The Silmarillion Discussion at The Hall of Fire

[Jnyusa]

Ath, that was a great summary of Providence in the Sil.

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

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Okay, then I'll hold off on moving on to Beren and Lúthien (:love:).

(I think Ath might still have some more to say, and I'm still very much hoping to hear from Sassy!)

[Jnyusa]

Oh, thanks, Voronwë! I was determined to get back here tonight so as not to hold up the show. (I spent so much time on that Middle East thread)

Ok, first, sorry that I kept referring to this as Chapter 13 earlier. It's chapter 18 of course. Hope that didn't confuse anyone.

I accept everything that everyone is saying about Tolkien's continued development of the Valar and the characters of the Sil, and how all those threads of Fate get braided together to produce distant outcomes that can only be called Providential. These things are all evidenced by the HoME, and I don't argue with any of you that they are true.

What I'm trying to say is ... less than what you have understood to be my criticism .... and also more than that ...

I'm still looking at the Sil as a literary work in its own right, independent of everything else Tolkien wrote, the same way I looked at it thirty-some years ago when I picked it up for the first time and couldn't get through it.

I haven't read all of the HoME yet, so I am taking the Valar exactly as they are presented in the Sil, without having any other reference for them. This was Tolkien's first presentation of them, and the fact that he came back to this story in the 1950s and wrote twelve volumes of elaboration and still didn't feel that he had gotten it completely right, bears out my own first impression that the Sil was a starting point, and not at all satisfactory to Tolkien himself from a ... mythological point of view. Not, at least, without a lot of reworking to make it English and to make it address the moral themes of interest and importance to a 20th ce. western culture.

I am in complete accordance with Tolkien as to what is morally interesting and important for the western world, but I think that Tolkien was able to bring those ideas to fruition in complete story form only in the LotR. The LotR is as powerful as it is because the Sil is there underpinning it, but it is the LotR and not the Sil which is the culmination of Tolkien's thoughts about where myth must go. We are able to find Providence and connections to Hope in the Sil only because Tolkien was able to use LotR to give all those Sil stories suitable endings from a providential, hopeful, non-pagan point of view. This is not to say that the characters are not interesting, but they do not really bear the fruit claimed for them inside their own story - they bear that fruit inside LotR, with the passage of the Ring to Frodo, the marriage of Arwen to Aragorn, the return of the Elves to Valinor. Their story is only complete, and consistent with non-pagan thought, when the LotR story is complete.

The analogy that I wished to make about this was to say that the full body of Tolkien's thought is sort of like a tree. The very first thing we were given was its fruit - LotR. We knew there had to be a trunk and leaves and roots somewhere because we could catch glimpses of them in LotR and because such amazing fruit does not just spring from nowhere.

The second thing we were given was the root, the Sil; and the root is very .... rootish. One also asks then, quite naturally, where is the trunk and the branches and the leaves? Fruit never pops straight out of the root; and this particular fruit seemed at first (and very much so) only distantly related to this particular root.

Twenty years later, the HoME volumes begin to appear from Christopher's hand, and all this filling out of the myth that Tolkien had done over his lifetime could be seen then in its completeness and inevitability. (Never mind the stray facts that were not resolved, like the origin of orcs or the balrog's wings. Those of us who love Tolkien can play with those things now for the rest of our lifetimes.)

What I've been trying to express about this chapter is that of all the Sil, this chapter felt to me the most 'rootish,' the most unworked. And much of the tragedy of the Sil, in this and other chapters, really is not explicated very thoroughly. It is very Norse, very laconic, very Wagnerian, you know, where Wotan announces without emotion that he looks forward to the death of the Gods as if it were something quite ordinary and then exits stage left ... Yes, they all died and exited stage left.

Forget for a moment all you know from HoMe. For beings who sang the world into existnece the Valar actually say very little in the actual Sil. Their lack of explication strikes me as nearly obtuse. If LotR is archetypal, the Sil is ... like a footnote on an archetype.

