|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Jan 26 2009, 7:50pm
Post #1 of 49
(2602 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Numenorean Kingdoms, part I - a brief summary of a life's work
|
Can't Post
|
|
Greetings to all, and welcome to this week's discussion!
In this week we'll skim over parts i-iv of appendix A, part I - dealing with the history of Numenor, Arnor and Gondor.
The amount of material Tolkien brings here is astounding; there is no way I could handle it all in one week.
But even a judicious selection will make for very long discussions - do not feel constrained to answer every question! Read, consider, comment when you feel like it (I'll be thankful for everything you might add) - and most important, enjoy!
Due to RL constrains, this week's discussion wasn't prepared as well as I hoped to do; for instance, I doubt I'll have time for a summary thread. But never mind! Enough with my rambligs, let's open our books!
We begin with Feanor.
Feanor was the greatest of the Eldar in arts and lore, but also the proudest and the most self-willed. He wrought the Three Jewels, the Silmarilli, and filled them with the radiance of the Two Trees, Telperion and Laurelin, that gave light to the land of the Valar...
Because of the RR guidelines, I shall not quote the whole paragraph; but in one paragraph it is over – Morgoth steals the Silmarils, Feanor rebels against the Valar and leads an assault upon Morgoth, the Eldar and the Edain fight the hopeless was against Thangorodrim. As an afterthought, the Edain are identified as the three peoples of Men who became allies of the Eldar. End of story.
1. In one paragraph, Tolkien has summarised chapters 5-23 of The Silmarillion for us. Does he do it well?
As this is the very first paragraph of the appendices, I will look at it a bit longer than the other paragraphs. I notice that in the very first sentence, Tolkien uses two obscure names from the book.
Feanor himself is mentioned twice in ‘The Palantir’ – Gandalf speculates that he might have made the palantiri, and wistfully wishes to “look across the wide seas of water and of time to Tirion the Fair, and perceive the unimaginable hand and mind of Feanor at their work, while both the White Tree and the Golden were in flower!”
2. Given what we learn of Feanor here (and elsewhere), why would Gandalf be so eager to see him?
3. Feanor is described as “the greatest of the Eldar in arts and lore, but also the proudest and the most self-willed”. Thinking of it, a similar description would fit both Saruman and Denethor, who’s respective falls were facillitated by the palantiri. Is there any other connection between these three?
Another obscure name is brought to focus in this paragraph: the Eldar.
We met this name once before, in ‘Many Meetings’, where Gandalf tells Frodo that in Rivendell dwell “the Elven-wise, lords of the Eldar from beyond the furthest seas”. In case we don’t remember that sentence (who would?) in appendix F Tolkien bothers to explain to us he means the West-elves, trusting us to remember the three kindreds of the High-elves from ‘Flies and Spiders’.
4. Could the average reader be expected to realise the Eldar were elves? Of course, if he remembers the story of Beren and Luthien, the next paragraph will give him this information.
5. What do you think of Tolkien’s technique in this name-dropping? After all, this is not the book itself, in which the information external to the story adds to the sense of depth and vividness – this is an appendix, which might be expected to explain the background, not obscure it further!
In this paragraph we are treated to the first two footnotes. The second one is simple and straightforward – it gives the two references in the book to Thangorodrim – Elrond’s memory of the War of Wrath (as it is called in The Silmarillion), and Sam’s reference to the tale of Beren and Luthien.
Just to mention: for a long time, I was confused to no end by Sam’s description in ‘The Stairs of Cirith Ungol’ – after all, in ‘A Knife in the Dark’, Strider says the Great Enemy’s fortress was Angband! For a long time (even after I had read The Silmarillion), I concluded that Angband and Thangorodrim were synonyms, two names refering to the same fortress.
6. Was anyone else as confused as myself? Could anyone explain clearly and simply the differences between the two, and the references to them in LotR? Was this distinction made as early as the first drafts of the Silmarillion, or was it a later development?
The first note is more complex: it lists the three references to the two trees of Valinor, named here as Telperion and Laurelin. These are the words of Gandalf I’ve quoted above, and the two mentions of Telperion as the ancestor of the White Tree of Gondor – by Elrond (without giving its name) in the Council, and by Gandalf in ‘The Steward and the King’. Tolkien concludes with an ‘editorial note’ that “no likeness remained in Middle-earth of Laurelin the Golden”.
7. What are we supposed to make of this ‘editorial note’? Consider its style – who made this remark? Does it imply that today the White Tree is still in flower – or is it an editorial inconsistency, in which Tolkien ‘forgets’ his quotation marks?
8. As Elanor TX was ill in the week she was supposed to lead ‘The Steward and the King’ – I will ask now: what do you think of the, err, “family tree” of Telperion, as brought in LotR? Does it make you feel closer to the trees?
9. Does this idea influence the reading of, say, ‘The House of Tom Bombadil’, or ‘Treebeard’? What does the mallorn in Bag End mean?
Thereafter followed the hopeless was of the Eldar and the Edain against Thangorodrim, in which they were at last utterly defeated.
