Agency at Alqualondë: Materialism, World View, Neither, All, or None?

[pandemonium-213.livejournal.com]

Recently, a discussion ensued on Tumblr[1] that addressed two theses pertaining to the Kinslaying at Alqualondë. Silm fans have wrestled with this topic ad nauseum, and it would seem some folks who are relatively new to the fandom are likewise considering it. I do not necessarily have a horse in this race, but I tried to follow the discussion as best I might, so I am distilling it down to the following (numerical order for convenience, not for weight):

Thesis 1, Materialism: The Kinslaying at Alqualondë ultimately was due to the refusal to give up possessions, i.e., Fëanor's refusal to turn aside from his quest to regain the Silmarilli and Olwë's refusal to give up his ships to the Noldorin cause.

ETA: Please to note that the term "Materialism" is derived from what appears to be a prevailing theme in the original Tumblr discussion, re: "In Tolkien’s world, people are very materialistic." Maybe there's more nuanced thought there, but in that discussion, the notion that possessiveness and possessions were precipitators of the conflict seems prevalent. So, if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it ain't a platypus.

Thesis 2, Difference of World View: The theft of the Silmarilli were incidental in the rebellion and subsequent flight of the Noldor; they were primed for rebellion as the result of a complex array of reasons. Fëanor et alia expected Olwë to understand and support his cause, but when he was refused, blood was shed and the ships were hijacked.

Anyone (Bueller?) please feel free to elaborate on the two theses and give us your take on them. Even if we're repeating ourselves here, hey, we do like to talk about this stuff! Bear in mind that these are only two proposed theses. Certainly, there are others that may be a blending of the two or altogether different.

Here are a couple of links (incomplete, I would guess, because my impression is that there were many more comments and positions taken on other Tumblr blogs, but due to the ephemeral nature of posts on Tumblr, it's damned hard to search for them):

Elleth brought the Alqualondë issue to attention. Again, my impression is that there were other sidebars, but I may be wrong there.

A bit of disagreement on Theses 1 and 2, hence my comment (as Prof. Thû) as a facilitator of sorts to take it outside. ;^)

This is likely rehashing old stuff for a number of folks (First Wave Silmfans, Second Wave Silmfans - I'm one of the latter), but for new fans (Third Wave?), it might be useful. Or not.

As noted, discussions on these topics can get...passionate. Remember, it's quite possible to disagree vehemently with another and still remain friends, or at least collegial!

So go talk amongst yourselves. Then we'll go have beer. Or wine. Or tea.

[1] A few folks have expressed dissatisfaction for Tumblr as a platform for discussion, so the suggestion to take this to email or an LJ was made. Upon conferring with Dawn, the Silm Community LJ seemed as good a place as any. An advantage over the SWG Yahoo group is that one needn't register to make comments here. I believe anonymous comments may be made as well, but I think this will be screened by the community mods.

Comments

[rhapsody11.livejournal.com]

Oh my. Hmmm, I don't think it was a matter of materialism on the Noldo side. I mean these folks were gem hoarders, they had all the riches they could ever wish for. I am too unfamilair with the house of Olwë to determine how much they wanted to cling on to their ships.

Difference of World view? Hmm, not so sure either. I am sticking with thirst for revenge, fueled by grief and the dynamite added to it was honour. *kabloeiy*

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

Considering that Olwë explicitly says that "these [ships] are to us as the gems of the Noldor: the work of our hearts, whose like we shall not make again" - AND that it's the Teleri who start pushing the Noldor into the sea (while the Noldor are wearing armour, if they ever learned to swim in the first place) BEFORE "swords were drawn"... I think there was a whole lot of clinging. ;)

I agree that a thirst for revenge combined with grief were important factors as well, though!

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

I'm going with a bit of both. Remember that Feanor was acting fundamentally irrationally. He'd just had something stolen from him which he had made with his own hands, that he was proud of and that he'd poured a lot of himself into, directly after the shock of hearing Yavanna say
it should be destroyed to rebuild the Trees. Feanor was grieving over the loss of Finwe, and he was angry and greedy and resentful towards the Valar. He was highly emotional and irrational; his acting rashly and swearing oaths is testimony to exactly how he turned all that bitterness and wrath *back onto the Valar*.