This is not to say that the Valar as Tolkien conceived of them are obtuse. It seems unlikely to me that he would have them sing the world into existence and then reflect not at all on the world they had created or the dilemmas in it. And of course he did not leave them voiceless beyond the creation of the world, but what they have to say about that world is not in the Sil, it is in the HoME. The Sil, in other words, is unfinished; and this is the sense in which I meant that it is an unfinished work. If one needs to write 12 volumes to explain to oneself where the work must go, then the work is not finished.

Who knows how Tolkien would have chosen to integrate the material from those 12 volumes into some satisfactory final product ... perhaps it could never have been done. But the root is also interesting for its own sake and I am pleased that it was published as such, but I continue to feel quite strongly that a root is what it is.

Voronwë, you've said several times that one has to view the Sil in light of HoME. There is a sense in which the reverse is even more true, I think. It is this laconic, fatalistic character of the Sil which explains why so much HoME was needed, and what, exactly, one should expect to find in the HoME given the glimpse of Tolkien's thought revealed to us in LotR.

One expects an Athrabeth, you see, knowing Tolkien. The Sil cries out for such a chapter, rendering in true heroic story form this extraordinary and poignant mirroring of mortality and immortality that Tolkien has accomplished. That bridge must be built in order for Beren and Tinúviel to have true connections to Aragorn and Arwen and for Arwen's parting from her father and the death of Aragorn to have the force that Tolkien intended. Perhaps it is better that Christopher did not include the Athrabeth in the Sil because the necessariness of its existence is revealed by its absence, and that makes its message all the more keen when we are finally able to read it. Ditto for the Valar's debate about Finwë and Míriel, parts of which you were kind enough to post, Voronwë.

So, my criticism of the Sil has not been criticism of Tolkien's fashioning of the myth, per se, but my own perverse insistence that what the Sil represents is the myth unfashioned, so to speak - the germ from which the story would have to be grown ... and in fact Tolkien had grown that story in his own mind already and published it as LotR, but we had to wait a very long time to read for ourselves the connections that he was making in his own mind to get from there to here.

There is nothing wrong with taking all of these things together ... the Sil, the HoME and LotR and saying that each of them only makes complete sense when all of them are available, and it is unfair in one sense to judge the germs of stories presented in Sil as derivative or unworked or unfinished when so much more is known to have been written about them. I think it is true that one needs all to understand any. I would even go further and say that it is the Sil that makes the HoME a legitimate and necessary part of the canon, whether Christopher had a heavy editorial hand or not, because it is clear from the gap between the Sil and the LotR that an evolution from pagan fatalism to Christian-style hope had to have taken place within this myth in order for the second to have come out of the first. It is necessary and invaluable to know now how and where Tolkien bent his efforts toward that end, and whatever Christopher had to do to it to make HoME publishable was justified, imo.

If the Sil were not a root - if Tolkien himself had settled on some polished form that was mediated by what he considered most important from the HoME, and as a result no deficiency had been felt, no need to publish the rest of his notes, we would be missing something very extraordinary. Just to have opportunity to see this evolution, and all the thought that went into it ...


But it is a very unusual way to have become acquainted with the whole tree.

Jn

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But then, it is a very unusual (one might say unique) tree!

Jn, I think you explain very well why it is that Tolkien was so desperate to have the entire Saga of the Jewels and the Rings published together. They really are one Tale (as Frodo reminds us).

I will have more to say later (later on an Entish scale, not later tonight ).

[Alatar]

But surely, if the Sil were to have been published at the time of LotR as Tolkien wished, it would have been in this very "rootish" form.

[MithLuin]

...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...but also suggested that it + LotR was a million words. Either he was spectacularly bad at estimating length, or he intended to write a lot more to "fill out" the Silm before it was actually published (or intended to include things like the long poems).

Letters and HoME tell different stories, in this regard.