Tragic and final. After which, Tolkien moves on to discuss the unions of the Eldar and Edain (which we’ll return to in our next discussion), and after three paragraphs tells of Earendil and his mission and fate, finally making some sense of Bilbo’s poem in ‘Many Meetings’.
10. After the first paragraph, how are we supposed to feel? Assuming we remember Elrond’s description of the War of Wrath, what sense are we to make of it?
11. Compare the end of The Silmarillion and the end of LotR – The Silmarillion ends with supernatural deliverance after utter defeat, and with new hope for Elves and Men. LotR ends with victory, but for the Elves, and all of Faerie, it is a Phyrric victory; there is no hope for them in Middle-earth, and they pass away. Which ending is sadder? Elrond was witness to both; does that make him a symbol of triumph over evil, or of the price paid for such victory?
12. An aside, refering to the footnotes: Earendil (both the person, and the star) is refered to a few times in LotR. However, in this footnote, Tolkien refers to the whole five-page-scene of the Mirror of Galadriel. what light dies this shed on that scene?
13. And finally: how good is this short summary as a teaser to The Silmarillion? For those who remember the time before The Silmarillion was published – did you wait for it?
The following discussions will discuss longer portions of this appendix. The next one will discuss the Half-elven, and the role of the Valar.
"That is a chapter of ancient history which it might be good to recall; for there was sorrow then too, and gathering dark, but great valour, and great deeds that were not wholly vain."
Thus Gandalf. But Elrond was deflating:
"I have seen three ages in the West of the world, and many defeats, and many fruitless victories".
We've reached The Grey Havens last week, but the discussion still goes on!
Join us for appendix A, i-iv - the Numenorean kingdoms.
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Jan 27 2009, 1:38am
Post #2 of 49
(2204 views)
Shortcut
|
The first note is more complex: it lists the three references to the two trees of Valinor, named here as Telperion and Laurelin. These are the words of Gandalf I’ve quoted above, and the two mentions of Telperion as the ancestor of the White Tree of Gondor – by Elrond (without giving its name) in the Council, and by Gandalf in ‘The Steward and the King’. Tolkien concludes with an ‘editorial note’ that “no likeness remained in Middle-earth of Laurelin the Golden”.
7. What are we supposed to make of this ‘editorial note’?
That Tolkien really did intend the conceit of the Red Book, and that he liked the idea enough to maintain it even into the appendices, consistently.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Elros
Ossiriand
Jan 27 2009, 1:54am
Post #3 of 49
(2231 views)
Shortcut
|
1. In one paragraph, Tolkien has summarised chapters 5-23 of The Silmarillion for us. Does he do it well? Well enough as per it's relation to the story of LOTR. He sets the stage for Morgoth/Sauron, the elves, and men. A LOTR reader doesn't really need to know who Huan was or where the River Brethil was in order to understand why there's all these Elves and Men running around trying to destroy Sauron and vice versa.
2. Given what we learn of Feanor here (and elsewhere), why would Gandalf be so eager to see him? I've never read this line as expressing Gandalf wishes to see Feanor, as much as Olorin's yearning for the Years of the Trees, before the marring of Arda.
3. Feanor is described as “the greatest of the Eldar in arts and lore, but also the proudest and the most self-willed”. Thinking of it, a similar description would fit both Saruman and Denethor, who’s respective falls were facillitated by the palantiri. Is there any other connection between these three? Their pride is the biggest connection I see. Feanor thought he could defeat Morgoth, Saruman thought he could outwit Sauron, Denethor thought he, not Aragorn, was the best ruler for the Edain. They also abandoned those they led. Feanor with the burning of the ships at Losgar, Saruman betraying the White Council, Denethor's madness in Minas Tirith. Again, it has to do with pride.
5. What do you think of Tolkien’s technique in this name-dropping? After all, this is not the book itself, in which the information external to the story adds to the sense of depth and vividness – this is an appendix, which might be expected to explain the background, not obscure it further! If he didn't name drop, he might run out of characters to develop and have to quit working on the story! I honestly think it was his way of giving himself something more to do or a reason to go back and work on Middle Earth some more. A total UuT.
6. Was anyone else as confused as myself? Could anyone explain clearly and simply the differences between the two, and the references to them in LotR? Was this distinction made as early as the first drafts of the Silmarillion, or was it a later development? Thangorodrim are the mountains Morgoth raised to protect his fortress, Angband.
8. As Elanor TX was ill in the week she was supposed to lead ‘The Steward and the King’ – I will ask now: what do you think of the, err, “family tree” of Telperion, as brought in LotR? Does it make you feel closer to the trees? Just one more connection back to the Valar and Valinor. If Gondor didn't have some sort of special tree descended from the tree of the Valar, we'd be left with just another Rohan or Harad.
9. Does this idea influence the reading of, say, ‘The House of Tom Bombadil’, or ‘Treebeard’? What does the mallorn in Bag End mean? Hobbits are now Middle Earth all-stars, as opposed to just another race of creatures in Middle Earth. Everyone who's anyone in Middle Earth has some connection to the Valar. Starting with the Elves who answered the summons vs. those who didn't and continuing with the Edain vs. the lesser men who stayed east of the Misty Mts. in the First Age, Tolkien clearly identifies those "special" groups in his histories whom have accomplished something signifigant in Middle Earth history.
