bad-luck could really be because of supernatural causes... or again, maybe not... Totally agreed about there actually being a lot of other characters to 'share the blame' as such...

As for Turin's personality, the question I was trying to raise was, what if that very rashness was a cause of the curse, rather than his natural personality in a curse free environment? Every single character-defining moment that has happened to him, including being sent away, happened post-curse. The only pre-curse fact mentioned that he dearly loved Dead Little Sister Lalaith, is actually the base of one of his better decisions in life. Because Finduilas reminded him of his sister, he defied all narrative conventions and did NOT fall in love with the Daughter of the Chief (TM) who was also his Best Mate's Girl (R). Unfortunately, it was not enough to save him but still....

[heartofoshun.livejournal.com]

I think your points are quite clearly expressed. I agree with most of them.

those stories really did happen. And that is the way I read it

I prefer also to write the stories as though a lot, if not not all, of the magical and fantastic elements in them are true. I enjoy the light of the trees, silver and gold, so pretty, so evocative of a lost world of innocence and bliss faced with the very real trials of First Age Beleriand. I draw the line at calculating the difference between Valarin years and years of the sun! Sorry! I do this for fun. I also tend to write real people when dealing with emotions and interpersonal interactions. I don't find motivations and conversations among epic heroes or villains very much fun to write.

The bottom line is that it is an endlessly fascinating fantasy world for me. It's very hard to move beyond it in fact.

[neji-chan.livejournal.com]

I think your points are quite clearly expressed.

Glad to hear that. Trying to translate my thoughts into words is something I find extremely difficult.

I have to deal with the real world on a daily basis, I want to read about a place where there are magic and fantastical elements and pretend they are real. And what makes it easy with Tolkien’s fantasy is that, as you said, the trials the characters go through are very real.

I also tend to write real people when dealing with emotions and interpersonal interactions.

In my opinion, all Tolkien’s heroes are real people, is just that we only get to see most of them at their best… or worse ::lol:: We don’t see them on an ordinary day trying to decide what to make or dinner.
Btw, I love your Maitimo and Findekáno stories. I haven’t read all of them, I’m kind of saving them for when I have the time to seat and read them from beginning to end in one go :)

[heartofoshun.livejournal.com]

Btw, I love your Maitimo and Findekáno stories. I haven’t read all of them, I’m kind of saving them for when I have the time to seat and read them from beginning to end in one go :)

Thank you so much! I'm blushing. That makes me very happy.

[dawn_felagund]

1 YV = 9.58 YS

Sorry, I couldn't resist ... :^P

More information than you could possibly have wanted!

[heartofoshun.livejournal.com]

I read the history contained in The Silmarillion as history, quasi-history and myth of Tolkien's created world written, as history always is, from the particular point of view of different authors. I find it interesting to consider the perspective of the rebellious Noldor and then to try to recreate for myself how that history would have read had it been written to represent the point of view of perhaps Maedhros.

I wouldn't go as far in my re-writing of the history of the Silmarils as to want to do it entirely from the perspective of Fëanor. I personally sympathize more with his sons and how it must have felt to them to have sworn the Oath in light of their loyalty to their father and their own understanding of the issues involved. And there are issues galore!

Meanwhile, the Valar do not have spotless hands in any of this. Whether Manwë was right to insist against opposition that the Valar convince the Eldar to leave Middle-earth to come to Aman in the first place is more than open to speculation. Much later, Aulë had a huge point when he said that the Valar did not realize what they are asking when they asked Fëanor to allow them to break apart the Silmarili in order to attempt to reconstruct the Light of the Trees. Aulë's implication is that the deconstruction of the Silmarili threatened the destruction of Fëanor himself. (One sees the echo of that later in the LotR, where the destruction of the One Ring is linked to the destruction of Sauron himself. Like Fëanor he may be seen as having put too much of himself into its creation to survive its destruction.) And one must acknowledge the Valar hold some responsibility for Melkor's evil deeds in destroying the Two Trees and his sowing the seeds of the rebellion of the Noldor in a soil made fertile by his brother Valar in their paternalistic interventionist attitude toward the Eldar in the first place. If Fëanor was smart enough to figure out Melkor was up to no good, Manwë ought to have been. I don't buy the position of the apologists for Manwë who claim that he was so good he couldn't see evil in others. Pfft!

A wild card in all of this is, of course, the long shadow of Tolkien's own religiosity, which he claims to attempt to keep separate from the theology of his Arda, but which he also admits seeps through at so many points. And, additionally, his own love/hate relationship to science and its application, leads him into dangerously reactionary fields of speculation and a fair amount of befuddlement himself. He also admits that the major flaw in the Eldar which will eventually lead to their fading is their inability by the late-Third Age to accommodate to change, a wanting to hold the world in stasis.