But HoME is not really 12 volumes of notes. It is 2 volumes of the earliest stories (the 'seed,' to continue your metaphor). The Fall of Gondolin and the Tale of Tinúviel (from Lost Tales 2) did inspire much of what came later, even if they changed drastically in form to reach the version published in the Silm. Tevildo, Prince of Cats, morphs into Thu, who becomes the demonic Sauron. But he still battles the hound Huan and loses . Beren has always had that knife, but whereas now it is Angrist, made by the dwarves and 'stolen' from a son of Fëanor, originally it was a kitchen knife. These are the stories from the 20s, and amid their silliness and archaic style is much that became more immediate and poignant later on. The name 'Earendel' was always there, but the significance of his story was 'late in coming' as Gandalf would say.
In brief summary:

• Vol. 3 is the poetry - the stories of Beren and Túrin told in verse.
  Vol. 4 is the maps and the annals - what does this world look like, and how does the timeline match the story? (history and geography...he takes it seriously...)
  Vol. 5 contains (among other things) what was going on with the languages, and introduces the idea of Númenor.
  Vol. 6-9 is 'the writing of LotR'
  Vol. 10-12 is 'the later Silmarillion'

I think only the last three volumes apply to what you are talking about, Jny. Which is fine - three books of explanation and fiddling with ideas certainly makes your point! I just.... Something about the way you put it sounded too simplified. He was always developing it, that's true....

Hmmm, how can I put this? LotR can be understood on its own, without the Sil. But a few mistakes are likely to be made - and one of the most significant ones is to think of the elves as good....almost angelic. Because the ones we meet are! Reading the Sil clears up that misperception fairly quickly . And that is what I think HoME is really for - by getting some of the essays, we can see what the Sil means, and not misinterpret it (too narrowly or too broadly). So that is what Voronwë is always going on about.

The hints of the points made in HoME are present in the Sil, just as hints of what we learned in the Sil are present in the LotR. 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! The Silm is darker not just because the story is darker, but because it is the history of the War of the Jewels stretching over hundred of years. LotR is the end of the Third Age. If you wrote about the end of the First Age (and the War of Wrath), it would not be any less hopeful.

[Jnyusa]

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!

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.

It's important to you that the Sil be considered a hopeful work, and I don't want to dissuade you from that. But I also think that the rubric of LotR should not be imposed upon the Sil, as if the whole thing were complete in Tolkien's mind from the first shot and he knew how all the pieces would fit together. There had to be a starting point, and we know what that was; the origins are not, you know, mysterious. So the question is what sort of evolution took place.

It is my humble opinion that if the Sil were all we had from Tolkien, our assessment of his philosophy would be very different.

Jn

[MithLuin]

Well, of course it would be

Nor do I think every idea the man had is thoroughly articulated in everything we do have - which is quite a lot! Old notebooks from before 1920 written in light, almost rubbed out pencil, the fair copies of these made by Edith, the pen writing over them, the random scraps of paper used to add to various stories over time, many of his letters and correspondance, accounts of conversations people had with him, his students' recollections of his lectures, a diary written in the ever-changing Elvish alphabets, recordings of his voice (on the BBC and made by his friend George Sayer). I mean, it is a lot of stuff they have squirreled away in Marquette! And enough to give you a fair idea beyond what is contained in the 300 or so pages of the Sil.

If it is any consolation, I hated the Sil the first time I read it, because it is so dark. It is only on re-reading that I was able to find these strands of hope. I know it is frustrating to be told "we know what this really means because we've read the Athrabeth," but those ancillary readings merely clarify what was already there - hope is the sap running through the tree, and it must start in the roots (however ugly they are) if it is ever going to reach the fruit.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

...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...

That's not entirely correct, actually, Mith. Here is what he said to Rayner Unwin, in June of 1952:

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.

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.

However, Alatar's basic point is a good one. If in fact Collins had not backed out of the deal to publish the whole Saga of the Jewels and Rings together, much of the material that I have stated is essential (such as the Athrabeth, the Laws and Customs of the Eldar, and the associated expansion of Finwë and Míriel's story) would most likely not have been a part of it, since they were not written until the late 50's and 1960 (although of course it is impossible to determine how much of it was in his head at the time that he was pushing for this publication, and how much would have found its way into the necessary revisions that he was considering.

[MithLuin]

Looking at Fingolfin's duel with Morgoth as an example....

The episode does not appear in the Sketch of the Mythology in HoME IV (1926-1930). This is just a 'summary' of the Silmarillion story, though.