Now, it's entirely possible that Feanor wasn't actively talking deliberate nonsense on the pretext of getting the ships, but actually believed what he was saying about the Noldor's entitlement to them.

He was using the ships for his own purposes - BUT I believe that Olwe's refusal represented, for him, both a betrayal of kinship and a denial of something quintessentially Noldorin. After losing the Silmarils, it might have been a double blow to him on some subconscious level to be once again denied something which, as a Noldo and a craftsman, he felt he had the right to - a product of (what he believed to be) Noldorin work and Noldorin history.

Does any of this excuse the Noldor's decision to draw steel? Nope.
I'm confused as to how the Teleri can be wrong in this context. The Feanorians' justification doesn't hold water against Olwe's assertion that he and his people have the right to the ships. Sure, Olwe was stubborn, but wouldn't you be if someone told you to give up your livelihood? See relevant arguments on the tumblr post.

I apologise if I'm rehashing old arguments- this is essentially what the text says, after all. 

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

I'm confused as to how the Teleri can be wrong in this context.

The Teleri can be wrong in as much as (according to the text) they cast [some of the] Noldor into the sea -- according to the book, THAT is what prompted the Noldor to draw steel. One might argue that, considering that the Noldor were wearing armour and possibly never learned to swim in the first place, the Teleri started the killing. Whether or not they had a right to do that because the Noldor were trying to steal their ships... your call.

Livelihood, though? We're only told that the ships were built to ferry the Teleri to Aman. Whether they depended on them for their livelihoods is (IIRC) not mentioned anywhere. Moreover, Fëanor (according to the text, again) first merely asked to borrow some ships and/or for help in building a Noldorin fleet. Neither option seems to be threatening the Telerin livelihood (if the ships are essential to that in the first place). Olwë refused, which might make him sort of responsible for the situation escalating. Of course that doesn't mean the Noldor have a right to take the ships by force, but it's definitely not as clearly black-and-white as you seem to think.

[/sophistry]

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

Yes, you're quite right; this is why I should do more than skim-read the text before class.

[huinare.livejournal.com]

(Here (http://professor-thu.tumblr.com/post/50630512098/elleth-starspray-replied-to-your-post-so-theres) should be a direct link to the post referenced in link 2.)

Elven culture/history is not my forte by any means, but I think it would be simplistic to try and boil it down to any one reason. Like any historical event, there is a unique set of cultural (or intercultural) and temporal circumstances that leads up to it. I'm being unhelpfully brief as opposed to being unhelpfully long-winded in this particular case.

[pandemonium-213.livejournal.com]

Oops. Link now fixed in the main post.

I'll opt for brevity, too, although I have an opinion about this (similar to yours). However, there's a certain teevee show that will be broadcasting on HBO in about 7 minutes or so...

[anna-wing.livejournal.com]

Actually the Alqualonde incident looks to me like the sort of thing that happens. Consider:

1 Everyone involved must already have been in a state of shock, and certainly in an extremely abnormal emotional state. Most of the Noldor must have been people who had literally never been in the dark before, and the circumstances of their being in the dark for the first time were, to say the least, extremely negative - murder (of Finwe), theft, the destruction of the Trees, the shock that Valinor could be attacked and that the Valar could not defend them - all of these things were utterly unprecedented. The Teleri must have been seriously upset and frightened as well, especially since they were so much further away and therefore possibly had less information about what was actually going on with the Noldor (I assume that the Valar had been keeping Olwe and his spouse up to date on general events re the Tree situation).

2 Feanor was a hugely charismatic personality, with, clearly, some serious mental problems, but with absolute support from his sons, who themselves were charismatic individuals with their own followings, so there was the group psychology thing at work as well.

3 The hostility between Feanor and Fingolfin had already to some extent started to acclimatise the Noldor to violence, and to the idea that unity among elves was not an automatic thing. There could be factions, with mutually exclusive interests. In Valinor at this point, this concept appears to have been unique to the Noldor.

