Take Pity upon Him: Did Maedhros Really Threaten to Kill Elrond and Elros at the Third Kinslaying?
The other day, I was reading a story about Maedhros and Maglor during the attack on the settlement at Sirion. Maedhros and Maglor search for the Silmaril. Together, they burst into a room and find not the jewel but the twin sons of Eärendil, Elrond and Elros. The twins try to defend themselves but they are too small. Maedhros lifts his sword to slay them and–
Then, suddenly, it occurred to me: That never happened.
The idea that Maedhros wished to slay the sons of Eärendil before his hand was stayed by Maglor is a popular fallacy in Silmarillion-based fiction. I was curious as to how many people thought that it was canon that Maedhros threatened to kill Eärendil’s sons at Sirion, so I posted a poll in my LiveJournal. As of collecting poll results on 17 November 2008, at 11 AM EST, just under 13% of respondents thought that “[d]uring the attack on the settlement at Sirion, Maedhros wanted to kill Elrond and Elros, but Maglor stopped him.” But, perhaps more intriguing than that, just over 28% of respondents weren’t sure if this was canon or not, which means that 41% of Tolkien fans who responded to the poll either thought that Maedhros’s threat to the boys at Sirion was either canon or possibly canon.
But this idea is a fanon, though I think the poll results underscore that it is a tenacious one. I remember encountering it in some of the first Silmarillion-based stories that I read. As attested by my recent experience, it is still making the rounds, and almost half of Tolkien readers don’t recognize it as AU (nor are authors writing stories based on this fanon particularly forthcoming about this fact, at least in my experience, which suggests that they likely believe its canonicity as well or believe that a fanon so deeply entrenched no longer warrants an “AU” designation … though tell that to Maedhros/Fingon authors!). This is intended in no way to reflect poorly on readers or authors who either believe this to be canon or who think there is a possibility that it might be. I would have to disparage myself as well, since at one point in my “career” as a student of Tolkien’s works I would have confidently checked the “Canon” option. When I first encountered this fanon, I was not well-versed in canon, so my mind adjusted what I read in Tolkien’s books to accommodate what enough authors wrote about that, surely, it must be true. Right?
Defining canon is difficult for any of Tolkien’s works, but that difficulty is compounded when trying to make sense of The Silmarillion. The Silmarillion was published posthumously. It was an incomplete and ever-evolving work that Tolkien had literally spent a lifetime writing. Christopher Tolkien took what drafts and scraps he could find and attempted to create from it a coherent history that he felt represented his father’s last word on many subjects that had never achieved anything near to finality in JRRT’s lifetime. With the publication of The History of Middle-earth series, fans and students of JRRT’s work were given access to the same materials with which Christopher Tolkien had worked–and then some–and the unique opportunity to Monday-morning-quarterback CT’s version of The Silmarillion. Hence, it is not at all uncommon to find Silmarillion authors who don’t use parts of The Silmarillion as their primary canon but prefer the “HoMe version” that they feel probably better represents JRRT’s final word on a subject. Therefore, when discussing matters of “canon” in The Silmarillion and how fanons evolve from the texts, it is important to consider not only The Silmarillion but the portions of The History of Middle-earth on which it is based.
What does The Silmarillion say about Maedhros and Maglor’s relationship with Elrond and Elros? It’s pretty straightforward:
For the sons of Fëanor that yet lived came down suddenly upon the exiles of Gondolin and the remnant of Doriath, and destroyed them. In that battle some of their people stood aside, and some few rebelled and were slain upon the other part aiding Elwing against their own lords (for such was the sorrow and confusion in the hearts of the Eldar in those days); but Maedhros and Maglor won the day, though they alone remained thereafter of the sons of Fëanor, for both Amrod and Amras were slain. Too late the ships of Círdan and Gil-galad the High King came hasting to the aid of the Elves of Sirion; and Elwing was gone, and her sons. Then such few of that people as did not perish in the assault joined themselves to Gil-galad, and went with him to Balar; and they told that Elros and Elrond were taken captive, but Elwing with the Silmaril upon her breast had cast herself into the sea. …
Great was the sorrow of Eärendil and Elwing for the ruin of the havens of Sirion, and the captivity of their sons, and they feared that they would be slain; but it was not so. For Maglor took pity upon Elros and Elrond, and he cherished them, and love grew after between them, as little might be thought; but Maglor’s heart was sick and weary with the burden of the dreadful oath. (1)
Nowhere in this account is Maedhros said to have wanted death for the young sons of Eärendil, much less that he tried to accomplish it.
However, there is one portion of this quote that I suspect is the basis of the fanon that Maedhros attempted to slay Elrond and Elros before being stopped by Maglor: “… [Elwing and Eärendil] feared that [their sons] would be slain; but it was not so. For Maglor took pity upon Elros and Elrond” (1). “Maglor took pity” … surely that implies a darker fate for the sons of Eärendil, does it not? Furthermore, Elwing and Eärendil had reason to fear that their sons would be killed by their captors.
To address the points out of order: of course Elwing and Eärendil thought the Fëanorians possessed the capacity and motivation to kill children. Elwing and Eärendil are certainly not partial to the Fëanorians, nor would they be particularly inclined to give them credit for mercy, much less justice. I think it’s important to distinguish between the point-of-view of The Silmarillion’s narrator–who possesses some distance if not complete impartiality–and the points-of-view of the characters, who certainly held the considerable bias expected of anyone who survived two attacks from the same people and would have lacked the emotional distance to overcome this. To them, the Fëanorians would have been inhuman, barbarian, capable of slaughtering small children simply to exact vengeance. Elwing, also, lost both of her brothers to the “cruel servants of Celegorm” during the attack on Doriath; would she even have known of Celegorm’s death and Maedhros’s attempt to save her brothers? (2) Furthermore, it is unlikely for reasons of propaganda: When trying to convince the people of Sirion of the justice of their cause in withholding the Silmaril from the Fëanorians, it would not have behooved Elwing or Eärendil to acknowledge their foe’s capacity for mercy. Short of painting Elwing or Eärendil as liars (which I am not willing to do), this makes it very likely that they would have come to believe this themselves, a belief that likely would have strengthened the more they invoked it.
So Elwing and Eärendil’s belief that their sons’ lives were in danger is neither surprising nor a reliable statement about the Fëanorians’ intentions.
Maglor’s taking pity on the sons of Eärendil really does not say anything about Maedhros either. In light of the fanon that Maedhros wished to slay the boys, of course, it applies quite neatly. But that is hardly the only interpretation to which that statement fits. A council might have met to decide the boys’ fate, at which Maglor spoke of his pity for them and his intentions to foster them. Perhaps the children were to be held as captives but for Maglor’s pity. Perhaps they were to be left in their settlement with the few survivors, but Maglor feared that this might cause them hardship or death and, pitying them, wished to offer them a better chance. Maybe they were to be fostered to someone else–say a mother with several children already–but Maglor chose to raise them instead. The interpretations into which that passage will fit are endless.
And, in fact, I would argue that the popular fanon under discussion here is one of the least logical interpretations, given what we know about Maedhros.
What do we know of him in The Silmarillion? His detractors will be quick to point out his oath and his role in three kinslayings, as well as the fact that he sat at the head of the House of Fëanor through all of the First Age and, therefore, would have borne primary responsibility for the kinslayings at Doriath and Sirion, which could not have happened without his consent. These things are all true. But there are other equally valid facts that temper his characterization. Of his house, canon shows him to be most concerned with unity and peace. At the Fëanorians’ first landing on Beleriand, he stood up to his father and asked that the ships be sent back for the House of Fingolfin. He relinquished the high kingship to Fingolfin not long after. He, with Maglor, attended the Mereth Aderthad. Canon shows him maintaining friendship with both the Houses of Fingolfin and Finarfin. He orchestrated the Union of Maedhros, which might have been successful but for treachery. Prior to both the kinslayings at Doriath and Sirion, he attempted diplomacy and was turned away both times. If we place credit for the kinslayings most solidly on his shoulders as the head of his house, so we must place credit for the diplomacy that, had it been accepted, would have avoided need for the attacks.