11. Compare the end of The Silmarillion and the end of LotR – The Silmarillion ends with supernatural deliverance after utter defeat, and with new hope for Elves and Men. LotR ends with victory, but for the Elves, and all of Faerie, it is a Phyrric victory; there is no hope for them in Middle-earth, and they pass away. Which ending is sadder? Elrond was witness to both; does that make him a symbol of triumph over evil, or of the price paid for such victory? I would say Elrond is a symbol of the timelessness of the Elves. I think Galadriel is a better symbol of the price paid for such a victory, having either played a direct part in the rebellion of the Noldor or at least being around to witness it, whichever version you wish to believe. To me, the ending of LOTR is much, much sadder. It has nothing to do with Faerie for me, it is simply that we've invested much more time in the characters of LOTR, so to see Frodo's pain in Middle Earth after all he's done hurts deeper than say, Turin's tragedy. The characters are coming and going much quicker in the Silmarillion than LOTR.
13. And finally: how good is this short summary as a teaser to The Silmarillion? For those who remember the time before The Silmarillion was published – did you wait for it? It got me hooked. It's like being able to read the summary of a book without actually getting to read the book.
|
|
|
simplyaven
Hithlum
Jan 27 2009, 3:33am
Post #4 of 49
(2174 views)
Shortcut
|
1. In one paragraph, Tolkien has summarised chapters 5-23 of The Silmarillion for us. Does he do it well?
Well enough for an Appendix to a book already finished.
2. Given what we learn of Feanor here (and elsewhere), why would Gandalf be so eager to see him?
My impression is that Gandalf would love to be present during the work of these hands and this mind - a strong, powerful, creative mind. Maybe even be present when the Pallantiri were made.
3. Feanor is described as “the greatest of the Eldar in arts and lore, but also the proudest and the most self-willed”. Thinking of it, a similar description would fit both Saruman and Denethor, who’s respective falls were facillitated by the palantiri. Is there any other connection between these three?
Desire which turns into obssession. It may be desire for beauty, eternity, power, victory, or simply wealth. When it becomes obssession the initial object doesn't matter anymore.
Another obscure name is brought to focus in this paragraph: the Eldar.
We met this name once before, in ‘Many Meetings’, where Gandalf tells Frodo that in Rivendell dwell “the Elven-wise, lords of the Eldar from beyond the furthest seas”. In case we don’t remember that sentence (who would?) in appendix F Tolkien bothers to explain to us he means the West-elves, trusting us to remember the three kindreds of the High-elves from ‘Flies and Spiders’.
4. Could the average reader be expected to realise the Eldar were elves? Of course, if he remembers the story of Beren and Luthien, the next paragraph will give him this information.
No, and I don't think Tolkien expected the average reader to remember it. However, I believe Tolkien wanted the average reader to be hooked up and intrigued to know more.
5. What do you think of Tolkien’s technique in this name-dropping? After all, this is not the book itself, in which the information external to the story adds to the sense of depth and vividness – this is an appendix, which might be expected to explain the background, not obscure it further!
What I wrote above is what I think Tolkien hoped for - interest and more readers willing to explore ME in depth.
11. Compare the end of The Silmarillion and the end of LotR – The Silmarillion ends with supernatural deliverance after utter defeat, and with new hope for Elves and Men. LotR ends with victory, but for the Elves, and all of Faerie, it is a Phyrric victory; there is no hope for them in Middle-earth, and they pass away. Which ending is sadder? Elrond was witness to both; does that make him a symbol of triumph over evil, or of the price paid for such victory?
LOTR ending is sadder because the faerie is gone. Not only one kind is leaving (Elves), it's a whole epoque ending with its heroes, legends, songs and atmosphere. Rivendell and Lorien will fade.
Elrond has always seemed a very tragic character to me. He reminds me of the Shakespeare kings. He becomes a symbol of separation and lost. His life has been marked by some difficult losses. His wisdom is helpful to others but I don't see it helpful to him. And I think he hated his foresight gift. His burden would have remained the same no matter if the end was victorious or not, it's an inner, personal thing.
13. And finally: how good is this short summary as a teaser to The Silmarillion? For those who remember the time before The Silmarillion was published – did you wait for it?
It worked very well for teasing me to go on with the Silmarillion. I wanted to know more about all these creatures. When I realized there was obviously a long backstory, I wanted to read it all. However, I read it translated and i didn't like it at all, which I blame the translation for. Only last year I read the Silmarillion in original and I absolutely fell in love. But during all these years of waiting to read it the Appendices were my guiding star 
Culinary journey through Middle Earth continues! Bright new in the New Year - January 15 on the Main board
I believe
|
|
|
batik
Dor-Lomin
Jan 27 2009, 3:45am
Post #5 of 49
(2218 views)
Shortcut
|
Given what we learn of Feanor here (and elsewhere), why would Gandalf be so eager to see him?
I also believe Gandalf may have been interested in seeing the creative process rather than seeing Feanor.
