Council of Elrond

Welcome Guest
Username: Password: Register

Forum Home » Books Discussion » Discuss the Books » The evolution of Tolkien's Quendi and Eldar

Author	Topic:

tarcolan

Movies Moderator and General Dogsbody
Posts: 6046
Send Message

The evolution of Tolkien's Quendi and Eldar
on: July 26, 2014 11:01

The following discussion had started in the thread 'Prejudice Among Elves' in the Movie forum. As it had drifted slightly from the intentions of the original poster it is now here to continue....

Hangman Helper program

Hercynian

Council Member
Posts: 118
Send Message

on: July 26, 2014 11:06

To me, Tolkien's Elves are demi-angelic and, thus, not really all that knowable by us. One of the worst things about Buddhism is how few actually reach enlightenment. But if we could imagine a large body of people actually reaching enlightenment, how would they "order" themselves? Well, I'm sure it would be rather opaque to us. But this is essentially what Tolkien's Elves are: a large body of enlightened beings, not excluding a bit of dipping into the supernatural -- as can be ascribed to enlightened people.

Having said this, I really have to fault Tolkien for building them up as quasi-enlightened, then seeming to tear them down with tales of jealousy, murder, pettiness, obsession, etc, in The Silmarillion. Tolkien's best Elf writing is in LotR-FotR in those three Lothlorien chapters. You don't get the feeling that the Galadhrim are capable of too many human faults.

As for "class" amongst the Elves, there were two basic paths: quasi-civilization Elves (e.g. Gondolin) and the wilded Elves (e.g. the Laiquendi). Both were lightly embedded in their natural environments, but the "civilized" Elves weren't constantly communing with nature as the green-silvan Elves seemed to be. Tolkien seemed to lean towards the green-silvan Elves in an eerily clairvoyant way, anticipating the whole Daniel Quinn Ishmael movement.

Another angle: Imagine an enlightened monk from a big, urban monastery visits an enlightened monk sitting under an old tree in a forest. Either would be a fool to condescend the other.

Again, "class" amongst a humanoid race so perfect as the Elves is a non-starter for me. We humans have horrible class mechanisms, mainly relying on the sad fact that so many of our children endure terrible childhoods of denigration and humiliation, creating inferiority complexes. I really don't believe Tolkien's Elves practised any methods intentionally or unintentionally that created neuroses and inferiority complexes. I think the distinctions between individual Elves happened at a much higher level than we humans, so socially crude and psychologically plagued, can understand.

[Edited on 07/24/2014 by Hercynian]

Elthir

Council Member
Posts: 433
Send Message

on: July 26, 2014 11:08

Externally -- that is, in Tolkien's lifetime -- the tales of the Silmarillion came before The Lord of the Rings, and I would say that in the latter we are only getting a slice of the Elves, largely through Hobbit eyes, and even at that, a look at their diminished realms [with respect to power and influence] within the fading years.

I don't think it's a case of building then tearing down but a case of presentation and perspective -- with The Hobbit one gets a certain vision of the Elves through Bilbo -- yet even the Elven King of Mirkwood is not perfect however: Thingol and the Silmarillion shone through here, just a bit.

Many read The Lord of the Rings before* the Silmarillion [and some had little choice before 1978] and were then surprised to find Feanor and the Kinslaying[s], or even rebellion in Galadriel's past. But then again, from an external perspective, one could hardly have a long history where everyone gets along, bakes bread, and sings songs. There 'had' to be some sort of fall, if not necessarily between Elf and Elf.

Although that said, compare the history of the Quendi to that of Men when looking at the larger picture -- some will raise Feanor as an example of what Elves are capable of in general -- but that is not the same as comparing what most Elves did do in general, and importantly, what they refused to do when many Men were easily seduced.

Annatar seduced some Elves, yes, but I note his reasoning for the ring ruse in the first place: Men he found easiest to sway; with Men, Sauron needed no trickery as subtle as the Rings of Power.

Maybe there are those who disagree [on the web? nah], but to my mind, Silmarillion included, the Elves come out looking remarkably more 'angelic' than Men. Yet they are still Eru's children and given free will, capable of error.

The fall of [some of] the Noldor is notable, including the second fall [of some] in Eregion, but that's kind of my point: it's notable in the long years of Elvish history... while how many 'kinslayings' might be written about among the histories of Men?

How many Men bent the knee in service of Sauron, or delighted in the domination of other wills, or furthered Sauron's policies on the promise of power and gold?