But perhaps the most compelling evidence against the fanon in question is Maedhros’s action after he discovered that the sons of Dior had been left to starve in the woods by Celegorm’s servants: “Of this Maedhros indeed repented, and sought for them long in the woods of Doriath; but his search was unavailing, and of the fate of Eluréd and Elurín no tale tells” (2).
If he was indeed repentant and went so far as to search “for them long in the woods of Doriath,” why would he slay out-of-hand two other young innocents in an almost identical situation?
I’d go so far as to argue that, based on what we know of Maedhros, to depict him as willing to slaughter two children without cause is out-of-character. Yes, a writer can make a case for something happening between the kinslayings at Doriath and Sirion that would make what we know of him based on almost six hundred years’ (3) evidence of statesmanship and mercy no longer applicable. But that writer will have to make a strong case for that and, frankly–given that most stories employing this fanon plop us right into the room with the sons of Eärendil or, at best, the battle–most stories do not. The assumption is that Maedhros is nasty enough to contemplate such an act, which is terribly out-of-character.
But, as I noted earlier, not all authors consider The Silmarillion as their canon. I think, then, that it is also necessary to look at what The History of Middle-earth has to say about this event and Maedhros’s role in it.
Elwing’s choice to withhold the Silmaril from the sons of Fëanor is one of the oldest ideas that was maintained consistently through to The Silmarillion’s publication and first appeared in the Nauglafring in The Book of Lost Tales 2. In fact, in Christopher Tolkien’s commentary on the next History of Middle-earth volume, he states, “The Sons of Fëanor have previously all been named only in the Tale the Nauglafring,” making their involvement with Elwing and her Silmaril as old as they are (4). At this point, however, The Book of Lost Tales lacks any mention of her children and the Fëanorians’ treatment of them.
But the idea did not proceed without changes. We see the story emerge again in The Shaping of Middle-earth (HoMe, vol. IV) in the summary “Sketch of the Mythology”:
Their son (Elrond) who is half-mortal and half-elfin, a child, was saved however by Maidros. When later the Elves return to the West, bound by his mortal half he elects to stay on earth. Through him the blood of Hurin (his great-uncle) and of the Elves is yet among Men, and is seen yet in valour and in beauty and in poetry” (5, boldface mine).
So, in the earliest version as this story takes shape, it is Maedhros who takes pity on Elrond, not Maglor.
“Sketch” was then expanded into the Quenta Noldorinwa, or simply Quenta. For the section of the story concerned, there existed two versions. In the first version (Q1), we see the continuation of the idea in “Sketch” that Maedhros rescued Elrond: “But Maidros took pity upon her child Elrond, and took him with him, and harboured and nurtured him, for his heart was sick and weary with the burden of the dreadful oath,” where we also see some of the language of the published Silmarillion taking shape (6). The second version (Q2) at first continues this idea of Maedhros-as-savior. However, revisions to Q2 introduce two important changes. Elrond is given a brother, Elros. And Maglor and Maedhros switch roles, with Maglor becoming the children’s savior. The Earliest Annals of Beleriand and The Later Annals of Beleriand, which are believed to be slightly later than the Quenta, echo the changes in roles between Maedhros and Maglor. (See Notes for a more detailed analysis of the addition of Elros and the likely sequence in which the primary source texts were written and revised.)
And this, so far as we know, was Tolkien’s final word on the subject (7).
“After the hasty ‘Sketch of the Mythology,’ … the Quenta Noldorinwa [Quenta] was in fact the only complete version of ‘The Silmarillion’ that my father ever made,” writes Christopher Tolkien in the Prefare to The Shaping of Middle-earth. JRRT was interrupted in his work on The Silmarillion to write The Lord of the Rings. He simply never got back to it in its entirety. The fact that the wording used in the Quenta is almost exactly what would be published in The Silmarillion for the account of Elrond and Elros makes sense, given this: It was the final version that CT would have taken as “canon” when putting together The Silmarillion. So, in the HoMe, there is no mysterious expansion on the account given in The Silmarillion of Elrond and Elros’s fostering by Maglor that shows Maedhros to be ruthless in excess of what we observe throughout the rest of the published Silmarillion. In fact, we see quite the opposite: JRRT’s original conception of Maedhros was as the twins’ rescuer, not potential murderer. The reassignment of this role to Maglor came rather late and was only repeated in the Annals of Beleriand before Tolkien ceased to write any further on the subject.
I think that this is significant, not so much in asserting that Maedhros and Maglor were mis-assigned roles in the published Silmarillion (because Maglor-as-savior does appear to be a final and reliable revision) but to lend further proof to the fact that Maedhros behaving without mercy towards the twins is terribly out-of-character. With few exceptions, JRRT established early the roles the Fëanorians would one day have in the published version. Maedhros and Maglor–just as in The Silmarillion–stood out for their guilt and capacity for mercy as compared to their brothers. In the several versions of the “Silmarillion” found in The Shaping of Middle-earth, these traits can almost be said to become these characters’ foundations. Not only are they involved early in the sparing of Eärendil’s sons, they go so far as to forswear their oath following the desertion of Dior’s sons. They attack Sirion only reluctantly and under pressure from Amrod and Amras, who earn their deaths in that battle much as “the 3Cs” earn their deaths at Doriath:
In annal 210 it is said that Maidros actually forswore his oath (although in the final annal he still strives to fulfil it); and this is clearly to be related to his revulsion at the killing of Dior’s sons in the annal for 206. Damrod and Diriel [Amrod and Amras] now emerge as the most ferocious of the surviving sons of Fëanor, and it is on them that the blame for the assault on the people of Sirion is primarily laid: Maidros and Maglor only ‘gave reluctant aid’. This develops further an increasing emphasis in these texts on the weariness and loathing felt by Maidros and Maglor for the duty they felt bound to. (8)
As a self-proclaimed “Fëanatic,” attempts to vilify the Fëanorians beyond what their canonical deeds already accomplish for them tends to annoy me because of the flat characterization it produces, if nothing else. And part of me wonders if this fanon has been seized so eagerly by authors who don’t like the Fëanorians and are quick to assume the truth behind any besmirching of their names that isn’t dismissed outright by the canon.
But, then, a more reasonable voice replies that fanon is fanon, and there really is no reason to assume bias much less maliciousness at work behind this particular fanon.
After all, as MithLuin remarked in a comment on my original LiveJournal post on this topic, this fanon does add tension to an event hastily sketched in the published Silmarillion:
But conflict makes for good drama, so in a story, it works better to have them argue over this before he agrees, rather than writing:
“I want to keep them!” ~ Maglor
“Okay.” ~ Maedhros :)
This is an event of enormous historical and symbolic significance to people who study and write about Tolkien’s works. Its cursory treatment in the text belies the enthusiasm people feel for writing about it, and with good reason. In this event there is an intersection of the three ages that receive the most treatment in fiction set in Tolkien’s world. There are Maedhros and Maglor of the First Age, committing some of their final acts before going to death and self-exile, respectively; this event, in many ways, represents the closing of the chapter on First Age history. There are Elrond and Elros, who in the Second Age will aid in developing their respective Elven and mortal communities, in many ways representing here the beginning of the chapter on Second Age history. And, of course, all of this will culminate in the Third Age, the epic events of that era being impossible without this moment in distant history, when Elrond’s house and especially the heir of Elros (Aragorn) will aid in banishing Sauron from Middle-earth. It comes as no surprise to me, in looking at stories about this topic, to see an enthusiasm for tales about Maedhros and Maglor’s relationship with Elrond and Elros among fans of both The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings. There are few better examples of the continuity and connectivity of Tolkien’s several works than this.