Could the average reader be expected to realise the Eldar were elves? Of course, if he remembers the story of Beren and Luthien, the next paragraph will give him this information.
and
What do you think of Tolkien’s technique in this name-dropping? After all, this is not the book itself, in which the information external to the story adds to the sense of depth and vividness – this is an appendix, which might be expected to explain the background, not obscure it further!
hmmm...whosthatandwhatsit-called?!? I have nothing but admiration for those able to identify the people/places/things without consulting the index! Now, I'm with you here but only because I've read The Silmarillion and part of UT within the past couple of months.
After the first paragraph, how are we supposed to feel? Assuming we remember Elrond’s description of the War of Wrath, what sense are we to make of it?
"utterly defeated"?-um, how are we here now? Confusing.
|
|
|
hanne
Menegroth
Jan 28 2009, 12:47am
Post #6 of 49
(2200 views)
Shortcut
|
|
joining in for the first time, and more re feanor and galadriel
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Hello! I am brand new here. I hope it's ok to just join in the discussion. I adored the Appendices - they were the reason I came to love Lord of the Rings so much and the reason why I persevered with the Silmarillion until I actually (I think :) understood it. I was also the kind of kid who wrote messages to myself in runes and tengwar.
Feanor
re the thematic similarities with Saruman and Denethor, another parallel might be seen in the idea of rebellion. Feanor led the revolt of the Noldor. Saruman rebelled twice - first abandoning the side of the Valar and then trying to double-cross Sauron - like Feanor, the thematic similarity is the desire for total independence and rule. Denethor - maybe this is just me, but I always thought of the Stewards as a bit rebellious, since they had kept ruling rather than handing the throne back to the Arnor line. And there are certainly hints fron Gandalf that Denethor wouldn't be too pleased about the idea of the return of the King.
Thangorodrim
I too thought is was a synonym for Angband, but it didn't bother me. So many other things/people have multiple names! Elros's explanation is perfect.
The Trees
That they had a geneology I just thought was weird. I didn't really get a feeling for them as Tolkien obviously saw them, as truly living and amazing and divine, until reading the Silmarillion. (Sorry Treebeard and Legolas and all the tree loving characters)
Compare the endings of The Silmarillion and LotR
I still have a hard time with the idea that the defeat of Sauron being in a sense a defeat of the Elves as well, because without the Elven Rings Lorien and Rivendell wouldn't be viable. I know that is what the book says. But to me, because the Wood-Elf kingdom in Mirkwood seemed to be doing just fine without a Ring, and also the Havens as far as I knew, the idea of Elrond and Galadriel having to leave because of the end of the Rings has just never felt very weighty. There is more to the Elves than what they did with rings.
What impresses me more is when I connect it to the Silmarillion and the idea that Galadriel in particular was now leaving because she'd finally got that "need a kingdom of my own" thing out of her system. So for me, the end of the LotR is more satisfying (with respect to the Elves) - it's not a defeat, it's more an acceptance, and their job truly being finished - with all the evil beings on their level now defeated, the Secondborn are going to be fine, and the Firstborn are at peace with the Valar again.
|
|
|
batik
Dor-Lomin
Jan 28 2009, 1:50am
Post #7 of 49
(2164 views)
Shortcut
|
pretty sure it's OK to just join right in. I did. With no major injuries.
|
|
|
hanne
Menegroth
Jan 28 2009, 1:56am
Post #8 of 49
(2208 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes, so far no need for athelas :) Thank you for the friendly words.
|
|
|
simplyaven
Hithlum
Jan 28 2009, 2:54am
Post #9 of 49
(2162 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm quite new to the Reading Room myself and I just wanted to say "Welcome" You make an interesting point about the feelings of Elves leaving ME after the Three have faded. I've never seen it this way as Galadriel herself described the Elvish existence after the Three were gone as not very pleasant. At least, it didn't sound satisfying to her. Nor to Elrond who was willing to leave although his daughter and his sons were remaining. Apparently, there was a significant change in a negative direction. I have always thought that Lorien and Rivendell fading means fading of the magic (or the light of the Eldar if you prefer) that turned them into special places that changed everyone who visited them. If they were to become just nice looking ME spots, then it wouldn't be the same. Minas Tirith would be equally good... Just my thoughts
Culinary journey through Middle Earth continues! Bright new in the New Year - January 15 on the Main board
I believe
|
|
|
Beren IV
Mithlond
Jan 28 2009, 6:37am
Post #10 of 49
(2157 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Here's where things get really mysterious, folks
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I shall come to these first:
4. Could the average reader be expected to realise the Eldar were elves? Of course, if he remembers the story of Beren and Luthien, the next paragraph will give him this information.
This is really ambiguous. What are the "people of the Valar"? What are the Valar, for that matter?
The story of B&L is woefully incomplete here. The scale and grandeur of their story is not even really hinted at, and this is well, because it would cause nasty anticlimaxes if it were.
5. What do you think of Tolkien’s technique in this name-dropping? After all, this is not the book itself, in which the information external to the story adds to the sense of depth and vividness – this is an appendix, which might be expected to explain the background, not obscure it further!
It works - it leaves a mythology behind.