Anyway even angels can fall

__________

*Tolkien desired that the Silmarillion be published in the later 1930s, and the early 1950s along with The Lord of the Rings, if not 'anytime' in a general sense.

[Edited on 07/24/2014 by Elthir]

Hercynian

Council Member
Posts: 118
Send Message

on: July 26, 2014 11:11

Good insights, Elthir. You're right about the basic fact that what some of the Elves did is not what they all did, or usually did. For example, there was one "Eöl," not some fixed percentage of Elvendom turning out like him.

This, like so many, is another plunge into the murky waters of trying to describe another humanoid species that is probably our superior. In the fairy/elf department you have roughly two major types: a) the Tolkienesque demi-angelic elf, and b) the impish, wild fairy, as best described by Susanne Clarke's Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell.

The Tolkien Elf is vaguely magical, but definitely more advanced than humans in matters sentient like intelligence, wisdom, spirituality. As I said above, they are like Christian saints or Buddhist monks who have reached a superior state of consciousness.

The Clarke fairy, on the other hand, borrows from the old fairytale depictions (going back to Greek mythology) which emphasize lots of magic, coupled with wildly irrational, if not amoral and/or aggressive behaviour.

You might throw in a third category, that of the child-like innocent "waif of nature" fairy-elf. This type is/was popular with the New Agers and the Victorians.

In all three cases you have the fairy-elf embedded in, originating from Nature writ large. Nature is the quasi-sponsor of the fairy-elf and his/her action. In Clarke's JS&Mr.N, she's quite clear that "the land" (read nature) is the real source of magic, the real reality . . . that the land in these "modern times" is only in a "yielding but everywhere permeating" mode," i.e., yielding to our techno-civilization machinations, but only like a cat giving a mouse a sporting head start.

Tolkien's Elves are much harder to write about. Clarke spent most of her book developing the singular madness of one psychotic fairy lord, who isn't much different from any human psychopath. Rather easy. Her genius is describing how the land rears up and begins to reassert itself, i.e., all the myriad components of the nature matrix being more than the sum of its parts in a way that appears magical to us -- and is.

One very telling passage is in LotR-FotR where Legolas has his memory-vision of some past Noldorian civilization as they are on their way out of Rivendell through Eregion.

"Only I hear the stones lament them [Noldorian Elves]," he said, the melancholy statements unexpected and bewildering. "'Deep they delved us, fair they wrought us, high they builded us, but they are gone.'"

In a sense, talk of "High Elves" is ironic, since all their attempts at "civilization" always followed the typical arc, which ends in decline and oblivion. Here I see Tolkien subtlety tipping his hat to the Silvan Elves, who cared not for anything but communing with Nature. In more than one place he notes that the anti-civ woodland Elves were following the true path and original purpose of the "first-born."

But then we as humans can hardly imagine what "communing with Nature" (CWN) is like. I've had my "special moments" out in these Lake Superior forests, but I bashed my head bloody trying to figure out how to expand it beyond just the gauzy feelings I'd get on a hike. Alas, I can't really find anyone that believes these feelings, these CWNs are of great significance, let alone find a group who actively wants to expand on them. But if you did have people who had dedicated their lives to CWN, what would that be like? And, a step further, imagine a group who were masters of CWN. That would be the Elves. And how they "order" themselves socially would be, well, far better than anything we could imagine.

So when the Fellowship wanders into Lothlorien, they were suddenly amongst a race of superior sentient beings deep in their long-running "nature trancing." Yeow! You'd spend years trying to find which end is up in such a place. . . .

One idea about Celeborn and Galadriel: I'd say they became the quasi-leaders of the Galadhrim simply due to their grandfatherly/grandmotherly vibe. Sure, Galadriel had the ring Nenya, but amongst a group of self-realized beings like Elves, you can't really read any sort of court machinations or politics into it.

[Edited on 07/24/2014 by Hercynian]

[Edited on 07/24/2014 by Hercynian]

Elthir

Council Member
Posts: 433
Send Message

on: July 26, 2014 11:12

Tolkien paints a picture that a rule of strength and wisdom was needed in Lorien, and provides a moment of crisis in which Galadriel and Celeborn would be accepted: the disaster in nearby Moria, the death of Amroth, and the fleeing of Elves...

'... and Lorien was in great peril, its king lost, its people fleeing and likely to leave it deserted to be occupied by Orcs, that Galadriel and Celeborn took up their permanent abode in Lorien, and its government.'