So in a situation where people are armed, emotions are running high and no-one is either thinking rationally or with full knowledge of what is going on - violence is very easy. It was quite unlike the attacks on Doriath or Sirion, which were essentially planned, military strikes (as the Pentagon so charmingly puts it , "kinetic actions"). Alqualonde was essentially an accident, in that it was clearly not planned in advance. It can't all be attributed to Feanor's motivations. Whatever they were, events would have had their own momentum when the collective fear, anger, frustration, grief, shame (for not being there for Finwe when Morgoth came), the simple urge to Do Something At Someone, Anyone to make them pay for this...are taken into account.

[just-jenni.livejournal.com]

I agree that there was more than a simple cause for what occurred at Alqualonde. As in real life, especially the causes of wars and extended conflicts, there are many complicated reasons for why these things escalate at certain times. Sometimes it's just a bunch of things coming together at a single point in time, with all involved parties having had rankling issues brewing inside them for awhile and suddenly everything comes to a head and boils over after a triggering action. I tend to follow the second thesis but the first would apply as well, as a result of the second.

[ladybrooke]

I agree with the rest of the comments about how the real causes are far more complex.

I lean towards the second though - I feel there were vast personal and generational differences. On one hand, we have Fëanor, who by this point as a deep distrust of the Valar's ability to do anything, feels like Valinor is something of a cage and free movement should be allowed, that Morgoth must be immediately punished for his actions, etc. On the other hand, there is Olwë. Olwë was one of the elves that went on the march to get to Valinor and abandoned two brothers because he believed that it was best for his people to be in Valinor. That could hardly have been an easy choice to make, and I can understand a reluctance to let Finwë's people (because we know there was a degree of friendship between them and that the Noldor apparently helped the Teleri when they first arrived to establish cities - which I could imagine was one reason Fëanor might think he was entitled to use of the ships) go back to what he must have at least once thought of as intolerable situations.

I think (and this is firmly my opinion) that everyone involved was motivated at least partially by caring (perhaps too much) about other people - Fëanor and his father, Olwë and the general friendship with the Noldor. High emotions and a desire for revenge as well, all combined into one perfect powder keg, along with probably a ton of tiny cultural differences that we can't know about and don't know about.

[tehta.livejournal.com]

I agree with the people saying "the causes were complex and hard to untangle, just like in real history."

However... While I would not normally see myself as a Feanorian apologist -- is "materialism" really the right word here? I have always assumed that the Jewels (and the ships) were more than mere possessions; that they really did contain something of the maker, in a non-metaphorical way. I do not think Feanor would have felt as strongly about all the other jewels he made...

[huinare.livejournal.com]

The term "materialism" did not sit well with me for similar reasons.

[pandemonium-213.livejournal.com]

I agree with you, but as for my choice of words? Have a look at the original discussion on Tumblr. The theme discussed there would seem to address materialism, i.e., possessiveness, as a significant precipitator of the Kinslaying.

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

As others have said before me, I think it's a combination of several factors that made the Kinslaying happen. Yes, the Noldor and the Teleri were both materialistic in their obsession with the Silmarilli/ the swan ships; and yes, they no doubt had hugely different views of the world. (The fact alone that the Noldor would've been used to the full light of the Trees, while the Teleri were used to the twilight beyond the Calacirya, probably meant that the Darkening was far more traumatic for the Noldor than for the Teleri.) But neither this "materialism" nor the differing world views would under normal circumstances have led to Elves killing Elves - definitely not on that scale. But the combination of grief (over the loss of the Trees and the death of Finwë), fear, more or less righteous anger, the inescapability of the Oath AND materialism AND the inability of the Teleri to grasp how desperate the Noldor were... that was what made the whole situation blow up.

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

(The fact alone that the Noldor would've been used to the full light of the Trees, while the Teleri were used to the twilight beyond the Calacirya, probably meant that the Darkening was far more traumatic for the Noldor than for the Teleri.)

That is a very good point.

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

Not mine, I have to admit - I only realised this thanks to Duilwen's fantastic In the Interest of Historical Accuracy (http://www.silmarillionwritersguild.org/archive/home/viewstory.php?sid=1753) (WiP). But then I asked myself how I could ever overlook it!

[dawn_felagund]

Commenting with my mod-hat on to say that, yes, our community allows anonymous comments! So if you're stumbling by this discussion and want to weigh in, you need not have an LJ account. You can also comment with various other social media accounts (Twitter and Facebook, I know, are accepted; Tumblr is unfortunately not among them).