And, at the same time, there is emotional power there as well: two kinslayers at the ends of their lives who still have love and mercy enough in their hearts to aid two orphans. There is symbolism in the loss of their twin brothers Amrod and Amras in the same battle in which the twins Elrond and Elros are found; there is the deeper connection to those twins Eluréd and Elurín lost during the second kinslaying and the chance to make amends, especially for Maedhros, for that terrible deed. Perhaps this is the reason for my distaste for this fanon. In Maedhros and Maglor’s mercy toward Elrond and Elros, Tolkien has created an event that serves as the climax to one story at the same time as it acts as the preface to another, as well as providing an apt example of the complexity of character in The Silmarillion that makes writing about the book such a delight. Thrusting one of the characters undeservedly into the place of villain ruins this.
Works Cited
- 1. J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion, “Of the Voyage of Eärendil and the War of Wrath.” Return to first in-text reference
- 2. Ibid., “Of the Ruin of Doriath.” Return to first in-text reference
- 3. This figure was computed using the final dates in The Grey Annals and The Tale of Years, both found in Volume XI of The History of Middle-earth: The War of the Jewels. These are JRRT’s most up-to-date timelines and fit together without contradicting each other, so can be used in conjunction to get fairly accurate chronologies for the First Age. I measured between the burning at Losgar (4997 YV or 47,871 Sun Years after the arrival of the Valar in Arda) and the Fëanorian sack of the settlement at Sirion (531 FA or 48,432 Sun Years after the arrival of the Valar in Arda) for a total of 561 years. Return to first in-text reference
- 4. J.R.R. Tolkien, The History of Middle-earth. Vol. III, The Lays of Beleriand, ed. Christopher Tolkien, “Commentary on Part III: ‘Failivrin.’” Return to first in-text reference
- 5. J.R.R. Tolkien, The History of Middle-earth. Vol. IV, The Shaping of Middle-earth, ed. Christopher Tolkien, The Earliest ‘Silmarillion’: The ‘Sketch of the Mythology,’ §17. Return to first in-text reference
- 6. Ibid., The Quenta §17. Return to first in-text reference
- 7. Ibid., The Earliest Annals of Beleriand, introductory material. Return to first in-text reference
- 8. Ibid., The Earliest Annals of Beleriand, Commentary. Return to first in-text reference
Bibliography
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion, ed. Christopher Tolkien.
J.R.R. Tolkien, The History of Middle-earth. Vol. II, The Book of Lost Tales 2, ed. Christopher Tolkien.
J.R.R. Tolkien, The History of Middle-earth. Vol. IV, The Shaping of Middle-earth, ed. Christopher Tolkien.
J.R.R. Tolkien, The History of Middle-earth. Vol. V, The Lost Road and Other Writings, ed. Christopher Tolkien.
Notes
Annal 329 of The Later Annals of Beleriand reads, “The folk of Sirion were taken into the people of Maidros, such as yet remained; and Elrond was taken to nurture by Maglor.” This seems almost a reversal on the addition of Elros in the Quenta, until one considers that the multiple sources under discussion here are believed to be written close in time to each other, and it is not always possible to accurately date the revisions made. CT’s Commentary on the Later Annals of Beleriand, in the commentary to Annal 325, makes note that, “The order was then inverted to ‘Elros and Elrond’. No doubt at the same time, in annal 329, ‘Elrond was taken’ was changed to ‘Elros and Elrond were taken.’ This isn’t entirely relevant to the topic under discussion but is more to satisfy the curiousity of astute readers who note that my conclusions do not match exactly with the text proper of The Later Annals of Beleriand. Given all of this, I consider the following timeline as far as the composition and revision of JRRT’s various primary sources:
- The ‘Sketch of the Mythology’: Maedhros as savior of Elrond
- Quenta Noldorinwa, version 1 (Q1): Maedhros as savior of Elrond
- Quenta Noldorinwa, version 2 (Q2): Maedhros as savior of Elrond
- Q2 revised to reverse Fëanorians’ roles: Maglor as savior of Elrond
- The Earlier Annals of Beleriand: Maglor as savior of Elrond
- The Later Annals of Beleriand: Maglor as savior of Elrond
- Q2 and The Later Annals of Beleriand revised to add Elros: Maglor is now the savior of Elrond and Elros, and the final version has taken shape (Return to post)
lease, come inside my humble cottage and have a seat by the fire. Many are the stories here, and they are not the sorts of stories you'll often hear beyond these walls. Yes, the world is listening--and judging--but do not worry. You are safe here. I am the Heretic Loremaster. I read the same books as everyone else, but I read them a little differently: I don't necessarily take them at their word. I like to look at the stories that build our mythological history from the eyes of those disfavored by that history.
Speaking as one who has written That Scene (http://www.storiesofarda.com/chapterview.asp?sid=4492&cid=18176), here’s the reasoning behind how I made things go down:
What went down: Maedhros watches Amrod and Amras get killed, then goes to find Maglor. He finds Maglor in a room filled with dead soldiers and ladies-in-waiting, with Elwing having departed through the window, presumably to her death, though they don’t see her body on a cursory glance out the window. As Maedhros and Maglor discuss things, Elrond and Elros crawl out from beneath the body of a dead lady-in-waiting. Maglor acts first and embraces the kids to comfort them. Maedhros takes a few moments to realize who they are, then picks up his sword.
Pause. What did I have going through Maedhros’s head? He’s just ordered an almost unprovoked, certainly over-savage attack on civilians. In the process, he hasn’t gotten his jewel, he’s lost two-thirds of his remaining brothers (at this point, possibly his only truly reliable allies), and he *knows* he’s done wrong. These little boys are the heirs and the only witnesses to the destruction he’s wrought, and at some point, their Daddy is going to come home and find out what Maedhros has done. If Daddy doesn’t come after Maedhros and Maglor for vengeance, the kids certainly will, when they grow up.
However . . . if the kids don’t grow up, a) they can’t tell Daddy what happened, on the off chance that he might actually return — if Daddy doesn’t have an eyewitness to point a chubby little finger at Maedhros, he doesn’t have a good reason for vengeance — and b) they can’t come after Maedhros and Maglor themselves. However much Maedhros likes kids (my version of him is kind of indifferent to kids, actually), his brother comes first. So, as distasteful as it is, the kids may have to be sacrificed.
It’s not a pleasant deed, but Maedhros can’t see any alternative. However, he’s definitely open to another argument, such as the one Maglor makes: I want to keep them. Maedhros doesn’t take much convincing, and indeed, it’s his memories of Elured and Elurin as much as Maglor’s pleading that make him put the sword back down. In essence, he sees that the prudent thing to do would be to kill Elrond and Elros, but he doesn’t want to do that, and is willing to take any excuse not to do so, including letting his dear baby brother take home two stranger children who may very well attack him when they grow up.
I’ve read (and really enjoyed) “Four Hands Around” and wouldn’t even have recalled that you used That Scene. I understand your reasoning … and you have reasoning.
There is the big difference.