JRRT, Unfinished Tales, late note

And I'm afraid that even certain of the Avari -- thus certain Elves who refused the Summons of the Valar and did not become 'high' in culture or civilization -- are not excluded from having ill feelings for other elves.

'The first Avari that the Eldar met again in Beleriand seem to have claimed to be Tatyar [...] They were actually unfriendly to the Noldor, and jealous of their more exalted kin, whom they accused of arrogance.

[or more generally]

'No elf of any kind ever sided Morgoth of free will [again compare to Men -- Elthir] [...] The 'Dark Elves', however, often were hostile, and even treacherous in their dealings with the Sindar and Noldor [...] They were, it seems, filled with an inherited bitterness against the Eldar, whom they regarded as deserters of their kin, and in Beleriand this feeling was increased by envy (especially of the Amanyar), and by resentment of their lordliness.

JRRT, Quendi And Eldar

Tolkien goes on to say that Avari of various kinds continued to call themselves *kwendi 'the People' regarding those who went away as deserters. The Avarin forms noted are: kindi, cuind, hwenti, windan, kinn-lai, penni [these Avarin clan names hail from the form *kwendi].

But there again I'll note that bit I already noted: 'no elf of any kind...' compared to Men.

[Edited on 07/25/2014 by Elthir]

Hercynian

Council Member
Posts: 118
Send Message

on: July 26, 2014 11:14

As a writer myself of "high fantasy," I know how hard it is to involve mystical things. I have no proof of this, but I'd say Tolkien was of at least two minds about his Elves. The vast majority of Tolkien fans started with either The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings and, thus, the whole Silmarillion and HoME stuff came much later -- and as a shock in my case. Yes, many believe they're getting the "real" Tolkien in all his notes and such pulled together by C. Tolkien, but, again, as a writer myself, I can tell Tolkien had "upgraded" his Elves by the time LotR came out. His final "opinion" of Elves is -- at least in my mind -- to be found in the Lothlorien chapters of FotR, and all the "prequel" stuff is a curious backstory that, in the end, probably didn't want published.

Yes, Elthir, everything you're finding in the HoME/Silmarillion is technically true, but wide of the Elves in his last work, LotR. And so we're left with two options: a) find a composite or average Tolkien Elf, or b) pick and chose. Many would try to avoid option b simply because it would seem to make Tolkien fallible. "How can you say he didn't mean this or that about Elves. He said it plainly in <your favourite supporting but obscure HoME passage here>."

As I've said before/above, writing about Elves, ostensibly a higher race, is nigh on impossible. Describing Lothlorien is a bit like describing heaven, it's like taking plaster casts of some strange beast -- and then trying to imagine what that beast looks like, what it does. Call me irrational, but I'm not so interested in all the HoME/Sil talk about the Elves. The LotR Elves are what I go with, what I think were Tolkien's "best Elves."

Here's a few excerpts from my book The Initiates:

It's morning in the grove... So what's it like being in Faerie? I feels like I'm doing some sort of great art—with my body, my self, my whole being. The land and I are like brush and canvas. I guess I could say I go around in a state of marveling all day and night. Yes, but wouldn't that get boring? It might seem so, but somehow it never does. And when others are around to share in this marveling, it can get downright blissfully joyous. I can almost feel myself peeling away the old thought patterns from Anti-faerie and making new ones, strange new ones not in my logical, conscious mind. I'm being totally rewired, reinvented, and I'm really loving it! At this point I know very well that I couldn't go back.

Elthir

Council Member
Posts: 433
Send Message

on: July 26, 2014 11:16

Yes, many believe they're getting the "real" Tolkien in all his notes and such pulled together by C. Tolkien, but, again, as a writer myself, I can tell Tolkien had "upgraded" his Elves by the time LotR came out. His final "opinion" of Elves is -- at least in my mind -- to be found in the Lothlorien chapters of FotR, and all the "prequel" stuff is a curious backstory that, in the end, probably didn't want published.

Well, it's not so that what I have quoted above is prequel material written before The Lord of the Rings. The citations are from Quendi And Eldar, written well after The Lord of the Rings was published, and dated to 1959-60.

That said, I would be interested in your argument that JRRT upgraded his Elves by the early 1950s...

... given that Quenta Silmarillion already existed by the mid to late 1930s [before LOTR was begun], and that after 'finishing' the writing of The Lord of the Rings, in the early 1950s Tolkien retuned to 'update' his Silmarillion, given the new characters and ideas and so on (and update and expand upon it in general), found in The Lord of the Rings.