The tragedy of the Oath for the sons of Fëanor could be seen as the fact that once they have sworn it, the greater evil would be to turn their back upon it. They swore it not to the Valar, but to Eru and only he could absolve them of their duty to abide by it. Some fanfiction writers want to write Maglor as a good guy for trying to convince Maedhros to abandon their Oath when they have one last chance to regain possession of the Silmarils at the end of the War of Wrath. Coming from my own background and the epics which influenced me, including Tolkien's own, there is no less attractive character than the one who goes back on a sworn oath (example: the oath breakers of the Paths of the Dead in LotR—their redemption is hard won).

I could go on and on about how I see that there are clearly two sides or more to the story of the First Age. I would never say that Tolkien wanted to see any of my positions discussed. But, I am not one of those who presume to be able to know how Tolkien would prefer to discuss any of these question were he alive today. It's a different world. I do think he would have allowed for the possibility of different ways of telling the story depending upon the various possible authors.

For me these are endlessly interesting points to discuss. I write fanfiction not to mirror or simply fill the gaps left by Tolkien but to scrutinize the possibilities and re-imagine the fantastic world he created.

There can never be enough meta in the world!

[fictivore.livejournal.com]

Thankyou! And you have literally stated my own personal pet peeve with the Valar. Agreed in every single point! Especially, the Manwe being too good to understand evil... By that definition, you are basically stating that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a fair and just person to also be good and pure of heart. Because he can understand the concept of evil... What?! >_>;

The Sons of Feanor are definitely some of the more tragic figures in the work. Even more interesting because thanks to the penmanship of Pengolodh we really don't know their side of the story. I mean, we don't even know if they ever even actually wanted the bloody jewels! When the entire story is about them trying to get to them at all cost!

Eh... I understand your point re: Oathbreakers... In the socio-political and cultural reality of the FA, there would definitely be very few things, if any, worse than breaking an oath, sworn in the name of God. I don't believe Maglor is a 'good guy' to be certain... But his wanting to break the Oath is admirable to me more because of his reasons for doing so. He wants to break the Oath, not because of its cost to himself, but because breaking the Oath, would cause less evil for others... There is a semi-historical legend of doubtful veracity I'm familiar with, which reminds me of this situation.

In an occupied state, there is a holy man who's shtick is telling the truth. He's famous for it in all the kingdom, he's never spoken a lie in his life. Birds fly, fish swim and this guy tells the truth. He has, in fact, taken an oath of eternal truthfulness. The displaced royal family is on the run and organizing a resistance but for various reasons the young prince comes into his care. The occupying force is slightly suspicious of this young boy who suddenly appears just when the prince has gone missing and come to ask the holy man about the boy. Now, the man's reputation is such that he knows if he says this boy is my nephew, even the enemy soldiers will not doubt him, but Oath! In the end, he does break his oath and save the prince because ultimately human life is more important than keeping an oath which would cause harm.

Okay, I went completely off-topic... I'm sorry x_x; ?? *hides* Anyway, thanks for sharing your views, this all mucho fascinating!!! :DDD

Re: There can never be enough meta in the world!

[heartofoshun.livejournal.com]

It is fascinating to second guess the parts of the story that an author didn't really write (maybe what the author intended, or perhaps did not intend, that would fit between the lines). I cannot help but bring my own intellectual equipment and prejudices to the party. We all do. Fanfiction for me is a sort of let-a-thousand-flowers-bloom type of encounter with the texts. I may not like all of it, but I defend the writing of it unconditionally. The Silmarillion is my main fandom, but I am still one of those types who think is was a terrible waste that JK Rowling didn't make more of Draco Malfoy in the Harry Potter books. The books could have been stronger had he been less of a bully; a better writer would have made him at least a more conflicted bully (tens of thousands of Harry Potter fans can't be wrong in that case). The idea that some people, mainly LotR afficionados who aren't terribly fond of The Silmarillion, think that Tolkien didn't give us complexities and grey areas to deal with when looking at the First Age is not giving him a lot of credit as a writer. It is not a case of the Valar = good guys wearing white hats; Sons of Feanor = bad guys wearing black hats. JRRT fills Feanor and his sons with plenty of contradictions.

[anna-wing.livejournal.com]

There's a lot of interesting critical commentary around, if you haven't read it already. Tom Shippey, Brian Rosebury and Verlyn Flieger have all done some excellent books. "Tolkien's Legendarium" is an entire collection of critical essays on HoME, of considerable interest and value. The Scull and Hammond "Tolkien Companion and Guide" and Michael Drout's "Tolkien Encyclopaedia" are both comprehensive in their different ways. Drout's volume focuses on academic analysis of the works, while Hammond and Scull include a lot about Tolkien himself (in relation to the works), and the details of Middle-earth. The several volumes of the "Tolkien Studies" journal are also useful, though in my case mostly for their reviews of relevant publications.

[fictivore.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the references! I hope I'll be able to get my hands on them, in a not too distant future... They all sound pretty interesting... Though I have read quite a bit of the Tolkien Legendarium and you're totally right! It rocks like all get out!! :3