In reality, I don’t care a whit about what people write or what interpretation they use. I may disagree … but not to the extent of some lunatics who’d like to ban interpretations or whole genres that they detest. In reality, a character who is written convincingly different from how I see him or her is a rare treat; kind of a chance to see the stories of The Silmarillion again for the first time. For example, tonight I read Uli’s story Maglor’s Harp. Her Maglor bears no resemblance to mine. I don’t even like, as a general rule, “crazy Feanorian” stories, much as I don’t tend to like “child-killing Maedhros” stories. But she had me completely convinced, and I really enjoyed the story, much as I enjoyed “Four Hands” (though it’s been woefully long since I last read it) despite the fact that your choices would not have been mine. You did a good job to convince me, so that didn’t matter.
Fanon bugs me not so much because it’s fanon but because it’s so often perpetuated because it fits neatly with What People Think Tolkien Said so that they never bother to find out What Tolkien Really Said. Of course, I realize that I’m trying to have my cake and eat it too here. I’ll be the first to crow about how “fan fiction” is so lovely because it is more like the collective creativity in which people have been engaging for millennia rather than the commercialized, target-market fiction of today. Sharing and collectively developing a story means that people will take as “canon” things that aren’t part of the original, and I accept that … and have to.
But I still find myself annoyed that some AUs/interpretations get a pass while others are endlessly ballyhooed for not being close enough to What People Think Tolkien Said.
Well, at the least, it gives me an excuse to write lengthy research essays on rather petty topics.
Well, at the least, it gives me an excuse to write lengthy research essays on rather petty topics.
LOL! If you did not delve so thoroughly into the realm of dangerous knowledge, you would not be Dawn Felagund.
This is a masterfully detailed and researched piece in defense of Maedhros, and I’m encouraged to read French Pony’s story based on her interpretation.
A couple of vaguely topical thoughts:
1) On canon. As I’ve examined JRRT’s work, canon becomes more and more nebulous to me, particularly in the context of his “mythopoeia.” In our primary world, tales of a people’s mythology vary. There is no governing body of “rules” or officially recognized books in myth, unlike canon, which is more defined. The Silm and the tales in The HoMe fall under the mythological, as far as I can see. Hmmmm, maybe I should write a screed on this and toss it your way. Just another way of interpreting the legendarium.
2) The vilification of Fëanor et fils. Something I find rather curious is that Fëanor’s bloody rebellion is considered reprehensible, yet I’ll bet that not a few people who consider him (as well as his sons) “bad” celebrate the 4th of July in the United States. What the heck do they think the Minutemen were doing to the British regulars in Boston? Having a swank tea party? What did Jefferson say? “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Yet we lionize Jefferson. We honor the patriots who rebelled against the British and killed their English-speaking brethren. If that’s not Kinslaying, I don’t know what is.
OK, a strict comparison between the War of American Independence and Fëanor and crew isn’t accurate, but, well, heretically speaking, it isn’t such a stretch. ;^)
And thanks for letting me rant.
~ pandemonium, who qualifies 5 times over to join the Daughters of the American Revolution if they weren’t such a collective of reactionary nitwits.
I agree very much that this incident is a ‘hinge’ of the stories, closing out the first age, and opening up the second. Tolkien wanted so much to have an Eriol/Aelfwine character who would hear the tales of the elves and bring them to men, serving as a bridge character, but it does not fit with the later legendarium. Bilbo becomes the closest – his ‘Translations from the Elvish’ could very well be how the tales of the Silmarillion come down to later ages. But the ‘voice’ of the Silmarillion is someone looking back from the end of the First Age, knowing full well what tragedies will befall the characters, before they happen.
I have thought for some time now that Elrond seems most suited for narrator. He was born at the end of the Age, and thus did not live through any of the events, giving some of the feel of history and inevitability…and a little remoteness to the tale. And yet they all touch closely on him – the men, the elves, and yes, the Fëanoreans – he grew up with these people as his family, his ancestors. I have not read Nilmandra’s “History Lessons,” but I think she uses Elrond passing on this knowledge to his own twin sons to recreate the stories of all three ages.
So, you know, if they ever get the rights to make a movie of the Silmarillion (sometime after CJRT’s death), they can use Nilmandra’s idea as a framing device to tie it all together.
If you are interested in how all the various texts were put together to make the published Silmarillion, you may want to check out a new reference book coming out this April called “Arda Reconstructed” by Kane. He traces the sources of every word (using HoME), thus noting the editorial changes introduced by CJRT and which versions made it past the cutting room floor. An excerpt is available here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OON/is_/ai_n30956840
As for the original question: I do not think that Maedhros would wish to harm innocent children…but I do think he is capable of it, if the Oath demands it of him. He was able to maintain his standards leading up to the Fifth Battle – but afterwards, anything goes. Thus, I do not see someone portraying him as overeager to get these kids out of the way as being completely out of character. His character is all but destroyed going into the War of Wrath anyway. He is incredibly broken by the time the attack on the Havens comes – both he and Maglor are sick to death of the Oath…but keep following it anyway. So even if it’s fanon, it is not as completely out of character as some other things – like Maedhros/Fingon
Teasing, teasing…
I have to admit I never gave much thought as to in what way THAT scene was canon or fanon, but actually many of my favourite portrayals of the event use it. I think the comment by MithLuin pretty much mirrors my attitude towards it: I like the conflict.
And as in many things fanon (at least in my case!) I never even thought to think about the fact if and how the “Maedhros wants to kill Elros and Elrond”-scene is actually “justified” by canon. Still I don’t think it’s completely OOC. I can actually imagine Maedhros at Sirion as unhinged enough to do it, having just lost two more of his remaining brothers and having had to finally say “bye” to the one Silmaril within his reach at that moment (MithLuin’s last paragraph in her comment pretty much sums it up). I think it may have happened, pretty much in the way you”re saying something impulsively and feel sorry afterwards (it’s the harmless version, but it tends to happen to my rather big mouthed self!).
In the end, I guess it really depends a lot on characterization and a personal interpretation of what was actually written. And depending on how a certain writer has shaped the character of Maedhros (his characterization is actually – except for some similar traits – pretty diverse, I think) THAT scene may or may not be believable.
If it’s really canon is of course a completely different kind of question as can be seen in your essay.
Anyway, all thumbs up on this. You’re such a perceptive reader it makes me blush in shame.
Pandemonium: I totally agree with you on Point the First regarding myths and canon, although I tend to look at the canon from a more historical perspective, as having been passed down from loremasters of the First Age and earlier (Pengolodh and Rumil), likely through Elrond (as MithLuin suggests further down the thread) to Bilbo in the Third Age, which then was translated into Old English and/or English for us. However, I also think that, by the point that Bilbo was cracking open Elrond’s dusty old books, most of the Silm-related stories had achieved a status more like legend than history; I mean, we’re talking about a mortal being looking thousands of years into the past at figures who probably starred in Hobbit bedtime stories much like we have King Arthur and Robin Hood. In short, I don’t think that there’s much absolute truth to be found in canon. I think that what there is tends to be those facts that are so bland and to-the-point that it would be senseless to lie about them or distort them. For example, I think it’s pretty safe to say it is fact that Feanor had dark hair. It’s clearly expressed, there is no disagreement, it fits what would have been known about the Noldor in the Third Age, and–perhaps most importantly–what would be the point in lying about this? There would be a point to lying about whether Maedhros and Fingon were lovers, whether Maedhros was a mostly good guy (save that pesky Oath!), or whether Fingolfin might have provoked Feanor an eensy bit … or at least allow bias to shape those stories in a particular direction acceptable to the politics of the time. (Yes, Pengolodh, I am looking especially at you!) But, after those few facts–and there are not many–there are few bits of “canon” that I trust as truth.
You know that I would love any screed that you’d like to toss my way!