I'm not saying that Tolkien did not upgrade his Quendi in any way or sense, but again, it's not like the Silmarillion matter all came before The Lord of the Rings.

Maybe start a new thread in 'books' if you want to delve deep into this.

Yes, Elthir, everything you're finding in the HoME/Silmarillion is technically true, but wide of the Elves in his last work, LotR.

The Lord of the Rings wasn't even Tolkien's last published work, as The Road Goes Ever On, for example, was published in the 1960s, and relates that Galadriel was banned from returning West due to her role as one of the leaders in the Rebellion.

Quendi And Eldar is not a note [just to note it for those who may not have read it], and I'm not sure it's obscure in all senses. This essay can be found in a typescript and carbon copy of nearly 50 pages, and 'Although mainly linguistic in content, the essay also includes much background and historical information' [quote from Hammond and Scull, A Readers' Guide].

It even has Appendices! As well as author's notes.

[Edited on 07/25/2014 by Elthir]

Hercynian

Council Member
Posts: 118
Send Message

on: July 26, 2014 11:17

I guess my whole argument is that "class" amongst the Elves should be nothing like class is amongst humans. Again, consider my two enlightened monks -- one from a fancy, big-name temple, the other living under a tree in the woods -- and how it would make no sense for either to condescend the other. But then human class distinction is so often not a function of true virtue and true inner nobility, but a result of force and prejudice.

And yet we humans often enough class ourselves by merits. Consider virtuoso musicians or composers. Very few would waste time or energy contesting their superiority when it is evident. But in other areas so often it comes down to ego and manipulation and the nerve to be rude and aggressive. I guess I'm saying I consider the Elves above ego and manipulation -- and I'm really not interested in any part of the Tolkien works where Elves are so lacking. I read LotR first, TH second, and, much later, the Sil. And for this very reason, the Sil lacked appeal: I simply don't care to read about Elves who are no better, no different than humans -- even if Tolkien intended it to be that way. But again, I see a stark difference between the Elves of LotR and other Tolkien writings. And, again, I as a writer know what it's like to try to come up with a story revolving around a more advanced race. It's very hard, and I see and appreciate his LotR efforts.

All in all, I don't believe you can answer this thread's original question very well until you answer, "Which Elves do you mean? the superior Elves of LotR who come off as demi-angelic, or the inferior Elves of HoME/Sil?" Call me daft or childish for wanting "Elf hagiography," but it makes no sense to try to come up with one set of answers to the Elven "class" question when there are such wildly variant depictions of them. And no, I don't really want to consider arguments of how Tolkien really meant to describe Elves by the lowest traits and sins typical of bad humans.

Many Sil Elves have serious character issues, if not mental issues. That doesn't really appeal to me. But if the majority of fans believe these to be closer to what Tolkien really meant . . . gosh, then I suppose any of the worst characteristics of human class warfare would apply to them as well. . . .

Council Member
Posts: 523
Send Message

on: July 26, 2014 11:18

"One of the worst things about Buddhism is how few actually reach enlightenment."
- Hercynian

Shall we repair to the book forum to discuss this, Herc?

http://monstersandcritics.wordpress.com/

Elthir

Council Member
Posts: 433
Send Message

on: July 26, 2014 11:18

And for this very reason, the Sil lacked appeal: I simply don't care to read about Elves who are no better, no different than humans -- even if Tolkien intended it to be that way.

I would say that they are higher beings, and different, if not perfect, unfallen angels.

'The Elves represent, as it were, the artistic, aesthetic, and purely scientific aspects of the Humane nature raised to a higher level than is actually seen in Men.'

JRRT [letter 181, 1956]

'They have certain freedoms and powers we should like to have, and the beauty and peril and sorrow of the possession of these things is exhibited in them.'

JRRT [153, 1954]

'But I suppose that the Quendi are in fact in these histories very little akin to the Elves and Fairies of Europe; and if I were pressed to rationalize, I should say that they represent really Men with greatly enhanced aesthetic and creative faculties, greater beauty and longer life, and nobility -- the Elder Children, doomed to fade before the Followers (Men), and to live ultimately only by the thin line of their blood that was mingled with that of Men, among whom it was the only real claim to 'nobility.'

JRRT [144, 1954]

And in this last letter Tolkien then digresses into their ancient history [even, if briefly, referencing the matter of the Silmarillion to explain the Exile of the Noldor], and so in my opinion he is hardly generalizing about the Elves of only the Third Age, or about only the Elves that appear in The Lord of the Rings.