It does appear in the Quenta Noldorinwa (1930) HoME IV:

• Most grievous of the losses of that battle was the death of Fingolfin mightiest of the Noldoli. But his own death he sought in rage and anguish seeing the defeat of his people. For he went to the gates of Angband alone and smote upon them with his sword, and challenged Morgoth to come out and fight alone. And Morgoth came. That was the last time in those wars that he left the gates of his strong places, but he could not deny the challenge before his lords and chieftans. Yet it is said that though his power and strength is the greatest of the Valar and of all things here below, at heart he is a craven when alone, and that he took not the challenge willingly. The Orcs sing of that duel at the gates, but the Elves do not, though Thorndor looked down upon it and has told the tale.
  High Morgoth towered above the head of Fingolfin, but great was the heart of the Gnome, bitter his despair and terrible his wrath. Long they fought. Thrice was Fingolfin beaten to his knees and thrice arose. Ringil was his sword, as cold its blade and as bright as the blue ice, and on his shield was the star on a blue field that was his device. But Morgoth's shield was black without a blazon and its shadow was like a thundercloud. He fought with a mace like a great hammer of his forges. Grond the Orcs called it, and when it smote the earth as Fingolfin slipped aside, a pit yawned and smoke came forth. Thus was Fingolfin overcome, for the earth was broken about his feet, and he tripped and fell, and Morgoth put his foot, that is heavy as the roots of hills, upon his neck. But this was not done before Ringil had given him seven wounds, and at each he had cried aloud. He goes halt in his left foot forever, where in his last despair Fingolfin pierced it through and pinned it to the earth. But the scar upon his face Fingolfin did not give. This was the work of Thorndor. For Morgoth took the body of Fingolfin to hew it and give it to his wolves. But Thorndor swept down from on high amid the very throngs of Angband that watched the fight and smote his claw into the face of Morgoth and rescued the body of Fingolfin, and bore it to a great height. There he set his cairn upon a mountain, and that mountain looks down upon the plain of Gondolin, and over the Mount of Fingolfin no Orc or Demon ever dared to pass for a great while, til treachery was born among his kin.

(claw was changed to bill)

Here the story has its essential shape. Fingolfin makes the challenge out of despair, and Morgoth answers in fear. Fingolfin wounds Morgoth (permanently in the foot), but is killed by the foot on his neck. Thorondor rescues the body, and it is buried near Gondolin. A few details seem "off" - the reference to "here below" implies a heaven above...but Valinor is in the West, not in the sky. Here, the Orcs sing about the duel, whereas in the published version, they do not. Some of the names are old, as well, Thorndor for Thorondor, Gnomes for Noldor.

Here is the version of the same story, told much later, in the Grey Annals (certainly post-LotR, possibly 1958) HoME XI:

• 456 [the events of the war are all recounted in the entry for 455]:
  Now Fingolfin, King of the Noldor, beheld (as him seemed) the utter ruin of his people, and the defeat beyond redress of all their houses, and he was filled with wrath and despair. Therefore he did on his silver arms, and took his white helm, and his sword Ringil, and his blue shield set with a star of crystal, and mounting upon Rochallor his great steed he rode forth alone and none might restrain him. And he passeed over the Anfauglith like a wind amid the dust, and all that beheld his onset fled in amaze, deeming that Oromë himself was come, for a great madness of ire was upon him, so that his eyes shone like the eyes of the Valar. Thus he came alone to Angband's gate and smote upon it once again, and sounding a challenge upon his silver horn he called Morgoth himself to come forth to combat, crying: 'Come forth, thou coward king, to fight with thine own hand! Den-dweller, wielder of thralls, liar and lurker, foe of Gods and Elves, come! For I would see thy craven face.'
  Then Morgoth came. For he could not refuse such a challenge before the face of his captains. Fut Fingolfin withstood him, though he towered above the Elven-king like a storm above a lonely tree, and his vast black shield unblazoned overshadowed the star of Fingolfin like a thundercloud. Morgoth fought with a great hammer, Grond, that he wilded as a mace, and fingolfin fought with Ringil. Swift was Fingolfin, and avoiding the strokes of Grond, so that Morgoth smote only the ground (and at each blow a great pit was made), he wouned Morgoth seven times with his sword; and the cries of Morgoth echoed in the north-lands. But wearied at last Fingolfin fell, beaten to the earth by the hammer of Angband, and Morgoth set his foot upon his neck and crushed him.
  In his last throe Fingolfin pinned the foot of his Enemy to the earth with Ringil, and the black blood gushed ofrth and filled the pits of Grond. Morgoth went ever halt thereafter. Now lifting the body of the fallen king he would break it and cast it to his wolves, but Thorondor coming suddenly assailed him and marred his face, and snatching away the corse of Fingolfin bore it aloft to the mountains far away and laid it in a high place north of the valley of Gondolin; there the eagles piled a great cairn of stones. There was lamentation in Gondolin when Thorondor brought the tidings, for many of the people of the hidden city were Noldor of Fingolfin's house. Now Rochallor had stayed beside the king until the end, but the wolves of Angbad assailed him, and he escaped from them because of his great swiftness, and ran at last to Hithlum, and broke his heart and died. Then in great sorry Fingon took the lordship of the house of Fingolfin and the kingdom of the Noldor. [A late note mentions Gilgalad]