On Point the Second, this ties back in–for me with my historical perspective on canon–Point the First. The saying goes that history is written by the victors. If the Feanorians had been successful and had reclaimed the Silmarils, and it had been they rather than Earendil who managed to bring about victory against Morgoth, I’ve no doubt that the actions of Dior and Elwing (who are hardly blameless in what happened to their people) would be receiving the scrutiny, not the Feanorians, and the Feanorians would be hailed as heroes, not unlike the American revolutionaries.
Personally, when I’m writing fiction–whether Silmfic or o-fic–my motto is that all characters, at the end of the day, have to be able to sleep at night. Or, in their own eyes, what they are doing is just and right; history will necessarily place a judgment on their deeds, but it is not the only way to look at things. This is why I love those stories that take a “bad guy” (like Sauron
) and try to show history from that person’s PoV versus the favored view of history.
And you’re welcome to rant here whenever you’d like. I certainly do, and it’s hardly fair to keep all the rantastic fun to myself.
MithLuin: I totally agree with your ideas on Elrond. In the Foreword to HoMe I, CT expresses regrets that he did not make it clearer that the Silm was the result of Bilbo’s work (I think he felt a little embarrassed that scholars like Shippey beat him to the idea
) using “sources written and living” (not an exact quote; I didn’t look it up). To me, that could only be one person: Elrond. Like you said, he is connected to all of the major players in the Silm. For the same reason that his house is so important to the plot of the stories as a way to unite the kindreds and bring about the kind of change that could not happen otherwise, I think that Elrond’s house also serves as a means to bring structure to the story as a history/myth being passed throughout the ages. It really makes quite genius sense, when I think about it. I like to think, for example, that the reason the Feanorians get fair treatment at parts of the Silm is because of Elrond’s influence. I can’t imagine that Pengolodh would be so generous … or that he’d be allowed to be so generous.
I agree that I could see any of the Feanorians killing children if the Oath demanded it of them. I’m not convinced that the Oath demanded it, though. French Pony defends her interpretation in “Four Hands Around” up-thread, and as I pointed out in my reply, I enjoyed this story immensely so she must have done a good job of convincing me in the story. But generally? I’m not convinced. I don’t see why trained and seasoned warriors like Maedhros and Maglor would have any reason to fear two small children or anyone associated with them. Earendil is a mariner; I don’t even believe that he is, at any point, mentioned wielding a weapon. He fights in the War of Wrath, but I seem to recall that he does so in Vingolote. I could be mistaken here; the War of Wrath is not one of my strong points in canon. Far more likely, I can see the Feanorians using the children as hostages, as you suggested on the poll post, to get onto Balar or something along those lines.
The “heat of the moment” argument makes sense. I don’t know that there is any evidence of Maedhros being hot-headed and prone to this sort of thing, but if we accept Elves as humans (and I do), then it is always a possibility. However, I think the author has to work a little harder to make this believable and not simply assume that the reader’s understanding of canon does the work for him/her.
And thank you so much for the link! I will definitely be looking into this because I’m always stuck trying to put together something like this for myself every time I take on a research project; it would be nice to have all the work already done for me!
UH: First of all, no blushing! And thank you! I appreciate “perceptive reader” as opposed to “geek who needs a life,” certainly.
Since I just wrote a pretty long reply to MithLuin, I won’t repeat too much here except to say that I’m just not convinced that Maedhros would have seen a need to kill the children, and, while it’s possible for any human to “crack” and do something regretable, we don’t see any evidence of this in Maedhros (at least not that I can recall), so while I think this would certainly make THAT scene believable, I think the author needs to do a little work to establish how and why Maedhros’s character has come to change from being diplomatic and wanting to use violence as a last resort to being unhinged enough that, in his rage, he slaughters two innocent children.
Which comes to your second point: I don’t oppose THAT scene on principle. There are authors who have done a convincing job with it. What irks me are those stories that plop us into the room with a blood-soaked Maedhros and Maglor and simply assume that I am going to buy the idea that Maedhros’s logical response to finding two small children is to … kill them?
I’m willing to be convinced about anything in fanfic. My favorite authors take on some wild premises and use a combination of canon, psychology, and characterization to make me believe in the truth of what they write. I’d sooner read a story like this than a “canon-compliant” story any day. But it takes a little work. And my over-analytical brain sees how THAT scene is generally accepted as making sense–despite much canon evidence to the contrary–and sees that as basing “canon” on What We Think Tolkien Said versus What Tolkien Did Say.
But I’m very biased as well in my appraisal of that.
We’re all biased. If you write about Fëanoreans, you have to ‘take sides’ on whether they are (mostly) good guys or bad guys. I think it is easy to see Maedhros and Maglor as sympathetic characters who were bound by their Oath. And I’m kinda sorta madly in love with Maedhros, so I’m likely to excuse him virtually anything (in a story). But I have certainly read plenty of fics where they are painted much more darkly than this, especially by the end of the First Age. Granted, I didn’t *like* all those fics, but that is neither here nor there – as I admited, I’m biased.
Do I think that Maglor and Maedhros had a serious disagreement over what to do with the twins? No. I think they talked about it, and I think that keeping them was Maglor’s idea. I do *not* think that Maedhros tried to kill them, wanted to kill them, thought he had to kill them, threatened to kill Maglor if he didn’t kill them, etc. But what I think is more significant is that any disagreement in a story has to be resolved between the brothers. What this scene reveals is not so much Maedhros’ attitude towards cute!elflings, but Maedhros’ relationship with Maglor.
And that is why I am willing to take the scene however the author paints it. The hostage idea has more than a little support in canon, and fits plausibly. French Pony paints Maedhros as extremely reluctant and heartsick to slay the boys, but seeing no choice in the matter because of future revenge. Fine. If it increases the drama and risk of how the battle goes down, it can work. But what it usually accomplishes in the bigger picture of the story is to drive a wedge of disagreement between Maglor and Maedhros. We know they choose differently in the end. Why? I think raising these boys has something to do with it, and gives Maglor a reason not to follow Maedhros to his death. If the author uses this scene to lead to that outcome…I can certainly see where she is coming from.
Even if Maedhros totally wouldn’t do that!
I think that is a really interesting perception about Maedhros and Maglor’s different choices post-Silmaril having to do with raising Elrond and Elros. I had never thought of it that way, but that’s a really intriguing line of thought to take.
I am willing to buy just about anything that is written well. French Pony is one of my favorite Silm authors; she could probably even sell me on inherently-evil!Feanor.
And she knows her stuff in terms of canon; I think that is a big difference. The saying goes that you have to know the rules before you break them. I think it helps to understand what hurdles a particular interpretation will have to overcome to make a reader who knows the canon believe that a particular interpretation makes sense, which is why I think I bristle more at the idea of THAT scene being thoughtlessly used, not that it is used at all. But, as I remarked in my comment to French Pony, that is the “price” of a creative endeavor that is, in part, socially transmitted, like fandom. Personally, I think it is worth it to get cranky over certain fanons in order to have creativity that, I think, represents the most basic form of story transmission among humans. I still think that fanfic, as a concept, is pretty darned cool. 
Btw, you’ll have to fight me for Maedhros …
Great post Dawn, you string everything so well together, its such a bliss for my muddled mind. Reading FF and so many interpretations on this makes one think… wait a second, what did the professor say about this exactly and at what length might be Christopher making judgement calls on matters that might not be what his father intended. You can look at his works from so many angles: historical, mythological.. you name it. That doesn’t make person’s a any better than b’s, it just makes it more fun to read and share. However…
As attested by my recent experience, it is still making the rounds, and almost half of Tolkien readers don’t recognize it as AU (nor are authors writing stories based on this fanon particularly forthcoming about this fact, at least in my experience, which suggests that they likely believe its canonicity as well or believe that a fanon so deeply entrenched no longer warrants an “AU” designation … though tell that to Maedhros/Fingon authors!).