Tolkien wanted the Silmarillion published along with The Lord of the Rings in the early 1950s, and was prepared to switch publishers to do so; and his Quendi appear in both of course.

And for example, as I read Laws and Customs of the Eldar, another work post-dating the publication of The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien's Elves again shine in ways, compared to Men, generally speaking anyway... especially considering their marriage customs and matters of fidelity, for example.

Tolkien's Elves are amazing!

But not beings incapable of sometimes being driven to emotions that might seem all too human. They have their special sorrows given their long lives, being bound to Arda and its time, and are still Eru's children living in Arda Marred, where even an angel can fall, noting Saruman for instance.

To my mind, Tolkien's late life seeming attempt to revise Galadriel to make her 'unstained' [remove her from the Rebellion] is the lesser tale compared to the penitent rebel who rejects the One and is finally forgiven.

Thankfully the penitent rebel Galadriel is the one Tolkien himself published

Hmm, for a thread title how about: The evolution of Tolkien's Quendi and Eldar

[Edited on 07/26/2014 by Elthir]

tarcolan

Movies Moderator and General Dogsbody
Posts: 6046
Send Message

on: July 26, 2014 06:34

From letter 144 to Naomi Mitchison in 1954

"But I suppose that the Quendi are in fact in these histories very little akin to the Elves and Fairies of Europe; and if I were pressed to rationalize, I should say that they represent really Men with greatly enhanced aesthetic and creative faculties, greater beauty and longer life, and nobility..."

Hangman Helper program

cirdaneth

Books Admin & Books Forum Moderator
Posts: 2069
Send Message

on: July 27, 2014 12:51

Thank you for bringing this thread over from Movies Forum, Tarcolan. I've just read through it, and it's meaty stuff. Just what we need. Really gets the grey cells jigging.

Hercynian

Council Member
Posts: 118
Send Message

on: July 28, 2014 08:56

. . .t's meaty stuff. . .

Hmm. I'm vegan.

Anyway, my argument about Tolkien's Elves is beyond any sort of official, kosher "Tolkien scholarship." I'm into more critique than fact-finding.

Imagine listening to a lovely symphony and being transported into a cool,temperate rainforest like in the Olympic National Park in Washington, USA. But when the announcer repeats the title, "Detlef Schinklepanzer's Sahara Suite, you're floored. What! That piece reminded me of coolness, wetness, verdantness. So who's right, who's wrong? You get a copy and play it to all your friends. They concur with you and are shocked and amazed when you tell them the real title and read the composer's notes, which explain that he wanted to elicit a very dry and hot mood.

It's something like that when I read Tolkien. I get one feeling-impression from reading LotR vis-a-vis Elves, but an entirely different (and wholly off-putting) feeling when reading certain parts of the "Middle Earth Reader's Digest," better known as The Silmarillion.

Much of "fantasy" lit deals with the super-human. We seem to be enamoured of beings superior to ourselves. Call it hero worship, maybe. Whether it be Superman or merely Chariots of Fire, if someone is extraordinary, we're all over it. And in these modern times, who better to define a hero, a superman than Abraham Maslow with his now-famous "Maslow's hierarchy of needs." At the top of his pyramid was a concept called "self-actualization," which can be interpreted as enlightenment -- or at least being in a state of not obsessing about "petty things." Whether we know it or not, Maslow has pretty much controlled who and what we consider extraordinary. That is, we do not consider a needy, "unfulfilled" person as having reached Maslow's highest self-actualized state.

I say this because Tolkien's LotR Elves are meant to be self-actualized beings, possibly even enlightened. Again, here's Maslow:

The study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy.

Maslow pretty much flushed the greater majority of modern realism with that one-liner, IMHO. But then we see Elves in the Sil/HoME who are just these very un-self-actualized sorts. When I dream of a humanoid race where total self-actualization is the norm, not the exception, when even enlightenment in the Buddhist/Hindu sense is the starting point -- well, that really gets my attention. I want to know all about them! I'm not alone, either. Normal people, i.e., those not fixated on modern realism themes of "crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens" want more and more of self-actualized storylines.

So I would advise people to get with Maslow and ditch mod real. You really want self-actualization, hence, you love Tolkien's "good" Elves.