In fact, this works for most of the rest of this section, including the part about the Trees, Fëanor, and the Silmarils.
7. What are we supposed to make of this ‘editorial note’? Consider its style – who made this remark? Does it imply that today the White Tree is still in flower – or is it an editorial inconsistency, in which Tolkien ‘forgets’ his quotation marks?
I don't think that either of the Two Trees really have a likeness in Middle Earth.
Think about the Sun - it's a very luminous (and bright) object. If it were even half again as bright, the Earth would be burnt to a crunchy crisp. Laurelin and Silpion were both immensely luminous objects, but they did not make Valinor unlivable. Obviously, they aren't operating under the laws of physics that we are familiar with.
10. After the first paragraph, how are we supposed to feel? Assuming we remember Elrond’s description of the War of Wrath, what sense are we to make of it?
This only fits together in the context of the B&L's (and their descendants') heroism - which is again only very briefly hinted at here. The problem is that the deeds of B&L do not match their fate.
But yes, Melkor was unbeatable. Only the other Valar could truly defeat him. The Elves were up against a god. I think the smarter ones - and yes, that includes Maedhras - understood that.
11. Compare the end of The Silmarillion and the end of LotR – The Silmarillion ends with supernatural deliverance after utter defeat, and with new hope for Elves and Men. LotR ends with victory, but for the Elves, and all of Faerie, it is a Phyrric victory; there is no hope for them in Middle-earth, and they pass away. Which ending is sadder? Elrond was witness to both; does that make him a symbol of triumph over evil, or of the price paid for such victory?
LotR is definitely sadder, but given that it follows the Sil, questions arise. Something bad happened in the First Age, something that the Elves could have and should have done better.
Perhaps Melkor wasn't really defeated, after all.
12. An aside, refering to the footnotes: Earendil (both the person, and the star) is refered to a few times in LotR. However, in this footnote, Tolkien refers to the whole five-page-scene of the Mirror of Galadriel. what light dies this shed on that scene?
Elven mythology has its Prophets that it reveres.
13. And finally: how good is this short summary as a teaser to The Silmarillion? For those who remember the time before The Silmarillion was published – did you wait for it?
This summary is enough to give a sense of the history, but manages to avoid turning LotR into a sideshow. The problem with the published Sil is that it turns itself into a sideshow. And, of course, J.R.R. Tolkien never published it - he was too good a writer to call that complete!
The paleobotanist is back!
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Jan 28 2009, 6:50am
Post #11 of 49
(2160 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm actually flattered you joined in at this point in time - straight to this discussion!
Don't worry about being new; we were all new here once (rumor says that there was a time when even Curious was new); and anyway, new people mean new and fresh prespectives!
Regarding two of your points:
I always thought of the Stewards as a bit rebellious, since they had kept ruling rather than handing the throne back to the Arnor line I think that has to do with the whole topic of Anarion's line and its legitimacy. Hopefully, we'll get there tomorrow.
to me, because the Wood-Elf kingdom in Mirkwood seemed to be doing just fine without a Ring, and also the Havens as far as I knew, the idea of Elrond and Galadriel having to leave because of the end of the Rings has just never felt very weighty
But Cirdan was a Ring-bearer; arguably, he only gave Gandalf Narya as a loan, to help him fulfill his task. This won't come up this week (which is full enough already, possibly overloaded) - but perhaps Morothorn will discuss this when he leads appendix B. Who knows? That appendix also has so much material to choose from...
If it's not raised by then - feel free to create a special thread dealing with this! It seems like just the kind of topic on which people here would love to disagree upon.
"That is a chapter of ancient history which it might be good to recall; for there was sorrow then too, and gathering dark, but great valour, and great deeds that were not wholly vain."
Thus Gandalf. But Elrond was deflating:
"I have seen three ages in the West of the world, and many defeats, and many fruitless victories".
We've reached The Grey Havens last week, but the discussion still goes on!
Join us for appendix A, i-iv - the Numenorean kingdoms.
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jan 28 2009, 10:50pm
Post #12 of 49
(2141 views)
Shortcut
|
I would say primarily in the appendices.
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Jan 29 2009, 12:42am
Post #13 of 49
(2145 views)
Shortcut
|
I think Elrond wanted to leave all along--after all, his wife had already sailed. I think he felt obliged to maintain Rivendell as a headquarters for all species in the fight against Sauron for as long as Sauron remained. With his duties finally fulfilled, he spent a few years tying up loose ends, and went off to reunite with Celebrian. Middle-Earth could be overflowing with marvels at that point and he still would have gone.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jan 29 2009, 12:44am
Post #14 of 49
(2143 views)
Shortcut
|
1. In one paragraph, Tolkien has summarised chapters 5-23 of The Silmarillion for us. Does he do it well?
Tolkien's primary purpose is to provide a lead-in to the line of Númenorean Kings. He mentions Fëanor and the Exiles and the Silmarils to set up the war with Morgoth, but moves quickly to Aragorn's ancestors, i.e. Lúthien and Beren on one side and Idril and Tuor on the other. Then we get the story of their children and grandchildren and of the race of the Half-elven and the founding of Númenor. There's no mention of Turin, for example, because he is not one of Aragorn's ancestors. Nor is there any mention of Galadriel at this point, even though she plays a prominent part in LotR, because she is not the ancestor of Elros and his heirs. There's no mention of Fëanor's sons or the Kinslaying or anything that does not directly relate to the line of Númenorean Kings. So no, Tolkien doesn't really summarize the Silmarillion. He selectively summarizes the portions directly relating to his purpose.