Pandë, I think that you, as the person who made the post, will receive notification of screened comments. I'll also be watching the thread, and if I see a screened comment, I will unscreen it. Unfortunately, LJ is blocked at work for me, so that's a big chunk of my day, but hopefully, among a couple-few of us, we can keep any anonymous comments approved at a good tick. Also, if it happens that there is a lot of discussion from folks via anonymous comments, I'm happy to shut off moderation until this (or any) discussion cools down. Just let me know. :)

I'll be back sans mod-hat to throw my two cents into this fountain. ;)

[dawn_felagund]

Okay, mod-hat off ...

I'm with the majority that conclude "it's complicated" and don't come down wholly for any one explanation. Like tehta said, if we treat this as an historical event, we should acknowledge that no single pat explanation is going to suffice.

I do think there is a question of worldview. The Silmarillion is pretty clear on this point, imo:

But the Teleri were unmoved by aught that he could say. They were grieved indeed at the going of their kinsfolk and long friends, but would rather dissuade them than aid them; and no ship would they lend, nor help in the building, against the will of the Valar. As for themselves, they desired now no other home but the strands of Eldamar, and no other lord than Olwë, prince of Alqualondë. And he had never lent ear to Morgoth, nor welcomed him to his land, and he trusted still that Ulmo and the other great among the Valar would redress the hurts of Morgoth, and that the night would pass yet to a new dawn.

and

But Olwë answered: 'We renounce no friendship. But it may be the part of a friend to rebuke a friend's folly.'

Feanor came in fully expecting to blow the minds of the Teleri with his oratorical awesomeness like he just had the Noldor and even Manwe's herald, and instead, he is given a lecture on trusting the Valar in a rather paternalistic tone. Trusting the Valar is going to be a hard pill to swallow for someone who just lost his father and his life's work based on trusting that the Valar were reading Melkor--whom Feanor himself always hated--right in assuming his good intentions. Nor do I believe that Feanor's distrust of the Valar is anything new. In his mind, these were the same overlords who had sentenced his mother to death and then meddled in a family conflict to the extent that even Finwe chose exile. What reason had Feanor to sit back and trust the Valar to remedy anything?

I also agree with the many commenters who have pointed out the various psychological factors at play at this point: their grief over Finwe's death, coping with darkness (for the first time for many of them), dealing with the introduction of murder into what they thought was a protected realm, and yes, wrapping their minds around the fact that their Valarin "protectors" have, through their lack of vigilance, allowed the loss of the Trees and the Noldorin king. To say that emotions were high--and among the Feanorians especially--is an understatement.

I think as far as the ensuing fight was about Silmarils and swanships, it was what those objects represented to their respective peoples rather than materialism per se. Even leaving aside whether these objects did truly contain the "hearts" of their creators in some way that damage to them equated injury to their creators, both represented not only the fullness of each respective group's accomplishments but the more innocent time in which they were created. Feanor's grief is directed primarily at the loss of his father, not his jewels, but bringing Finwe back from the dead is beyond him. His Silmarils, though ... he can get those back, and so retrieving them becomes imbued with the emotion generated by Finwe's death. So I have to agree with tehta (again) that "materialism" isn't quite the right word. These aren't two children playing tug-of-war over a toy that both want; when Feanor asks for loan of the ships or help building ships to go to Beleriand, he is asking as much to be validated in his anger against the Valar as he is for the use of an object owned by a friend. When Olwe refuses, he is expecting to be validated in his hope "that the night would pass yet to a new dawn." In that sense, even the seeming materialist fight, imo, comes back to worldview.

[pandemonium-213.livejournal.com]

So I have to agree with tehta (again) that "materialism" isn't quite the right word.

*Sigh*

I'm only doing the reporting here, ma'am, and based on my reading of the discussion on Tumblr, "materialism" is a reasonably accurate description of the position taken in that venue. Personally, I agree with the array of commenters here that yes, it is A Complex Issue.™

[dawn_felagund]

[Completely rewriting because I dashed off this reply in about ten seconds before shutting down last night, and it didn't make much sense.]