Nordor

Council Member
Posts: 32
Send Message

on: July 28, 2014 12:50

Perhaps the explanation is that Tolkien just intended a, somewhat, better human. Time and experience count for something. It has been said the elves of LOTR make more sense after The Silmarillion or at least are more sympathetic. The elves are the sadder but wiser people. That wisdom came at a price but they can be admired because they paid it.

(Whoops! Messed up the order there. Sorry)

[Edited on 07/28/2014 by tarcolan]

Hercynian

Council Member
Posts: 118
Send Message

on: July 28, 2014 08:13

One thing obvious to me is how evil corrupts ME. But again, the typical hero throughout so much of fiction is the fully self-actualized individual, and, based on this person's self-actualization, what he/she does different when confronted with strife, mayhem, evil.

If you narrow down a definition of self-actualized to mean Buddhist/Hindu enlightenment, you can create a 1-10 scale where 10 is fully satori enlightened, totally reached Nirvana, and then score heroes accordingly. In both Star Wars and Star Trek you have the Jedi Knights and the Vulcans scoring rather high. Likewise, Tolkien's LotR Elves. They're clearly high up on the scale.

Then you read The Sil -- and you meet characters like Eöl and his sullen son Maeglin. And then there is Feanor and his gangster sons. The part where Celegorm and Curufin sexually harass Luthien is rather stupid. And of course Turin's run-in with Saeros.

Again, I don't care what Tolkien said about his Elves, his Sil Elves are often enough botched. And at least for me, they don't afford me better understanding of any Elves I want to know about. As I keep saying, you can't have both kinds of Elves, i.e., Elves with human-like faults (due to being unenlightened and psychologically damaged), then the quasi-self-actualized Elves of LotR. It makes no sense to talk of the Elves as spanning both places, social-psychologically. It would be like introducing you to a beautiful princess with apparently wondrous virtue, grace, and nobility -- then once you've totally been smitten by her, tell you that she used to be a viscous gossip, has an IQ sub-100, and went to bed with fleets of sailors. These two images don't mesh -- if you're being objective.

Modern realists hate talk of Maslow and self-actualization. They consider the quest for perfection, enlightenment, high virtue, spotless character, honour, etc. elitist and even fascist. Consider the storyline of The Matrix. Neo was supposed to become some self-actualized, enlightened super-warrior. The bad guy Cipher thought it was all a cruel delusion, that it was all just mystical nonsense. Personally, I have to believe self-actualization is remotely possible. I cannot accept that the human is necessarily flawed and, thus, we just have to live with and accept various flaws and vices for fear of being judgemental or condemning. Acceptance and tolerance have expanded far beyond fighting prejudices. Today, we're expected to keep quiet about any sort of moral issues -- as if moral relativism is the same as social harmony. Hardly!

So, let's say you want to be an Elf. If you want to be a Sil Elf, all you need is some plastic surgery to get runway-model pretty. You could be a snake in the grass and just say "I'm one of Feanor's gangsters." But if you wanted to be like Legolas or Glorfindel, you'd be so busy working towards self-actualization/enlightenment/saintliness that you probably wouldn't have time for plastic surgery.

Council Member
Posts: 523
Send Message

on: July 29, 2014 12:46

Imagine listening to a lovely symphony and being transported into a cool,temperate rainforest like in the Olympic National Park in Washington, USA. But when the announcer repeats the title, "Detlef Schinklepanzer's Sahara Suite, you're floored.

Talking of personal impressions that one takes away from a work of art, I would not see the elves as superhuman, heroic beings. The impression I personally took away from the elves of LotR is that experience has given them wisdom. Because they don't die at an early age like the men, they esxperience more, make more mistakes, see more stuff happening around them, and therefore end up a lot "sadder and wiser." This is both a gift and a curse to them.

Coming to what they actually spend time doing, I'd like to share with you a Buddhist quote :

The non-doing of any evil,
the performance of what's skillful,
the cleansing of one's own mind

(from the Dhammapada)

I think the key to understanding Tolkien's elves is that they're not competitive. They're not out to prove that they're better than everyone else. They don't engage in one-upmanship or see themselves as any sort of heroes. They keep to themselves, don't bother anyone, perfect their skills and learn from their experiences. They may not be any kind of supermen, but they are certainly worthy of respect.

Well, that's the way I see them

Like Herc, I don't think much of the Silmarillion elves!

[Edited on 07/29/2014 by pv]

http://monstersandcritics.wordpress.com/

Bartimaeus

Council Member
Posts: 65
Send Message

on: July 29, 2014 01:06

I don't think much of the Silmarillion elves!