2. Given what we learn of Feanor here (and elsewhere), why would Gandalf be so eager to see him?
Perhaps the fact that Fëanor made the palantiri brought him to Gandalf's mind. And Gandalf did talk about seeing him in Valinor, before his fall. It's interesting that Gandalf thought he could use the palantir to look into the past. I don't recall anyone else trying to do so, and I'm not sure Gandalf was correct that the palantir could be used for such a purpose. But this is really a question more appropriate for the chapter in which Gandalf's statement appears.
3. Feanor is described as “the greatest of the Eldar in arts and lore, but also the proudest and the most self-willed”. Thinking of it, a similar description would fit both Saruman and Denethor, who’s respective falls were facillitated by the palantiri. Is there any other connection between these three?
Saruman and Denethor are far from the greatest of their kind in any respect. I think a better example would be Melkor himself, the greates of the Ainur who fell into evil, and perhaps Turin, one of the greatest of the Edain, but also one of the proudest and most self-willed. In comparison, Saruman and Denethor are fairly pathetic, as Saruman creates his pale imitation of Mordor, which in turn imitated Angband, while Denethor breaks under the strain and commits suicide.
4. Could the average reader be expected to realise the Eldar were elves? Of course, if he remembers the story of Beren and Luthien, the next paragraph will give him this information.
If the average reader is at first confused, it soon becomes more clear.
5. What do you think of Tolkien’s technique in this name-dropping? After all, this is not the book itself, in which the information external to the story adds to the sense of depth and vividness – this is an appendix, which might be expected to explain the background, not obscure it further!
I think the Appendices are deliberately complex, packed with information in an intimidating format -- again with the exception of the story of Aragorn and Arwen. Yes, if you read the appendices carefully it may answer many questions -- but it raises many more questions than it answers. Tolkien drops hundreds of names, and there's a story behind each of them, sometimes briefly mentioned, but Tolkien has no time to tell the stories. The reader is left with the impression of a long and detailed history, even though Tolkien provides very few of those details. The text of LotR focuses on the tree, with glimpses of the forest behind; the Appendices focus more on the forest, the history that gives story its sense of depth. But the forest is drawn in an impressionistic blur, not in detail.
I concluded that Angband and Thangorodrim were synonyms, two names refering to the same fortress.
6. Was anyone else as confused as myself? Could anyone explain clearly and simply the differences between the two, and the references to them in LotR? Was this distinction made as early as the first drafts of the Silmarillion, or was it a later development?
No, but only because I never really worried about Angband or Thangorodrim until I read and reread The Silmarillion, in which I learned that Angband is the fortress built beneath the mountain range called Thangorodrim. It's a little like the difference between Barad-dur and Mordor, both of which are mentioned as synonyms for the Enemy. I think there was always a distinction, although I'm no HoME expert.
Tolkien concludes with an ‘editorial note’ that “no likeness remained in Middle-earth of Laurelin the Golden”.
7. What are we supposed to make of this ‘editorial note’? Consider its style – who made this remark? Does it imply that today the White Tree is still in flower – or is it an editorial inconsistency, in which Tolkien ‘forgets’ his quotation marks?
The modern translator of LotR often speaks to us in the appendices, and seems to credit his sources, so I think the editor is Tolkien, and not some Gondorian scribe. However Tolkien would have to get this information from somewhere, presumably from Bilbo's translations from the Elvish, which are part of the Red Book but not part of The Hobbit or LotR. As Tolkien explains, "[o]f these things the full tale, and much else concerning Elves and Men, is told in The Silmarillion."
8. As Elanor TX was ill in the week she was supposed to lead ‘The Steward and the King’ – I will ask now: what do you think of the, err, “family tree” of Telperion, as brought in LotR? Does it make you feel closer to the trees?
It gives LotR a sense of depth and layers.
9. Does this idea influence the reading of, say, ‘The House of Tom Bombadil’, or ‘Treebeard’? What does the mallorn in Bag End mean?
What idea? The idea that the White Tree has an ancestry? Bombadil and Treebeard also give LotR a sense of depth as they talk from the perspective of the oldest creatures in Middle-earth, but I'm not sure how that relates to the White Tree. And why should the mallorn mean anything? It means Galadriel's gift was worth something, and that a bit of Fairie survived in the Shire. I'm not sure if you have something else in mind.
10. After the first paragraph, how are we supposed to feel? Assuming we remember Elrond’s description of the War of Wrath, what sense are we to make of it?
Maybe excited about the implication that there are many more stories to be told about Middle-earth than we find in LotR. I don't think we are expected to make much sense of it, except to get the sense that there is a long history behind LotR, and a long and prominent ancestry behind Aragorn.