Clearly, working on LotR improved his writing style . But I do not think any added hope was infused into the story. The added detail about Rochallor is more valor without victory - he stays by his master, and escapes the wolves, only to die at the end of the race. He did add details, especially created more elaborate relationships, and yes, wrote in more detail on certain topics. But the story of the Silmarillion had already existed for many years, and that was unlikely to change at this juncture.

Some of the radical changes suggested could not be taken up, because the story would not tolerate such shifts so late in the game. The form was already in place - all that could be done was to find nuances, like the changing motivations of Gorlim the Unhappy.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Mith, I agree with you (in fact, I'm pretty sure that I stated earlier in the discussion about this chapter that the basic outline of the story of the ruin of Beleriand and the fall of Fingolfin went back to the earliest version of the Quenta). And while there were other parts of the Tale of the Elder Days that were significantly fleshed out or explained (some of which made it into the published text of the Silmarillion, but much of which did not), it is true that the basic thrust of the Tale did not change, even after LOTR. But I do agree with Jn that LOTR in a way completes the Tale, and makes it much more comprehensible and meaningful. We talked about this some in a very early thread here - The Moral Universe of Middle-earth

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.

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.

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.

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.

[MithLuin]

Acting out of despair is not a good thing, no. But what Fingolfin does is not the equivalent of falling on your sword. He knows they cannot win the war, and he (personally) is not going to let Morgoth get away with it. It's a battle he can't win, but it's a battle he needs to fight. I do not think that his choice here is a 'no.' It was reckless, and unwise, but not 'wrong.' The difference between the Silmarillion and the LotR is that in the Silm, characters pay more dearly for such choices. Failure to trust someone (or trusting the wrong person) can mean your entire kingdom falls to ruin and everyone is killed . It's just...a much darker tale. LotR is dark, but in the end things turn out (mostly) okay. They do not lose the battle of the Hornburg, or the Pelennor Fields...or even the Black Gate - they win. Most of the people who die are secondary, like Hama or Halbarad. (Boromir and Théoden, of course, are exceptions to this.) The elves in the Silmarillion win sometimes, but in the Battle of Sudden Flame and Unnumbered Tears, they most emphatically do not win. And the list of survivors at the end of the First Age is rather...short. One son of Fëanor (Maglor), one daughter of Finarfin (Galadriel), one great-grandson of Fingolfin (Eärendil), and Gil-galad, whosever kid he is .

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....

Gandalf knows it is a "fool's hope" - he acknowledges this at the Council, before Denethor has a chance of accusing him of this.

[axordil]

The reason LOTR works on a moral level and the Sil doesn't is precisely because the main characters, Frodo and Sam, are NOT great and high and good, just decent and normal. Put another way, they are mimetic characters at the tale end of an epic that has stretched out 10000 years and more, who come on stage when all the epic characters have had their turn...and failed. But they succeed, because Gandalf figured it out: if you fight on the enemy's terms, with armies and catapults and swords, you lose.