As TH White says in The Once and Future King, perfection isn't necessarily likeable.

I think the elves in the Sil represent the tragic side of perfection in the Nordic or even the Arthurian universe. As the Valar's original creations, the Noldor are perfect, but in the artistic tradition, a perfect work of art is not necessarily complete in itself. Feanor represents all that's glorious about creative expression - he represents the fulfilment of that ideal, but in Tolkien's slightly Nordic view, the fulfilment of an ideal doesn't forestall tragedy. It may even bring it to its conclusion sooner. Similarly, Fingolfin represents the ideal warrior, grave, loyal, courageous but despairing. He is everything a warrior ought to be, but in the long run that doesn't help him, as it doesn't help Beowulf. In LotR the elves are older, wiser, less glorious but less tragic. In the Sil Tolkien refutes ontology; in LotR he introduces a more pluralist paradigm, which is probably why the elves are less impossibly talented and less obnoxious. They're englightened but real people, whereas the Elves in the Sil are Platonic objects. There's just a faint echo of Tolkien's Platonism in Elrond and Galadriel and the other descendents of the Noldor.

[Edited on 07/29/2014 by Bartimaeus]

Hercynian

Council Member
Posts: 118
Send Message

on: July 29, 2014 10:10

Yes, pv, I don't see the Elves as competitive either. Again, I don't think we can know much about their minds or their day-to-day sociology, simply because they're a (somewhat) higher sentient being than we are. They don't suffer from a "shortage mentality," i.e., living in a constantly perceived state of "not enough, must get/grab more." So many of us are instilled with it from the youngest age and reel through life like a horse with a burr under its saddle. But again, this is a function of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. When needs are fulfilled, the individual can aspire to greater things. When they're not, the person may very well careen through life in a constant state of neurotic neediness.

Nice observations, Bartimaeus. A religious spin, if not imperative is always there when we talk of Platonism, as in trying to live up to the great thing (human soul?) to which we are this temporary material projection. Still, I don't quite know what you mean when you say "In the Sil Tolkien refutes ontology." He does as so many writers do, namely, the study of being through the description of existence.

Sure, Nordic fatalism: failure to obtain the Grail, Twilight of the Gods, Galadriel's Long Defeat, "I will remain Galadriel and pass into the West," etc. Long-suffering Elves who gain maturity deep and long -- as we cannot begin to imagine. As I wrote in a poem about a young girl who has just come through a rainstorm: Her tiny life a tiny bit newer. . . as opposed to older or more eroded or more entropic. I like what pv said:

The non-doing of any evil,
the performance of what's skillful,
the cleansing of one's own mind. . .

That's quite lovely. And yet perhaps there could still be conflict and contest amongst Elves. An important issue might create opponents. However, when good communication, wisdom, maturity, patience, and the utmost respect are brought to the table, the sort of bone-headed will to dominate for the mere sake of dominance we humans are so often guilty of is usually far away.

cirdaneth

Books Admin & Books Forum Moderator
Posts: 2069
Send Message

on: July 30, 2014 04:09

It occurs to me that, with elves, it is not so much a matter of class, but of caste.

Elthir

Council Member
Posts: 433
Send Message

on: July 30, 2014 07:25

Imagine listening to a lovely symphony and being transported into a cool,temperate rainforest like in the Olympic National Park in Washington, USA. But when the announcer repeats the title, "Detlef Schinklepanzer's Sahara Suite, you're floored. What! That piece reminded me of coolness, wetness, verdantness. So who's right, who's wrong? You get a copy and play it to all your friends. They concur with you and are shocked and amazed when you tell them the real title and read the composer's notes, which explain that he wanted to elicit a very dry and hot mood.

But here you are are talking about the author as author [composer as composer] and the potential of lording over interpretation. To my mind the Silmarillion is not the author's interpretive notes in an attempt to explain the truth behind the Lorien chapters.

It's something like that when I read Tolkien. I get one feeling-impression from reading LotR vis-a-vis Elves, but an entirely different (and wholly off-putting) feeling when reading certain parts of the "Middle Earth Reader's Digest," better known as The Silmarillion.

So I think the musical metaphor should be more like: listen to the whole work, then interpret.

And does the song include The Hobbit as well? If so how do the Elves of Rivendell in this work fit into your interpretation, or the arguably flawed [Thingol influenced] Elven-king of Mirkwood? Although I note even Thranduil's actions when it comes to potential war with Thorin, for example.