11. Compare the end of The Silmarillion and the end of LotR – The Silmarillion ends with supernatural deliverance after utter defeat, and with new hope for Elves and Men. LotR ends with victory, but for the Elves, and all of Faerie, it is a Phyrric victory; there is no hope for them in Middle-earth, and they pass away. Which ending is sadder? Elrond was witness to both; does that make him a symbol of triumph over evil, or of the price paid for such victory?
Actually, far more elves departed Middle-earth after the War of Wrath than after LotR, but the story did not end on that note, nor did we watch them say good-bye. The Silmarillion was a mostly melancholy story that ended on a note of hope; LotR is a mostly happy story that ended on a note of melancholy. The end of LotR is sadder, at least as Tolkien tells it to us, but the story of The Silmarillion is far sadder.
Elrond's story is really the Last Alliance. He may have witnessed the end of the First and Third Ages, but he played a far more direct role in the end of the Second Age.
12. An aside, refering to the footnotes: Earendil (both the person, and the star) is refered to a few times in LotR. However, in this footnote, Tolkien refers to the whole five-page-scene of the Mirror of Galadriel. what light dies this shed on that scene?
I think it has to do with Galadriel's vial, but I'm not sure, since I don't have the footnote or the scene in front of me.
13. And finally: how good is this short summary as a teaser to The Silmarillion? For those who remember the time before The Silmarillion was published – did you wait for it?
Oh yes, we eagerly awaited The Silmarillion, which, unlike The Hobbit or LotR, was an immediate bestseller. Then we read it, and found ourselves profoundly disappointed. This wasn't more of LotR, it was more of the Appendices! And if we thought the Appendices were confusing, The Silmarillion was far more so. It has taken a long time for me to appreciate The Silmarillion, and I still read it primarily for the light it sheds on LotR, which I consider Tolkien's masterpiece.
(This post was edited by Curious on Jan 29 2009, 12:46am)
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Jan 29 2009, 1:05am
Post #15 of 49
(2162 views)
Shortcut
|
Actually, I see Denethor as a great man indeed, perhaps one of the greatest of the Stewards. The threat of Mordor became more direct in his day, and he spent his entire life holding Sauron at bay. I think that this understanding of him makes a huge difference in the pathos of him finally breaking.
Granted, Movie Denethor was a doofus. The less said about him, the better.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jan 29 2009, 1:22am
Post #16 of 49
(2134 views)
Shortcut
|
But if we are drawing a parallel to Feanor we must ask if he is, by any measure, the greatest man who ever lived -- and he isn't close. He isn't even the greatest man of his own generation. Faramir is his equal, and Aragorn is far greater. But I don't think Aragorn is the equal of Beren and Tuor and Turin and Earendil and Elros. Aragorn might be the equal of Elendil and Isildur, but that's as far as I'd go.
|
|
|
simplyaven
Hithlum
Jan 29 2009, 2:23am
Post #17 of 49
(2215 views)
Shortcut
|
I've never thought about this, Dreamdeer. I kind of thought his wife had ... well, not divorced but being so wounded I have always imagined her like choosing to live not only far away but mainly in isolation. I guess the images of queens going to monasteries and spending their lives there not meeting their children or husbands lives in my mind. I picture her like someone deeply hurt, dissapointed, maybe even feeling betrayed, who chooses solitude... However, I have absolutely nothing to prove my theory except the vague description of what happened during her travelling and the tormenting. You may be right and it's certainly a better perspective for Elrond than mine
Culinary journey through Middle Earth continues! Bright new in the New Year - January 15 on the Main board
I believe
|
|
|
Beren IV
Mithlond
Jan 29 2009, 5:53am
Post #19 of 49
(2117 views)
Shortcut
|
Could you elaborate on what you mean "in story"?
The paleobotanist is back!
|
|
|
squire
Gondolin
Jan 29 2009, 6:30am
Post #20 of 49
(2132 views)
Shortcut
|
By "in story" I mean that what Tolkien tells us is less important than what Tolkien shows us. For whatever reason, Tolkien never invested a fraction of the energy in realizing the stories of his First Age heros that he did with his Third Age heroes.
Consider Beren's "legend" - in Tolkien's legendarium, Beren is the supreme Man because he and Luthien defeated Morgoth through the power of their immortal love. We see that Aragorn himself specifically looks up to Beren and tries to emulate him, in hopes of winning Arwen's hand. In the legends of Middle-earth, and in the minds of those who lived in the latter time, the Third Age is a diminished reality that cannot approach the heroism and derring-do of the First Age.
Ditto for Turin. His gifts, his tragedy, are the stuff of song, poem and memory for thousands of years after his death. Along with his father Hurin, he posed a threat to Morgoth like no other man had done, except for Beren.
And Morgoth, as we know, was THE Dark Lord - of whom Sauron was "only a servant". Surely Morgoth's antagonists are superior to Sauron's!
But...
Now let's read the stories. In the stories, Beren is a cold fish with zero personality except for an ardent love and adequate bravery. He barely speaks dialogue. If you asked me what Beren was like - I'd be unable to tell you, beyond the shallowest cliches of Tolkienian heroism. So, I would only admit that Beren is the "greatest Man who ever lived" if I should ever read a story by Tolkien that made me think that on my own, rather than because Tolkien told me so with authorial authority, in abbreviated synopses or stylized poetry.