My statement that "materialism isn't quite the right word" was not aimed at your description of the Tumblr discussion. I was not a part of that and only glanced quickly at a few posts; I'm sure your summary of it is more than adequate.

"Materialism isn't quite the right word" was intended to mean that there was more at stake at Alqualonde than a squabble over mere possessions.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[pandemonium-213.livejournal.com]

Thanks! You know I can be a stickler about precision in word choice* (not that I ever makes mistakes in this regard ;^) ;^) ;^)), and materialism is indeed the right word, but we (as Tarion points out) may disagree with the thesis.

*For example, in my work-related writing, "must" versus "should" can make a world of difference, and I have seen biostatisicians' heads explode when "significant" is not used properly.

[independence1776]

I think it's a bit of both, but mostly worldview. The ships and the Silmarils were just the catalyst. Would something else have caused the Kinslaying to happen if either of those weren't in play? Probably. Fëanor was in no mood to have anyone stand in his way. And that's ignoring all the other cultural and crisis factors that play into it. So, as pretty much everyone said: complicated.

[hhimring]

It looks to me as if somewhere in there Tolkien is also discussing whether you own what you create and to what extent. It seems to be a rather inconclusive discussion and overlaid by lots of other things going on at the same time.

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

Oooh, interesting point! I think (if I remember that right) we know what Tolkien said about owning a story you created (and published) - something along the lines of "I may not like what people make of it, but once it's out there, it's out there" - but would that apply to other creations, non-intellectual property as it were, too? (To be fair, that rather seemed to be about reception and analysis and "fanworks" etc. - not about "Once I've written that book, you're welcome to reprint it without giving me credit or money"! ;))
Hmmm. Food for thought, either way.

[pandemonium-213.livejournal.com]

All I can say is hurrah for patent protection! ;^)

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

And copyright, too, even when it can be a pain in the rear end. ^^

[tarion-anarore.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting point. Certainly the extent of ownership issue is touched on in regard to the silmarils: whether Fëanor, as their creator, has the sole right to them, or whether the right of ownership is shared in some way because the silmarils harnessed the light of the Two Trees, which were made by Yavanna. Thus, the argument being that without the Trees, the silmarils could not have been made.

On the other hand, the issue never seems to appear where the Teleri's ships are concerned. Are they not made out of wood come from trees, which Yavanna also made? Thus, without trees, the ships could not have been made.

Beyond inconclusive, I fear! (Which is what makes it interesting.)

/end possibly tangential comment

[dreamflower]

I'm no Silm expert, but it seems to me that Feanor's grief for his father and his passion as he cast blame on the Valar, was not a wholly materialistic or a "worldview" thing.

Remember: Finwe's death was the first murder ever in Valinor, and it was committed not by another Elf, but by Melkor--who was, after all a Vala, even if in rebellion. (Which probably also accounts for a lot of his attitude.)

The Darkening was a catastrophe, a first-class disaster never experienced before either.

My notion is that what happened at Alqualonde was the result of mass hysteria over an inexplicable disaster, whipped up by Feanor's rhetoric (and he was at this point completely overwhelmed by his grief)--and Olwe's responses weren't the sort to soothe a grieving son who was completely gripped by anger, either. Trying to appeal to people by reason when they are out of their minds with grief doesn't really go well.

But did any of the Elves on either side understand what the result of violence would be? Did any of them at this point truly understand the concepts of "kill" and "die" as applied to fellow Elves? Even if they knew the concepts in their heads they had no actual experience of either?

Perhaps the violence began almost by accident, and once unleashed, the madness had to run its course?

These are mostly just questions. As I said, I'm no expert.

[tarion-anarore.livejournal.com]

I'm in the "all of these, yet none are sufficient" boat (really bad pun intended).

As Dawn and Tehta have said, "materialism" doesn't seem quite the right word. I think on both sides, the desire to recover or keep the silmarils and ships respectively stems from something deeper than simple materialism. Whether that's to do with way of life, clinging to the familiar in a time of upheaval, or that part of the creator is truly in them (and their destruction would cause physical harm to said creators)...who knows. Another "some combination of the above and more" situation, I suspect!

