|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Jul 30 2015, 4:10pm
Post #26 of 42
(5977 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes - the stress on uniqueness
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think that is a repeated theme in Tolkien, the humanizing and unique worth of an individual. So the narrowing by numbers of the characters may just underline this ideal? Great summary, Brethil. It makes me also think that for thematic reasons, it was probably important to Tolkien to NOT have all 9 members of the Fellowship reach the Crack of Doom together. Each had their individual role to play in the larger history of the war, but if they'd all been present when the Ring was thrown in (assuming Frodo was able to do it), there would have been 8 watchers and 1 doer. He seems to want his characters doing something that they alone can do (Merry vs the Nazgul, Pippin saving Faramir, Legolas shooting the Winged Messenger, etc).
It is the Orc mass that is faceless and fungible, no one having much more worth really than another. They do things in number and that is their strength, number and not the individual. I think in authorial-confession type thinking, that was JRRT's greatest fear. A grey and dehumanized world, which I guess is why Eru desired many notes in the Song and not just a few.
Leads to some good Orc-jokes too, about how many orcs it takes to change a lightbulb. 
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Jul 30 2015, 4:17pm
Post #27 of 42
(5975 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, if the lightbulb is any way edible
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
they fight over eating it, rather than changing it. And it seems they can eat just about anything. So as a consumer tip, don't call "Orc Brothers Electricians" if you ever have lighting problems at home. Really, don't call them to your house for any reason.
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Jul 30 2015, 4:26pm
Post #28 of 42
(5973 views)
Shortcut
|
|
So, why did Tolkien give Elrond the twins?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
They had relatively little to do, never played a critical role in anything, and impinge (albeit slightly) on Arwen's uniqueness. My guess is that it allowed Elrond to have some representation in the unfolding events without overshadowing Aragorn, although two named Elves might have done as well.
But I really have no problem with Galadriel's having just one (or two) children. Small families are the rule in fiction, except where the largeness of the family is itself an element in the tale. Each invented character has to have a role in the story, to justify his or her existence.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Jul 30 2015, 6:30pm
Post #29 of 42
(5968 views)
Shortcut
|
A not uncommon reaction of many ladies to pregnancy. I've read that Tolkien's own Lúthien found her four pregnancies exhausting and miserable. I can easily picture Galadriel telling Celeborn "Not only 'no!', but 'helcaraxë no'!" in response to the suggestion of having another child.
******************************************
Mathom House Bestsellers:
All I Really Need to Know I Learned in the Pits of Orthanc
Zen and the Art of Cockle Boat Maintenance
Fifty Shades of Gandalf the Grey
Coney Stew for the Soul
Rhosgobel Rabbits - Unsafe At Any Speed
|
|
|
Magradhaid
The Shire
Jul 31 2015, 2:15am
Post #30 of 42
(5947 views)
Shortcut
|
-li- in falmalinnar is indeed glossed as "many" both in RGEO and Some linguistic notes on Galadriel's Song (NGS, Parma Eldalamberon 17:73, based on the 1st edition text). However, in his 1955 letter to David Masson (see PE17:40), Tolkien mentions Quenya partitive -li (PE17:62), exemplified in aldali "some / several / a number of trees" (NGS, PE17:63). Additionally, his 13-15 June 1964 letter to W. R. Matthews has a link between the two, noting -li "many" in falma-li-nna-r in addition to the "two plural forms, the one casual and indefinite, the other particular and complete; so Eldar, Elves as a kind or people, or all the Elves concerned; Eldali, some Elves, a lot of Elves" (PE17:135). This also occurs in some other forms (like Kasalli from Kasar-li in Quendi and Eldar c. 1959-60, and the Plotz declension c. 1966-67).
In Common Eldarin: Noun Structure (c. 1951), Tolkien further clarifies, mentioning "the group-plural (or definite); and the partitive or indefinite. [..] Definite were plurals referring to whole classes, to things naturally or habitually considered in plurality (as English heavens = 'the sky', the sands = 'all the sand in a given locality', etc.), and in the syntax of many languages a plural with a definite article, meaning all the members of a group previously mentioned, or in mind. Thus in Q. Eldar (not with article!) = Elves, The Elves, All Elves; i Eldar = (all) the Elves previously named (and in some cases distinguished from other creatures); but Eldali, Elves, some Elves. With Eldali the definite article is seldom used" (PE21:73). Tolkien seems to elaborate upon this c. 1969 in Late Notes on Verb Structure #7: "nótima, countable, limited in number (weight or measure), frequently used espec. colloquially in sense 'moderate (in amount), some few, several' as in tas kennen nótime eldali, I saw a few elves there" (PE22:155).