Turin is a horrid fellow in the stories, who needs a smack upside the head countless times, and never gets one. Of course, he finally got his own full-length story a year or two ago, and as I said, he proves to be quite a pill. You don't see Aragorn committing suicide after vanquishing Sauron! Nor does he blow off his best friend, treat like dirt the girls who hopelessly love him, or abandon group after group of followers who depend on his leadership for survival. Aragorn is passionate, but learns to control that passion and use it to better the world and his own cause thereby. Turin is passionate, and works himself into a fatal froth of pride and spite that is painful to behold or read about.
In Tolkien's stories, we learn to admire and love Aragorn not just for his good qualities, but also (as Kocher puts it) for his ability to harness his good qualities to overcome his bad ones. His story, not just in LotR but fleshed out in the "Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" and the Appendices, is easily as heroic, if not more heroic, as any Man's in all of Middle-earth's history. But more importantly, because we get to read it in full, "in story terms" Aragorn is the supreme hero of Men in all of Tolkien-land.
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Jan 29 2009, 6:55am
Post #21 of 49
(2114 views)
Shortcut
|
If you don't mind, I'll use it later - although in a different setting.
"That is a chapter of ancient history which it might be good to recall; for there was sorrow then too, and gathering dark, but great valour, and great deeds that were not wholly vain."
Thus Gandalf. But Elrond was deflating:
"I have seen three ages in the West of the world, and many defeats, and many fruitless victories".
We've reached The Grey Havens last week, but the discussion still goes on!
Join us for appendix A, i-iv - the Numenorean kingdoms.
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Jan 29 2009, 7:11am
Post #22 of 49
(2159 views)
Shortcut
|
What idea? The idea that the White Tree has an ancestry? Bombadil and Treebeard also give LotR a sense of depth as they talk from the perspective of the oldest creatures in Middle-earth, but I'm not sure how that relates to the White Tree. And why should the mallorn mean anything? It means Galadriel's gift was worth something, and that a bit of Fairie survived in the Shire. I'm not sure if you have something else in mind.
Yes, the idea of a personal ancestry is what I had in mind. It gives non-humanoids a distinct personality. Tolkien does it also with horses, of course - but that is less strange to people today, because prize racing horses, for instance, do. In the Felarof-Shadowfax connection, this does give a sense of personality, as does Snowmane's description as "Lightfoot's foal".
But trees seem taking this conceit a step further.
And in "The House of Tom Bombadil" I was thinking specifically about Old Man Willow.
I think it has to do with Galadriel's vial, but I'm not sure, since I don't have the footnote or the scene in front of me.
Tolkien just gives page numbers (and as my FotR and RotK are of different editions, I can't even be sure which!) - but I'm sure it has to do with the mirror scene. The mirror is supposed to reflect the light of Earendil, which is also described as shining behind her, illuminating the Ring and herself and leaving everything else dark. Sam saw a star in her hand (as I mentioned in a different thread, the Ring was invisible while Galadriel was not), and it also recalls Gandalf's poem in Edoras "White is the star in your white hand".
"That is a chapter of ancient history which it might be good to recall; for there was sorrow then too, and gathering dark, but great valour, and great deeds that were not wholly vain."
Thus Gandalf. But Elrond was deflating:
"I have seen three ages in the West of the world, and many defeats, and many fruitless victories".
We've reached The Grey Havens last week, but the discussion still goes on!
Join us for appendix A, i-iv - the Numenorean kingdoms.
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jan 29 2009, 10:48am
Post #23 of 49
(2197 views)
Shortcut
|
|
In those terms Feanor is not the greatest of the Eldar.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And indeed, in those terms Frodo may be Aragorn's equal -- or superior. If we are looking for the human equivalent of Feanor, though, Aragorn is not the person I would pick. Turin, I think, is the best choice.
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jan 29 2009, 12:47pm
Post #24 of 49
(2103 views)
Shortcut
|
And again, I was trying to find a human comparison to Feanor.
|
|
|
squire
Gondolin
Jan 29 2009, 12:53pm
Post #25 of 49
(2183 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm not a huge Elf-fan. I do think Feanor gets more "story-time" - as my argument goes - than Beren, though not Turin. But granted that Feanor is a bit stiff and fleshless, who do you think is the greatest Elf of Middle-earth in story terms?
Or is it possible that since Tolkien was consciously writing his legendary Elves as a mythic and heroic people, he deliberately played down their attraction as romantic story characters where detail, description and dialogue would have made them too "human"? So maybe Feanor is no worse than the others, taking our prize back on accomplishment points alone?
And Frodo is a hobbit, so he can never be Aragorn's "equal -- or superior" as a Man, which is what we were discussing. Frodo is of course the greatest Hobbit who ever lived.
To acknowledge your repressed instinct here, I of course agree that Frodo is Aragorn's equal or superior as a Tolkienian Hero - that is, if we forgo the racial distinctions.
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
|
|
|
|
|
1