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.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

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....

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.

[Edited to add: Also, Fingolfin tried to meet might with might. As stirring and inspirational as his battle was, it was doomed to fail.]

The reason LOTR works on a moral level and the Sil doesn't ...

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.

[Athrabeth]

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.

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.

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.

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!

<shiver>

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. 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.

There's a new modernized translation of the Tao Te Ching that I very much like, and the first verse reminds me of what the Noldor have such a terrible and tragic time learning:

If you can talk about it,
it ain't Tao.
If it has a name,
it's just another thing.

Tao doesn't have a name.
Names are for ordinary things.

Stop wanting stuff;
it keeps you from seeing what's real.
When you want stuff,
all you see are things.

Those two sentences
mean the same thing.
Figure them out,
and you've got it made.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

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.

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!

<shiver>

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.

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.

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.

What a great observation, Ath! I have never thought of that, but now that you mention it, it seems obvious to me. So obvious that I think it is probable that Tolkien DID intend it. And it is very good example of how the Silmarillion makes LOTR more meaningful.

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.

I very much agree. But I will hold off on saying more about this until we get to the next chapter (you keep giving me all these great openings for discussion about that chapter )

[Jnyusa]

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.

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.

Death as self-sacrifice works for Frodo and Sam in a way that it cannot work for the Noldor because death is Eru's gift to mortals and can therefore be rightfully used to bring about a greater good. Whereas a different gift was given to the Noldor to accept and use wisely. Death was not given to them to 'spend' in this way.

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.

Jn

[axordil]

Voronwë and Athrabeth--
Agreed that Eärendil and Elwing DO "get it" in a way the Noldor (and others) did not...but it comes at the end of the tales, not quite an afterthought, but a new development. It is in some ways a template for later successes, down to and including the final iteration with Frodo and Sam, but in terms of the story as told in the Sil, it's atypical of the work. In LOTR, it IS the work: those who can resist the REAL doom of the Noldor--pride--succeed. Those who do not, fail.

I would say that the movement of the Sil is downward throughout, which is certainly a narrative structure stories can take, even moral ones, but not Christian ones. The uptick in the last chapter is more of a harbinger and exemplar than a real eucatastrophe for me. I think part of the issue is that since they are not mimetic characters, Eärendil and Elwing are by nature distant and remote from start to finish. If they had gotten a less epic treatment--if their story was merely romance as opposed to myth--it would be more accessible and thus more affecting, both in terms of moral and aesthetic engagement.

Part of the problem is really that after Beren and Lúthien, and especially after the Narn i Hin Húrin, E and E are ciphers by comparison. They are fulfilling predestined roles, which almost always puts a crimp in character development (see book Aragorn). Moreover, they're doing it with some forced alacrity. The whole thing comes off as being compressed almost to meaninglessness...and it didn't have to. JRRT had more material for the story, did he not?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Ax, I will address that -- when we get to Eärendil's and Elwing's part of the story. But I really, really, really don't want to just skip to the end. We only have five more chapters in between. Granted they are biggies, but still, can we please try to take them in order?

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.

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]

Still, there is a certain nobility to Fingolfin's death that is obviously lacking in the nine kings becoming the Ringwraiths.

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.

Nevertheless I think that what is 'wrong' about Fingolfin's choice is the same thing that is wrong about the choice of the wraith's.

You ... um ... resurrected my original TMU's posts from TORC ( and ) ... and I recall now that I talked about the first and second affirmation being Free Will and Mortality. I think that the pivotal role of Free Will does make it into the Quenta Sil, but acceptance of Mortality obviously cannot given the nature of the characters. (In the Akallabêth, that theme moves to the front again.)

But 'the debate of the Valar' indicates to me that this theme was just as important to Tolkien where the elves were concerned.

I might have a bit more to say about this - the potential difficulties of revealing these parallel choices well, and the mirroring of elves and men that Tolkien uses, but I'm a bit too tired tonight to think and write more about this. So perhaps tomorrow evening if we haven't moved on by then.

Jn