Again there were probably a lamentable amount of kinslayings that occured last week in the Primary World. In Aman however, one in how many thousands of years? And amazingly few in Elvish lands even in the Evil-harried world of Middle-earth long ago.

[Edited on 07/31/2014 by Elthir]

tarcolan

Movies Moderator and General Dogsbody
Posts: 6046
Send Message

on: July 30, 2014 12:15

The difference between Elves and Men is quantitative rather than qualitative. The attributes noted by Tolkien are present in the race of Men but to a lesser extent. It is notable though that in 'The Lord Of The Rings' there is hardly any mention of the failings of the Elves. A vague suggestion when dealing with Galadriel but that is the only example I can think of. Is this deliberate? There was a great deal of history in the second chapter at first which was moved to the Council chapter, and presumably much had to be excluded. It is also a sequel and primarily written for children, and so simplified to some extent.

Hangman Helper program

Elthir

Council Member
Posts: 433
Send Message

on: July 30, 2014 02:22

What are the examples in The Lord of the Rings that illustrate that Elves are not competitive for instance? And as for power, Galadriel tells Frodo that she greatly desired the power he would give her, and in my opinion there is no real passing of a test unless one is truly tested.

Tolkien's Lorien chapters are masterful and succeed in presenting otherness and the realm of 'faery', a timeless beauty. For some readers Celeborn hasn't necessarily met the standard that Galadriel seems to give him, but in any case, what I think is happening for some is an injection of, or an assumption of, perfection and saintliness given that there is nothing very much here to negate this specifically.

To my mind we have wiser, helpful, beautiful beings that inhabit this faery realm as well. The depiction here is truly wonderful I agree. But that doesn't necessarily make the Galadhrim and all Elves saints who can never fall.

Higher beings yes, in general; Tolkien himself acknowledges that much -- yet Feanor as a proud, self-willed Elf is part of The Lord of the Rings in any case, even if in an abbreviated reference.

That said, even interpretation of The Lord of the Rings alone does not, it would seem, mean we have an all agreed upon vision of Tolkien's Quendi. I have spent enough time in posts defending Tolkien's Elves as higher beings against those who think they are generally arrogant and self-involved, and claim that they all should have been at Minas Tirith helping save Middle-earth.

And I'm the first to say that what Tolkien himself published is 'canon' and the rest were drafts in progress [to simplify things here, admittedly], but on the other hand if we are really talking about the evolution of Tolkien's Elves I find it rather narrowing to weed out what doesn't fit a specific interpretation of several chapters in The Lord of the Rings.

Tolkien began writing about Elves before 1920 and continued to write about them until 1973!

Well... with some breaks in between

And for example, I do think Tolkien 'raised' Thingol from his earlier Tinwelint days -- post Lord of the Rings Tolkien gives reasons for Thingol to be wary of mortals [in my opinion to help explain or 'defend' his reaction to Beren compared to Melian's, I would guess], before Beren arrives.

And Thingol learns to be more tolerant as the story goes, considering his treatment of Turin compared to Beren.

[Edited on 07/31/2014 by Elthir]

Council Member
Posts: 523
Send Message

on: July 30, 2014 09:31

I think the key word to keep in mind here is "evolution."

When we discuss fictional characters, there are two types of changes going on - one is the change in the author himself as his mind evolves between one work of art and another, and another is the change in the characters, as they evolve within the work of art.

Between the Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings, Tolkien's idea of elves might have changed. Or as Tarcolan rightly observed, his presentation of them might have been adapted to suit a different, younger audience.

Within his fictional world, much time has passed between the Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings. It would therefore make sense for the author to portray the elves as being wiser beings who have changed in the interim.

The Silmarillion is elf-centric, and the LotR is Hobbit centric. So in the LotR, we are seeing the elves as the Hobbits see them, but in the Silmarillion, we're seeing them as they see one another. This is another reason for the difference in the presentation of the elves between the two works.

The author also enjoys a creative licence to portray his characters in a manner that is appropriate to the story he is telling. Shakespeare, in Henry IV parts I and II, portrayed Prince Henry in a particular way that seemed appropriate for a rebel prince. But in Henry V, he portrays the same person very differently, to suit the story of a king who had a military victory. Critics do not tie themselves in knots trying to reconcile Shakespeare's two different interpretations of the character. They simply accept the difference and analyse them separately.

[Edited on 07/31/2014 by pv]

http://monstersandcritics.wordpress.com/

Members Online

UserOnline

Messages

Forum

Welcome Guest