![Smile :)](./images/smilies/77smile.gif)
I am going to be a tiny bit obstinate about my reasons for disliking this chapter but I'll have to postpone my final post about this until a bit later.
Jn
Don't forget how long Tolkien worked on LotR - about twelve years, iirc. And I did say that he returned to his work on the Sil after LotR had been published. Tolkien did not forget about things, even when he was kept away from them by his other duties. And I don't think that Eärendil in verse in any less a musing on Eärendil than compiled notes would be. A lot of thought went into the evolution from those earliest translations of the Kalavela to Frodo's journey, though not all of it could be written down in proper story form right away.Mith wrote:But LotR was written about the same time or before many of these 'explanations' were given - so it is hard for me to think of them as the branches and LotR as the fruit!
That's not entirely correct, actually, Mith. Here is what he said to Rayner Unwin, in June of 1952:MithLuin wrote:...which suggests that he didn't think it quite as "unfinished" as we do.
He insisted to his publishers that it was finished and ready to go in the late 40s...
No place in the series of letters to the Unwins (Rayner and father, Sir Stanley) of Allen and Unwin and Milton Waldman of Collins (in the early 50s, not the late 40s) does he state that the Silmarillion was finished and ready to go.As for The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion, they are where they were. The one finished (and the end revised), and the other stillunfinished (or unrevised), and both gathering dust.
To turn back to the current chapter, one might argue that Fingolfin's sacrifice of himself in his doomed challenge to Morgoth (as heroic as it is) is another example of a "good character" saying "no" to this choice.I, in that thread, wrote:Re-reading this again, something clicked in my head as to why many people prefer LOTR to the Silmarillion. LOTR is largely about characters that say "yes" (in the sense that Jn describes) when faced with this moral choice. Primarily Frodo, Aragorn, and Gandalf, but most of the other characters to a lesser extent as well. However, the Silmarillion and its related works are largely about characters of great power and majesty that demonstrate that possibility of saying "no" that Jn described. Melkor and Fëanor and Ar-Pharazôn are the most vivid examples, but even among "good" characters, the theme repeats itself, from Aulë creating the dwarves and the Valar selfishly bringing the Elves to Valinor, to Thingol bringing destruction upon himself out of greed and pride.Jn, in one of her initial posts in the TMU thread wrote:If an existential ‘yes’ is the moral choice required of us, then it must also be possible for us to say ‘no’. The existence of Free Will is therefore foundational to this story - not only our free will but also God’s. (If Jesus had no choice, his ‘yes’ would have no meaning either.)
From this comes Roäc’s observation that the Ring is about imposing one’s will on others. Dr. Strangelove noted that no one in the council would have forced another to be the ringbearer. If my will is free then everyone’s will is free, and when I impose my will on others I do something that even God Himself would not do. I agree with Roäc, Queen B., Dr. S. and Angbasdil who all said that the power bestowed by the Ring is the power to usurp free will.
The story is about free will in that free will is the first and most important thing that must be affirmed by all the ‘good’ characters. There are many, many textual examples of this particular affirmation.
I think that is why Tolkien was so anxious to have the two works published together. I think that they do balance each other, and together present a fuller picture of the moral universe of Middle-earth as conceived by Tolkien then either do by themselves. Because I don't think that one can fully understand the significance of Frodo's ultimate success without also considering the significance of Fëanor's failure.
The difference is that Frodo and Sam do so because it IS the only hope (even if is a fools hope). Fingolfin does so not in hope (Estel, not Amdir), but in anger and hopelessness. Frodo takes his action out of love for his people, to try to save the Shire. Fingolfin abandons his people by sacrificing himself rather then continuing to lead them against Morgoth, as hopeless as that fight seemed. To me, Fingolfin NOT going to challenge Morgoth and continue leading his people in the hopeless fight against Morgoth would have been more in tune with what Frodo did.MithLuin wrote:Fingolfin, on his own, tries to fight Morgoth - how can he possibly win? Of course he must die in that fight...
Frodo and Sam, on their own, try to sneak into Sauron's realm and destroy the One Ring. How can they possibly do this? Of course they must die in the attempt, and give the Dark Lord just what he needs to win the war....
