The Silmarillion - General Discussion

[bruce rerek]

Shall we not say that Feanor is so much like us that we often mistake our truths to be greater than anothers perceptions?

[Riv Res]

I think that it is also interesting that it is pretty much the consensus that The Sil would never have been published on its own had it not been preceded by LOTR. I remember reading a couple of interesting pieces to that effect. Now, I suspect that the group of us here (because we are mutually smitten with Tolkien) are captivated by the myth of The Sil...but in many circles it is considered merely a reference book for LOTR.

Thoughts

[Merry]

If I had read The Sil first, I never would have picked up LOTR.

[Varda]

Merry~

If I had read The Sil first, I never would have picked up LOTR.

Wouldn't you have wanted to read more about elves and men and dwarfs , or are you saying The Silmarillion was not interesting enough to want to read more?

[Merry]

Good question, Varda. I have two complaints about The Sil. First, it's so sprawling that it lacks essential unities in plot, time, and voice. I think we need to remember that JRRT really never did finish its preparation for publication. Second, I think that hobbits serve as an entrance to Middle-earth that is just right for us: we see 'the heights' from their point of view, and it works. The heights without them are too high for me!

What about you, Varda? If you had read The Sil first, would you have hungered for more?

[Varda]

Yes... I think so, though I may have had to read it more than once to let it all sink in. LoTR sent me on a *quest* to acquire any Tolkien book I could get my hands on, so now after many years I have a nice collection ( but never enough, which explains several copies of the same book! ). But after reading the trilogy, I wanted the history of the characters that the appendices only briefly touches on. AND now I want the tale to continue...

[bruce rerek]

IMHO, the Silarillion is fragemnted intentionally. These are supposed to anceint texts that were translated from Elvish to the Common tongue. So rather than a unbroken narrative we have texts that have survived until the present. What one must see is the through line from the sons of Feanor to the heirs of Beren and Luthien. It is not light reading by any stretch of the imagination and very reminicent of the Greek tragedies.
I would suggest to follow the family trees that are mapped out in the encyclopedia of Arda - great help there, and then connect the dots from the theft of the silamarillions as they move from place to place.
Look also to Boewulf and the pre-Christian sense of foredoom and the end of all things.
Its not a text that one cares to linger in, but one we need to read to remind ourselves:"The doom lies in yourself, not in your name" (Of Turin Turambar) It also speaks to the nature of craftwork and secondary creation gone wrong. As a group I think we should cover this, but the appropriate thread is the question.

[Merry]

I think this would be the appropriate thread, Bruce. Even though the theme runs through our author's works, it is most present in The Sil, isn't it?

[Iolanthe]

I would suggest to follow the family trees that are mapped out in the encyclopedia of Arda - great help there

I use them all the time and have printed off versions. There are family trees in the back of my Sil but I found it easier to have 'removable' and clearer copies to hand! There is a link to the site on the Tolkien Links page or people new to Tolkien resources can check it out straight away here. It's a great site.

Its not a text that one cares to linger in, but one we need to read to remind ourselves:"The doom lies in yourself, not in your name" (Of Turin Turambar) It also speaks to the nature of craftwork and secondary creation gone wrong. As a group I think we should cover this, but the appropriate thread is the question.

It's such an important theme isn't it? And, coincidently, I've just been reading a footnote from Unfinished Tales covering the same thing. It's a quote from one of Tolkein's letters, written September 1954:

The particular branch of the High Elves concerned [with Sauron's growing influence over the Eregion smiths], the Noldor or Loremasters, were always vulnerable on the side of "science and technology", as we should call it: they wanted to have the knowledge that Sauron genuinely had, and those of Eregion refused the warnings of Gil-galad and Elrond. The particular "desire" of the Eregion Elves - an "allegory" if you like of a love of machinary and technical devices - is also symbolized by their special friendship with the Dwarves of Moria.

The Noldor's fascination with craftwork starts their fall from grace with the creation of the Silmarils, or more speficically, all that happens afterwards with Morgoth's desire for them and the wars that follow, and carries right through to Sauron who also knows the Noldor's weakness when he seduces the Eregion Noldor into trying to outdo Feanor with the creation of the Rings of Power. To me all the greatest woes in The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings stem from this, the creation of something good and beautiful through craft that turns into an Achilles heel for those that made them. It's not the cause of evil, that came with the fall of Melkor, but it's a tool he and Sauron use, a weakness they exploit. And yet they are as vulnerable to it as the Noldor.

[bruce rerek]

The theme of sub-creation, to ceate beauty fo its own sake is contrasted with the will to dominate, to use an artifice to enslave or to dominate. The Elves, with their extrodinary ability to create have often found themselves faced with the ethics of limiting power. But with any creation of art, one's will is to be examined.
Galadriel's choice to be Nenya's bearer is a very good case to see how the will to sustain creation, to be a force for nuturing for all time is not neceessarily a good. Consider: nature as created by the Valar is necessary and sufficient to itslelf. It is not just sufficient to create. By imposing a seemingly good act to surround herself and Caras Gathalon she has imposed a will that is not of order of the Valar.
What she has then is an embalmed verson of nature. Consider the land that never changes, never will cycle through birth and death. Although her land is the fairest and will never know hurt, it is but a very pretty place to never forget the long defeat. Despite that Sauron never sullied the three Elvin Rings, they are still tied to the fate of the One Ring.
Where else do we see this? Hint: A certain Dark Elf.