Because of this, while falma-li-nna-r has "many", vanimali could be any of "some / several / many / a number of" fair ones / beautiful children (I have not commented on -li before 1950 and its fluctuations).
In their The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion, Hammond and Scull write that "Christopher Tolkien comments in Unfinished Tales, p. 234, that he thinks it unlikely that his father had any thought, while writing The Lord of the Rings, of Amroth being their son, or the fact surely would have been mentioned. Treebeard probably is referring more generally to their descendants" (647).
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Jul 31 2015, 10:57am
Post #31 of 42
(5913 views)
Shortcut
|
|
thanks for the fuller description
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
[snip of fuller description] (...) Because of this, while falma-li-nna-r has "many", vanimali could be any of "some / several / many / a number of" fair ones / beautiful children (I have not commented on -li before 1950 and its fluctuations).
Okay but in my opinion all that linguistic detail wouldn't have worked very well for my joking about. Simpler "many" worked best for that, and the author published "evidence" for it, for comparison to one (child).
Actually in my earlier post I edited in the PS "just kidding" part even though I did not really expect anyone to believe that Galadriel had "many" children as revealed by Treebeard's statement.
But yes there's more to li than I chose to represent; and even in my foolery I should not have simplified the matter so!
(This post was edited by Elthir on Jul 31 2015, 11:03am)
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Jul 31 2015, 2:54pm
Post #33 of 42
(5889 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The twin connection - interesting to me from JRRT's mindset
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
So, why did Tolkien give Elrond the twins? They had relatively little to do, never played a critical role in anything, and impinge (albeit slightly) on Arwen's uniqueness. My guess is that it allowed Elrond to have some representation in the unfolding events without overshadowing Aragorn, although two named Elves might have done as well.
But I really have no problem with Galadriel's having just one (or two) children. Small families are the rule in fiction, except where the largeness of the family is itself an element in the tale. Each invented character has to have a role in the story, to justify his or her existence.
because I feel like Elladan and Elrohir have roots in the Elros/Elrond choice. I think the twinning and then the choices made by the brothers were like a level playing field for his comparison of men and Elves. The whole concept of the Choice and how it eventually leads to the Fall of Numenor - and all that is included in that tale: the coming of Sauron, the Atlantean link, the return to Middle-earth in an echo of the Noldor's journey - I think is really key in Tolkien's mind and as such he seemed to want it, well, 'fair' for a better word. That the line of Men began with the same spiritual strengths as the Firstborn, and the tale has to evolve from there.
So I don't know if by having Elrond's sons be twins he was implying, or leaving things open to imagination, that they might make different choices as well. And from a purely literary and legendary-feel sense, there seems something poignant about twin sins of a twin son himself and that they will face the same choice as their father and uncle.
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Jul 31 2015, 3:14pm
Post #34 of 42
(5885 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"twin sins" of a twin son himself and that they will face the same choice as their father and uncle.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Sheesh. Sorry. Twin SONS. The difference a letter makes. 
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jul 31 2015, 7:33pm
Post #35 of 42
(5869 views)
Shortcut
|
Ironically, for all of the potential regarding the story of Elladan and Elrohir, Tolkien never makes it entirely clear what choice either of them makes in the end. We know that they remain in Middle-earth when Elrond departs with the other Ring bearers; however, we don't know if they sailed into the West in later years or if they truly chose to live as mortals. If either or both of them remained in Middle-earth, did either take a wife? Sire children of their own? We never know.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Jul 31 2015, 9:29pm
Post #36 of 42
(5857 views)
Shortcut
|
Ironically, for all of the potential regarding the story of Elladan and Elrohir, Tolkien never makes it entirely clear what choice either of them makes in the end. We know that they remain in Middle-earth when Elrond departs with the other Ring bearers; however, we don't know if they sailed into the West in later years or if they truly chose to live as mortals. If either or both of them remained in Middle-earth, did either take a wife? Sire children of their own? We never know.
Its left to the reader; we know Elrond has to meet Celebrian and tell her Arwen is not coming...does he wait for his sons, to not have them arrive? Or only one? Its one of those ends that is poignant and also continues the tale, because its never wrapped up, never finished.