I think that also depends on who brings the story. Author’s known for their thorough research on canon matters are quicker trusted than those who do not have such a background I think. I research nearly everything, however I like to make twists or lift out stuff that just reads AU, but it’s based on a bit at HOME. I like these works so much because the professor’s mind wandered into opposite directions sometimes
As for Maedhros and Fingon, I am not convinced they are a pairing canonwise, but a good writer can bring it to me in such a manner that I want to believe they are. I just haven’t encountered many.
Thrusting one of the characters undeservedly into the place of villain ruins this
But then again, what defines a villian? Are are villian’s purely evil and all heroes just purely good? I sometimes think that in life people need the black and white scales. When reading a character’s evolvement in HOME you see that perceived villian elves (take Eol for example), that not every elf is wholly good or evil. I sometimes ponder and given the timeframe Tolkien worked on these bits, he was influenced by his own experiences during WWI, but these days it is so easy to put people into comfy corners without pondering about it if it is justified.
To Mithluin:
If you write about Fëanoreans, you have to ‘take sides’ on whether they are (mostly) good guys or bad guys.
No you don’t. I just as easy write a bad Celegorm and still will portray him doing good things or bringing forth good sides of his characters. He has done not so noble things, but I refuse to stand on a biased side and make excuses for what he has done. The same applies to Maglor for me, not after having read Tolkien’s words about them. But sometimes people want to believe he was all good, gentle and wouldn’t even harm an innocent creature. For me that makes writing a character so much more fun by putting that light on character traits people try to write excuses for. I just don’t want to bring pure white or black characters on the monitor, but that’s me and that is why you won’t find me on either side when writing Fëanorians.
Thank you, Rhapsody. I will add a hearty “hear hear!” to your points about the many ways to look at the texts, as well as having to keep in mind that CT did make mistakes in presenting The Silmarillion (although I will never be one of those obnoxious fans who brays about how I could have done better), so what we’re taking as “canon” might have been nothing like what JRRT wanted, had he been able to publish The Silmarillion himself. I have to echo Pandemonium’s comment that, paradoxically, the more I study canon, the less willing I am to declare something as canon.
I don’t think that if something is based on the HoMe than it is AU. By that standard, stories where Orodreth–not Fingon–is Gil-galad’s father would be AU.
Yet, I understand your point that AU is terribly hard to define, and it’s not easy to draw a line, i.e. “This is AU and that is not.” To me, interpretations that are “extra-canonical”–that is, they aren’t necessarily written in the canon but can be justified using the canon–are not AU. I count Maedhros/Fingon in that. It is possible, using the canon, to make a case for that pairing. Whether the author makes it work is a different story (no pun intended). To me, AU is when the author takes what JRRT has written and flips it completely on its head or discards it entirely. Hence, to me, most Maedhros-threatens-to-kill-E&E stories are AU. The author doesn’t do much–if anything–to show why a character who is canonically diplomatic, merciful, and highly regretful of his deeds would want to commit such a heinous act. Nothing in JRRT’s canon–HoMe, Silm, or otherwise–backs up that interpretation in and of itself.
French Pony’s “Four Hands Around” has been discussed extensively in this thread, and I’m going to invoke it again. Is it AU? I don’t think so. As her comment evidences, and as I know from having read the story, she makes a good case for Maedhros behaving as he does. I don’t have to suspend disbelief, based on what I know of the canon surrounding this event, to enjoy her story.
But a story that begins when Maedhros charges into the room, sword ready to slay the little boys his brother found: that is likely to be AU to me. Why is this character behaving completely contrary to everything JRRT wrote about him?
I sometimes think that people conflate “AU” more with “what some fans will find controversial.” Most fans will not find Maedhros threatening to kill E&E controversial because it upholds what they think Tolkien said. They will find Maedhros/Fingon controversial because people have trouble moving past Tolkien’s Catholicism to accept that in a culture of humans said to be ancestors of ours, homosexuality would have existed. That Maedhros/Fingon can be justified using canon and can’t be discarded outright using canon has no bearing on their insistence that it bear the “AU” label.
That rant was only slightly on-topic. I really need to make a separate post.
Yes, I think so. Which means, to me, that there are no villains in JRRT’s stories.
There are, as you note, characters who do good or bad deeds (or both) and who are shades of gray between “hero” and “villain.” Even Melkor. I remember being challenged by you on the SWG Yahoo! group once upon a time because I said that I thought that Melkor was the only true villain in The Silmarillion. Thanks to that discussion, I don’t think that anymore.
But plenty of people do, and some people would count characters like Feanor, Celegorm, Maeglin, or Turin as villains as well and feel that these characters’ flaws make them unequivocal “bad guys.” (And then some would count the Valar as villains … we’re more likely to find them here.
) Some years ago, I saw a comment on ff.net about how “Maedhros is the true villain in The Silmarillion.” Rather than rant at the author of that comment, I wrote AMC. 
On MithLuin’s comment, she does say “(mostly) good guys or bad guys,” (emphasis mine) so I don’t think she’s proposing any absolutes but, rather, that each person will likely come to a conclusion about a character concerning whether the weight of that character’s deeds tend more towards good or bad and that will influence the development of that character. For example, in writing Celegorm in AMC, I knew that most readers would come to the story knowing his bad deeds later in life. One of my goals, then, was to show how his character developed the capacity to perform those deeds while not becoming evil or a villain.
Also, you might be pleased to know that the next topic I’m considering for this sort of post is “Was Maglor wimpy?” because I, like you, am driven insane by all the pansy!Maglors out there.
I have to echo Pandemonium’s comment that, paradoxically, the more I study canon, the less willing I am to declare something as canon.
*raises hand* Yeps, me too. Its just sometimes when you think that’s you know the logical pattern of thoughts, you read something else and… That is why I say – when I feel the need to explain – variations and on what it is based, unless I am studying a battle like the Nirnaeth, then I take all in account. My small nano novel is based on Tolkien’s earlier views on the Valar and besides my femslash novella, my second take on a slash pairing who might have inspired your beloved Maedhros and Fingon (whom you have given a rich background).
I don’t think that if something is based on the HoMe than it is AU. By that standard, stories where Orodreth–not Fingon–is Gil-galad’s father would be AU.
Well and then there are also those who will not consider HOME as canon, except when it comes down to LACE and then just merely fractions of it. That really has me go like: wth? You only want to accept a small portion but the rest of that isn’t canon????
To me, interpretations that are “extra-canonical”–that is, they aren’t necessarily written in the canon but can be justified using the canon–are not AU. I count Maedhros/Fingon in that.
I still can’t see it, based on the mere fractions that is used by those to label it as canon. That it might be coloured by perceptions of the writer themselves, fine by me, but don’t get mad at me when I just don’t see it based on my own experiences with male and male friendships. For me it has nothing to do with Tolkien’s religion or on how he viewed sexuality (I just made a post on a yahoogroup where when it comes down to Victioran literature, writers whom can be compared to the professor (as it happened in the thread) still had a less stringent view on it. I mean many come with Austen, whereas I say, how about Flaubert then? Same time period, but Flaubert writes about aldultery and such, so don’t take Austen as how Victorian or regency romance should be). I find it hard to guess to estimate how Tolkien perceived things. I can do my best to do as much as research on his as a man in his time, but I also know to well that dad’s have different relationships with their children, so Christopher could only made mere guesses.
Btw the who is Gil-galad’s daddy is still giving me utmost naughty plotbunnies hehehe.
But plenty of people do, and some people would count characters like Feanor, Celegorm, Maeglin, or Turin as villains as well and feel that these characters’ flaws make them unequivocal “bad guys.”