I also think that, with the death of Finwë the silmarils transcended being mere hallowed gems into a symbol of the myriad of wrongs done to Fëanor as he saw it. I think it's very likely that in his irrationality, Fëanor believed that the retrieval of his jewels and revenge upon Morgoth would assuage the grief and anger he felt at the death of his father.

[pandemonium-213.livejournal.com]

As Dawn and Tehta have said, "materialism" doesn't seem quite the right word.

See bolded text in post above. It is an accurate enough word for describing the one of the themes of discussion (that is, reporting the discussion) on Tumblr.

[tarion-anarore.livejournal.com]

It is an accurate enough word for describing the one of the themes of discussion (that is, reporting the discussion) on Tumblr.

To clarify, I am not trying to have a go at your report of the discussion on Tumblr. The intent of my original comment was to argue that, given that definition of "materialism", I do not think that it is an accurate or sufficient thesis, even if the summary of said thesis is accurate! Merely debating against the thesis presented here. Can we pretend that possessions were not involved? Of course not. Is the refusal to relinquish possessions the ultimate cause of the first kinslaying? In my opinion, probably not. Is the refusal to give up the idea of revenge materialistic?

[pandemonium-213.livejournal.com]

The intent of my original comment was to argue that, given that definition of "materialism", I do not think that it is an accurate or sufficient thesis...

Agreed. As noted to Dawn, I aim (if at all possible) for precision in word choice (I own my mistakes, however), hence I'm being a bug and pushing back. ;^)

[tarion-anarore.livejournal.com]

That is fair enough. I only briefly skimmed the Tumblr discussion (the platform really is not easy to follow, especially when one is not even on Tumblr!), but I'm sure your summarization was correct.

Going off what you said upthread to Dawn... The word "proof" (+ variants) anyone? ;-)

[huinare.livejournal.com]

I wanted to go on record that it wasn't your word choice as reportage that bothered me either, but the concept of materialism in general (i.e. Thesis 1) as applied to Alqualondë.

[clotho123.livejournal.com]

I feel this discussion has probably moved on but I'm a slow thinker!

It's difficult to generalise about the motives of 'the Noldor' because they are far from united at this point and the decision to go in and grab the ships was only taken by Feanor's immediate followers - less than half even of the ones that marched from Tirion. What is more it's explicit in the text that at least part of the reason Feanor went straight back in instead of exploring other options (ask some of the Finarfinians to go and talk to Olwe, see if there's any part-Teleri in the Noldor host who know anything about shipbuilding) was that he was afraid if he gave the Noldor time to cool off they might change their minds about leaving.

So if we're discussing worldview it's not just that Feanor and Olwe don't agree, but also that Feanor suspects most of the Noldor are only agreeing with him because he's whipped them up when they're shocked and distraught. To be fair to him I expect the fact he was hurting and wanted to go kill Morgoth right now was part of it too, but also he really has messed up on the transport issue (he's been talking about how he'll lead the Noldor back to Middle-earth for *years*, why hasn't he done anything about transport before? Someone as talented as Feanor wouldn't have found it hard to master shipbuilding) so there's good reason for him to worry that the Noldor might go 'Hang on, we've started for M-e on the so-say of a guy so bad at thinking ahead he hadn't even even considered transport despite having years to do it in? Maybe we need a rethink?'

I do think probably some of the Noldor would have gone back to M-e sooner or later no matter what, but that's not at all the same as saying the Kinslaying would have happened no matter what. They'd been through a whole series of unprecedentedly shocking events, Feanor is off-balance even by his standards, he knows the Noldor who decided to leave weren't thinking very clearly at the time, he can't handle the set-back. It also seems he gave pretty much the same rant to the Teleri as he had in Tirion (instead of, say, pointing out that Olwe still had a lot of relatives back in M-e who Morgoth might do serious damage to while the Valar were sitting and thinking) but since the Teleri had been less hard hit by events, he probably came off to them as a foam-flecked lunatic. A calmer approach might have got a less completely negative response. But if Feanor was ever capable of a calm approach he isn't now.

[anna-wing.livejournal.com]

Agree. Alqualonde looked to me like a perfectly straightforward situation of uncontrolled escalation in the heat of the moment. The sort of thing that the offences of riot and affray were created to address. Happens all the time.