[Lindariel]

Bruce, would you be referring to Eol, the Dark Elf, and his hidden abode in Nan Elmoth, where the trees "were the tallest and darkest in all Beleriand, and there the sun never came." He didn't create or maintain this realm through his own power. It was already naturally so; he simply chose to live there because it suited his nature.

Eol was a master smith who learned the skills of the dwarves of Belegost and Nogrod and developed his own special metal -- galvorn -- "black and shining like jet," and "resistant to all blades and darts."

He "took to wife" Aredhel, sister of King Turgon of Gondolin, and although she was not unwilling, he nonetheless apparently kept her on a very tight leash until she at last defied his wishes and yielded to their son Maeglin's desire to go to Gondolin.

I do not see the connection or similarity between Eol's creation of galvorn and Galadriel's maintenance of Lothlorien by virtue of the power of Nenya. Tolkien doesn't mention any use of galvorn outside of the creation of Eol's suit of armor, and it plays no part in the tragic death of Aredhel and Eol's subsequent execution.

Eol was of the Teleri and desired to have nothing to do with the Noldor because of the violence of the House of Feanor against his brethren. He had the misfortune of falling in love with one of the Noldor and made the mistake of thinking he could forever keep her from her own people. When he tried and failed to extricate "his" wife and son from Gondolin against the law of Turgon, he resorted to violence in a fit of "Well, if you won't let my son go, I'll kill him and myself. You can't keep what's mine!"

I don't see a sub-creation theme here, unless you argue that Maeglin was Eol's "creation."

Of course, Maeglin's betrayal of Gondolin is another story!

[Merry]

Bruce, your post made me think, not for the first time, of what a deeply insightful man Tolkien was. Here is a man who loved the past, whose whole academic life was about the past, whose vast body of subcreation was set in the past, kind of a walking anachronism. Yet he knew enough to warn us, through his criticism of the elves, about not becoming embalmers, worshippers of the past.

[bruce rerek]

In the case of Eol he used his power of enchantment of Aredhel to bind her to himself. In this we have the will to dominate and when she exercised her decision to go to Gondolin it would prove to be at her peril by Eol's hand. The secrect of Godolin's location was a known fact, yet Eol entered not based on love but of desire and will. (Contrast Beren and Luthien) He would chose death and the death of his son, had not Aredhel intercepted his dart with her life.
His crafting of the Anglachel, which would be later re-forged into Gurthang, blade of the tragic Turin Turambar, would reveal its nature:
Turin to the black blade) "Hail Gurthang! No lord or loyalty dost thou know save the hand that weildeth thee. From no blood wilt thou shrink. Wilt thou therefore take Turin Turamar, wilt thou slay me swiftly?"
"And from the blade rang a cold voice, Yea, I will drink thy blood gladly, that so I may forget the blood of Beleg my master, and the blood of Brandir slain unjustly. I will slay thee swiftly."
The theme of sub-creation is very much within this tragic legacy. Does our intentions to act or to create stem from the will to dominate and possess or from the desire to temper our actions with: what is the virtue of the next action? It is the choice to enslave or to share in a partenership.

[Lindariel]

Bruce, I still don't see the connection to the theme of subcreation in Eol's story. Whether he enchanted Aredhel is a matter of interpretation. Tolkien states that "It is not said that Aredhel was wholly unwilling, nor that her life in Nan Elmoth was hateful to her for many years." I take this to mean that initially she was happy in her marriage and over time chafed at her husband's insistence that she abide by his seclusive ways. I don't see enchantment at work there. However, if Eol did enchant her, by means unknown/unrevealed to us, more than likely it would have been with a spell rather than through one of his creations at the forge. So the "imprisonment" of Aredhel to me does not fall within the theme of subcreation at all.

As for the forging of Anglachel, which was remade into Gurthang for Turin by the smiths of Nargothrond, all we know is that Eol originally forged it from "iron that fell from heaven as a blazing star," i.e., a meteorite. Eol gave the sword to Thingol "as a fee, which he begrudged, for leave to dwell in Nan Elmoth." When Thingol offers the sword to Beleg (which is how it ultimately winds up in Turin's hands), Melian declares, "There is malice in this sword. The dark heart of the smith still dwells in it. It will not love the hand it serves; neither will it abide with you long."

It would appear this sword was never created with good intent, but with malice of forethought. Hence, again, your subcreation theme of an item of elven "technology" made with good intent, which turns out to have unintended evil consequences, does not bear out. I just do not see parallels here with Feanor's creations or the rings of the smiths of Eregion -- items intended only for good that had unforeseen and disastrous consequences.

[bruce rerek]