I know. Turin so often gets so much hostility thrown at him.. poor guy. But I think people somehow need that.
On MithLuin’s comment, she does say “(mostly) good guys or bad guys,” (emphasis mine) so I don’t think she’s proposing any absolutes but, rather, that each person will likely come to a conclusion about a character concerning whether the weight of that character’s deeds tend more towards good or bad and that will influence the development of that character
But other people will put you in such camp, like: oh you write Celegorm being nice so you must see him as a nice and good guy, you you Fëanorian defender (that one can have that audicity hehe). As if he is not allowed to have the shades of grey.
Also, you might be pleased to know that the next topic I’m considering for this sort of post is “Was Maglor wimpy?” because I, like you, am driven insane by all the pansy!Maglors out there.
LOL! I am still very proud of my B2MEM narrative for war with Duty, Honour, Country, which kinda explains my view on him.
And I love, if not adore Celegorm in AMC. I think that you laid a plausible foundation for his character traits in how he can do the things he will do. What I also like is to explore the Celegorm after Mandos and how he deals with his actions. I am having an enormous great time with that because it also requires delving into his nature. Just fascinating stuff.
On picking and choosing indiscriminately among the HoMe for “canon,” I have long given up on understanding people who do this. Each reader is welcome to define canon how she chooses, of course, whether that definition makes sense to me or not. But it does seem that these are some of the more vocal and vitriolic people in fandom. I suspect, again, it is picking and choosing facts based on what they want those facts to say. LaCE confirms a lot of people’s suspicions about Elven sexuality based on Tolkien’s Catholicism; I suspect that’s why they treat LaCE as a gospel and other (equally valid) “facts” from the HoMe as irrelevant.
On Maedhros/Fingon, I just want to be clear that I don’t consider it canon. I consider it extra-canonical, or one possible interpretation using facts from the canon that is not denied outright by the canon. Other readers put together those facts into different shapes; I don’t think that one is better than another. Where a lot of Maedhros/Fingon authors see those facts as meaning that they must have had a romantic relationship, others will see it as deep friendship. And, actually, the latter is my preferred interpretation and the “canon” of my personal verse, although I love reading the Maedhros/Fingon pairing and will occasionally write it. There may be still other interpretations, though I think these are the two most popular. (I’d like to see a story, though, where the writer argues that Maedhros and Fingon actually dislike each other and behave as they do entirely because of political motivations!)
What I object to is the insistence that extra-canonical interpretations like this bear an “AU” label. It is not AU. It is one of many ways to organize a set of canon facts. Most fanfic is exactly that, so why do certain interpretations earn particular malice? My personal theory is because they go against what people think or want to believe JRRT said.
On Celegorm, I have also largely given up on people who cannot understand why I’d want to write shades of gray in my characters. I remember a particularly nasty reviewer on ff.net (not the one you’re probably thinking of
) who could not understand how I could possibly justify writing Feanor as a good father in AMC, all things considered. Feanor was, in this reviewer’s words, “OOC.”
Clearly, this person and I have different goals in and outlooks on fiction. After discussing the issue for a while, I eventually told the person this because I didn’t think we could have a productive discussion when our core beliefs about what makes “good characters” and, therefore, “good fiction” were so opposite. Luckily, the person moved on without further incident.
Some people like black-n-white, good-n-evil characterizations. Actually, this is a very popular style throughout the history of fiction; I see it in medieval writings all of the time, and I remember a Tolkien fan once complaining about how most modern fiction doesn’t have characters that embody the noble ideals of characters like Aragorn. Personally, this style does not work so well for me as the shades-of-gray characters that you’re defending. (Which is also why I like the Silm more than LotR!) To each her own, I guess.
[...] last post on whether or not Maedhros threatening to kill Elrond and Elros was canonical has generated a lot of wonderfully thought-provoking comments. Not surprisingly, many [...]
I am one of those writers who has Maedhros act in a sinister manner towards Elros and Elrond during the assault on Sirion. My ficlet REFUGE is here:
http://www.tolkienfanfiction.com/Story_Read_Chapter.php?CHid=2640
The story is from Elrond’s point of view; and he could not have known what was in Maedhros’ heart at the time, or what Maedhros was capable of. I think that Maedhros was gripped by battle-rage, and angered by the deaths of his youngest brothers, and so threatened the children, perhaps not even caring who or how young they were, just in a mood to kill, which can happen even to good men in a battle.
I do hold Earendil and Elwing blameless in what happened to their people. The Feanorians could have waited for Earendil’s return, or brought the matter to another arbiter, or tried to meet Elwing without violence. Don’t forget, they had attacked Doriath and killed not only Dior but Nimloth as well (and many other Elves) and condemned the young children Elured and Elurin to a cruel death (yes, I know that Maedhros didn’t authorize it, and regretted it, but it was Feanorians nonetheless) – If I were Elwing, I wouldn’t want to deal with the Feanorians and I would consider the Silmaril weregild, to some degree, for the innocents slain by the Feanorians.
Yes, the Silmarils had been made by Feanor and thus his sons had a claim on them, and swore the Oath. But did that give them the right to slaughter people who were not even born when that Oath was sworn, including women and children?
It was a good thing, considering later events, that Elwing held onto that Silmaril; since if Maglor and Maedhros had taken it, it is doubtful that they would have been able to use it to take them to Valinor to get help from the Valar, as Earendil did with Elwing’s aid.
I think that the out-of-canon incident of Maedhros threatening the children before Maglor took pity on them could well have happened – Maedhros was willing to destroy Sirion and kill anyone in his way, and he had good reason to be furious, his younger brothers were dead and the Silmaril had escaped them.
It is also possible that Maedhros was nowhere near the twins, and Maglor found them, or stopped another Feanorian, a soldier, from killing them. It would also show Maedhros’ virtue, that there was still some good in him (which I believe there was) that he was willing to be talked out of hurting or threatening the children, and later, as Maglor’s liege-lord, in allowing Maglor to raise the kids instead of imprisoning them. Or, if Maglor had not been there, and Maedhros was gripped by battle-rage, he might have, at the last second, realized that these were small helpless children and stayed his hand – all of these are possibilities. But for my story, little Elrond had to feel threatened, and it made for a more dramatic (in my opinion) moment if Feanor was doing the threatening; and I felt he was capable of it.
But in my story, Elrond would have no way of telling that Maedhros had a better side; all he would see was a menacing stranger with a sword.
I do admit to believing that the Feanorians did dreadful things; and that when I write fanfic, I do usually try to take the paths I think Tolkien meant to follow. (unless I’m doing parody) I think he saw some good in the Feanorians, but that they were becoming more and more twisted by the blind adherence to the Oath. That’s why I love it that Maglor takes pity on the children and nurtures them; it shows that Maglor still has a conscience and a capacity for love, and Maedhros still has enough good in him to allow that relationship to develop.
Anyway, I may not agree with all that you cover here, but I am in total awe of the scope of it and your research skills.
And I love French Pony’s “Four Hands Round”, which I read some time after writing my ficlet. Hers of course, was a real story, mine was a ficlet.
Raksha, I long ago realized that you and I will probably always have to agree to disagree where the Feanorians are concerned.
In the meantime, I can’t deny that I’m pleased that you’re still willing to discuss it with me!
I do take issue with the idea that the Feanorians’ actions somehow absolve first Dior and then Elwing from putting their people in harm’s way. No matter the entitlement they felt toward the Silmaril, both were trusted with the safety of their people and chose to take an action knowing that they were risking their people. Elwing especially: Dior at least could use the excuse that he didn’t really think that the Feanorians would stoop so low (and, indeed, he was relatively young, so that would be possible to argue, I think) or even that he thought that Doriath could be defended if they did. Elwing, though, had neither excuse.