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Aug 1 2015, 7:51pm
Post #38 of 42
(5825 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think Tolkien implied, at least, the choice of mortality...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... for the sons of Elrond. Why should Elrond make it seem noteworthy that his children must choose before he sails (as I think he does in the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen), if it is not really "the day" that his children must decide. Plus, delaying is one thing, but they all had had a notably long time to decide before Elrond sailed!
Robert Foster writes: '... and since they did not accompany Elrond over Sea they seem to have chosen to become mortal' Entry Elladan, The Complete Guide to Middle-Earth. I agree, but I cite Foster because he is basing his opinion on description Tolkien himself published, and not looking at the infamous letter [153] written in 1954 (if I recall correctly this letter was not sent)...
... especially as in 1955 (after the letter) Tolkien was still working on texts which would impact this issue in my opinion -- that is, the Numenorean Kings (i) Numenor, and (V) Part of the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen.
Incidentally, the fate of Elrond's sons was not revealed even in this sense in the first edition, as again, if I recall correctly, it was only in the 1960s revised edition that Tolkien added two references revealing that Elrond's sons had remained after Elrond had sailed.
(This post was edited by Elthir on Aug 1 2015, 7:58pm)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Aug 2 2015, 11:37am
Post #39 of 42
(5798 views)
Shortcut
|
Elladan and Elrohir faced a difficult choice: Sail into the West with their father and be reunited with their mother Celebrian, only to be forever separated from their sister Arwen; or, remain in Middle-earth as mortals to protect Arwen and her husband Aragorn (King Elessar) and never again see either of their parents again. I agree that the fact that they did remain behind seems to indicate that they chose mortality.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Aug 2 2015, 2:28pm
Post #40 of 42
(5790 views)
Shortcut
|
In case anyone is wondering, this is the conversation in question. Elronds says:
"That so long as I abide here, she shall live with the youth of the Eldar (...) And when I depart, she shall go with me, if she so chooses.' Aragorn responds that the years of Elrond's abiding run short at last, '... and the choice must soon be laid on your children, to part either with you or with Middle-earth'. Elrond answers 'Truly' but notes 'soon as we account the years'. Earlier in the N. Kings it is also noted that the children of Elrond had the choice to pass '... with him from the Circles of the World; or if they remained to become mortal and die in Middle-earth.'
Of course the option remains that 'with him' means 'as he did' or similar, but especially the conversation with Aragorn seems very much about timing to my mind. There's an interesting draft text called T4 in The Peoples of Middle-Earth, which according to Christopher Tolkien: '...was and remained for a long time the form of the Tale of Years that my father thought appropriate, and was indeed proposed to the publishers in 1954.' It reads in part (concerning Elrond's children):
2300 '(...) These children were three parts Elven-race, but the doom spoken at their birth was that they should live even as Elves so long as their father remained in Middle-earth; but if he departed they should have then the choice either to pass over the Sea with him, or to become mortal, if they remained behind.'
Again, I realize one could work around this with something like" "well time is different to these children, the meaning doesn't have to be on the exact same day", but taken all together (not that Foster had this last bit to work with), as I say, Tolkien has (IMO) at least left the impression that to stay in Middle-earth when Elrond departed reflects the choice of mortality.
And in 1954, 1955, the end of the sons of Elrond "is not told" (as agrees with the infamous letter 153 in part anyway), in the sense that it was not noted until the 1960s revision that the sons of Elrond remained after their father sailed.
If Elrond agrees that the choice must "soon" be laid upon his children -- even admitting that "soon" is relative -- it still fits with his passing Oversea in my opinion; as a "regular" mortal speaking at this point would probably not use soon to refer to the time when Elrond would actually sail...
... but Aragorn and Elrond know better what is meant: a long way off yet to mortals, but soon to them, especially given how many long years have already passed in which his children have delayed their choice already. Compared to this, the choice is now coming relatively soon.
(This post was edited by Elthir on Aug 2 2015, 2:42pm)
|
|
|
Magradhaid
The Shire
Aug 7 2015, 1:00am
Post #41 of 42
(5688 views)
Shortcut
|
The joke was funny. :) I'm sorry; lately I tend to be nitpicking a lot, and don't often notice it until hours/days after I've actually posted.
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Aug 7 2015, 11:18am
Post #42 of 42
(5661 views)
Shortcut
|
... and as you can see the added information was appreciated, and I probably should have at least added that the full story of li does not appear in RGEO alone.
(This post was edited by Elthir on Aug 7 2015, 11:20am)
|
|
|
|
|
= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