Ax, I'm not prepared to say that the Sil does not work on a moral level, just that it has a darker (and perhaps therefore more honest) moral message. But I continue to maintain that the two of them together present a fuller picture of the moral universe of Middle-earth as conceived by Tolkien then either do by themselves.Ax wrote:The reason LOTR works on a moral level and the Sil doesn't ...
I very much agree with this, Ax. The Noldor all have this flaw of being compelled to love too selfishly their own creations, of not being able to "give up" what is theirs. They are a covetous lot.Ax wrote:The other thing that is central to the LOTR's moral success is that it mirrors the Sil in terms of materialism. The Sil is the story of a struggle to GET. The LOTR is the story of a struggle to GIVE UP. The former can never have a happy ending, within either Catholic theology or Norse myth.
<shiver>Hail Eärendil, of mariners most renowned, the looked for that cometh at unawares, the longed for that cometh beyond hope! Hail Eärendil, bearer of light before the Sun and Moon! Splendour of the Children of Earth, star in the darkness, jewel in the sunset, radiant in the morning!
Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves, shall we? I know that the discussion has turned to a more general analysis of the Silmarillion, but we've done such a good job staying on course all this time, let's try not to jump to the end before we get there.Athrabeth wrote:However, I think it is very telling that the end of the Sil, the voyage of Eärendil and Elwing is all about "giving up", or rather "giving over" both the Silmaril and their lives (for all they know) out of love (for each other on a smaller, more intimate scale, AND for the two kindreds on the grander scale).
I guess I do see the Sil as having its own "happy ending", heralded by the eucatastrophic moment of sheer joy as the Valar, at long last, welcome Eärendil.
<shiver>Hail Eärendil, of mariners most renowned, the looked for that cometh at unawares, the longed for that cometh beyond hope! Hail Eärendil, bearer of light before the Sun and Moon! Splendour of the Children of Earth, star in the darkness, jewel in the sunset, radiant in the morning!
In some ways, it does mirror the ending of LoTR: the world is saved, but not for everyone; evil is defeated, but its seeds will ever remain as part of Arda Marred.
I'm not sure that Tolkien intended it, but in LoTR, Galadriel, as the last of the ruling Noldor in Middle-earth, still exhibits that "dark side" of her closest kin - that fierce desire to hang on to what they have created, to remove themselves from the rest of the world in an attempt to protect and preserve themselves and their "stuff". Lothlórien may be beautiful and magical beyond words, but it is still very much like Gondolin or Doriath: existing for itself, closed to the suffering of the world all around it. I think that when Galadriel "passes the test" by rejecting the Ring, it really comes down to her finally embracing Estel ......knowing that everything she and her people have made and maintained will be lost, no matter what the outcome, and trusting in a power beyond herself that this is what should be.
I very much agree.In the Sil, I think there is only one Noldorin lord who exhibits this kind of "giving over" to a greater power, and that is Finrod, who goes knowingly and willingly to his death in a manner very unlike that of Fingolfin.
Yes, I agree. And I finally figured out why I agree with you, Voronwë, because your words did not resonate with me particularly when I first read them a couple posts ago, but they do now.Voronwë wrote:Fingolfin abandons his people by sacrificing himself rather then continuing to lead them against Morgoth, as hopeless as that fight seemed. To me, Fingolfin NOT going to challenge Morgoth and continue leading his people in the hopeless fight against Morgoth would have been more in tune with what Frodo did.
Jn, I agree with that, up to a point. Still, there is a certain nobility to Fingolfin's death that is obviously lacking in the nine kings becoming the Ringwraiths.Jnyusa wrote:I think that the manner in which Fingolfin chooses death is more akin to the nine Kings choosing what they took to be immortality by accepting Sauron's Rings. It is a rejection of the state - with all its pros and cons - that Eru appointed for each of those peoples, and an attept to wrest the opposite in an act of defiance.
Yes! Fingolfin is a hero of the Sil whereas the wraiths are villains. And we are told a book's worth about the motivation of the Noldor while the wraiths do not have so much as names.Vn wrote:Still, there is a certain nobility to Fingolfin's death that is obviously lacking in the nine kings becoming the Ringwraiths.