Elven cultures, so far as I know, do not recognize the concept of weregild. Nor do I think it’s wise, in any case, to decide to take as weregild an object that, by one’s very possession of it, has the power to “damn” the known-violent seekers of that object. Surely, if the survivors at Sirion felt that they were due reparation for the kinslaying at Doriath (and, from my modern perspective, I don’t think this is unreasonable, though I can’t confidently say how this would be perceived by the multiple cultures involved at this point), then they could request something more suitable than a Silmaril; surely, they were capable of understanding that the Silmaril–no matter what their people suffered–could not serve as weregild; that the price for the Feanorians in relinquishing it was one that they would not be willing to pay.
So, from my perspective, I see leaders who chose, in the absence of what amounts to legal precedent, to decide to keep an object that they knew full well would bring the wrath of the Feanorians upon their people. That does not excuse the Feanorians’ actions, but neither do the Feanorians’ actions change the fact that first Dior and then Elwing had the power to stop the attacks on their people and chose not to.
However, I will say that I think there is more at work here than simply lusting after “bling,” as people like to say. I think that, too, is one of the great misconceptions of the battles over the Silmarils: These were not ordinary gemstones, and Elwing truly believed that hers kept her people safe, much as the Feanorians truly believed that their inability to possess it doomed them to Darkness. I think there is much more going on here than people merely being reckless or stupid but that the Silmaril itself innately influenced characters negatively and contrary to what they would have done if not “under the influence.” I have theories about this, but as I’m already rambling, then I’ll save them for a later post.
Which brings the Valar into the whole charade.
When I did those Silmarillion chapter summaries for Henneth-Annun two years ago, Tarion Anarore brought up the excellent point that why did it take a Silmaril to move the Valar to action? That’s getting off-point, but I think it is an interesting question.
So do I!
Appropriately, Pandemonium and I were talking via email yesterday about this, most specifically her most recent story, which takes Melkor’s perspective, and that we enjoy writing stories that don’t excuse the “bad guys” in the books but explain why they behaved as they did. You’ll never hear me call the first kinslaying the War of Telerin Aggression. Nor will you see me writing stories where Elwing is bad and evil for risking her people and deserting her children. More interesting, to me, is to consider why she did.
Likewise, the Feanorians are not bad people, but they fall into doing horrible things. That’s my take on it, and in my stories, I attempt to show how that came to pass.
Another point I keep in mind when assessing Dior and Elwing’s roles in the second and third kinslayings is that the history in The Silmarillion was certainly being written by someone who is sympathetic to them over the Feanorians. Even if Elrond had a hand in the histories (as I like to think that he did), I think this would be the case. So the fact that the histories are willing to admit at all that Dior and Elwing were approached diplomatically before being attacked, I think, is notable itself (and perhaps the work of Elrond, whose stay with the Feanorians may have given him a more balanced perspective).
Thank you for your thoughts on this and for continuing this discussion that I’m pretty sure has been occurring off and on for a couple of years now!
I don’t think either of us will ever change the other’s mind, but I do enjoy talking about it with you.
I definitely agree that the Valar have a lot to answer for! How they could just let Melkor/Morgoth go rampaging through Middle-earth, destroying the beings the Valar themselves had created, sowing death, destruction and heartbreak everywhere, and do NOTHING until Earendil shows up with a Silmaril to remind them that there’s a suffering world out there, is beyond me.
Of course, if they’d come and collected Melkor a year or two after the Noldor had come to Middle-earth, or even after Luthien sprang Beren from Mandos, then Earendil’s voyage would not have been so meaningful or central to the mythology of Middle-earth. And it was Tolkien who created them all, and he wanted Earendil’s story to be central to the mythology of Middle-earth.
I do wonder why Elwing could have chosen to die to keep the Silmaril from the Feanorians while the fate of her children was in doubt. I’ve been working on, for several months, a story about Elwing’s choices. I can only conclude that at the time the Feanorians harried Elwing to that window, she thought that her children were already dead. I can’t see any decent woman choosing to abandon her small children to a host of the same Kin-slayers who killed her own father.
I would really love to read that story about Elwing when you’re finished with it. If I happen to miss it through the usual channels, will you let me know?
Elwing is fascinating just because I have such a hard time explaining so much that she did. I don’t know how closely you follow the SWG, but Oshun has just written a bio of Elwing that brings up some interesting points. I’ve always wanted to write about her, but life is too busy for my current projects, much less new ones! (This blog aside …)
Re: the Valar …
In Morgoth’s Ring (though, for the life of me, I can’t remember which chapter/essay), JRRT explains that Melkor had immersed himself into so many parts of the earth that he could not be destroyed without destroying the earth. I suspect this was, in part, to deflect criticism of why the heck the Valar sit about on their hands instead of apprehending their wayward brother. However, it doesn’t address why they couldn’t have imprisoned him sooner, and Tarion’s point about the Silmaril is pretty suspicious.
In the end, I think a major idea in all of JRRT’s writings is that it takes darkness and tragedy to really make one appreciate what is beautiful and good in life, and that overcoming darkness through one’s own efforts (rather than through divine intervention, for example) makes life even more meaningful. So, thematically, it makes sense to me, but from a purely logical standpoint is still boggling!
Claudio/Darth Fingon just wrote an excellent story that took a First place among the October entries for the ALEC contest, “Blood as Warm as A Bird,” which takes a sympathetic view of Elwing’s choice and goes a step further by giving her some logical motivation. Beautifully done story, but still not an interpretation I find appealing.
Relating to the discussion with Raksha about this question, I think I can pretty certainly say that we approach Tolkien works with diametrically opposed methodologies. I approach Tolkien from the perspective of fanfiction and storytelling and not from that of trying to champion or determine Tolkien’s intent. The process of explaining his intention, as closely as I might be able to determine it, would be a very different process for me and result in completely different stories, but not the stories that I would enjoy telling.
I have no objective to others trying to do that. I do, however, strongly believe that both approaches are equally legitimate. I try to write stories that are consistent with the world Tolkien created, not his personal mores, religion, world view, or intention (which we can never, in any case, know perfectly). Most explanations of Tolkien’s intentions by fanfiction writers and readers do not stand up well to a scholarly examination. How about all the LotR fanatics who proudly claim not to care for the vast body of work upon which it is based?
Tolkien himself claimed he sought to create a mythology. A mythology by its nature is ceaselessly evolving and responsive to reactions, of the listener in the oral traditions or readers and writers in ours. I am responding to Tolkien’s stories not echoing them.
One additional point: I do not find it a particularly flattering or appealing when someone writes in a review of a fanfiction story: “This reads exactly like a missing passage from the book.” That might be an entertaining intellectual exercise for the writer, but those kinds of stories would not be ones I would seek to read. Never say never though. I have read a few of those that I enjoyed and others I admired on some level, but just saying in general that would put me off of reading a story.
On Rhaposdy’s point about Mithluin’s remark: “If you write about Fëanoreans, you have to ‘take sides’ on whether they are (mostly) good guys or bad guys.”
I do not write a selection of versions of any of my characters. I have one and one only for the present. Maybe at some point in the future, I might decide to create a new world/new personal canon, but for now, for me, there is only one I write and I remain internally consistent within it. There is nothing wrong with writing a whole string of different interpretations for the same character, it is just not something I like to do.
If I think Maedhros is mostly good. Why would I want to try to write him mostly bad? Or read him as mostly bad? Or try to convince a reader he is mostly bad? I miss the point on that one. But, as Rhapsody noted, some people enjoy it. Enjoy yourself!
(I do admit to having stopped reading writers who only write the story of Eomer’s courtship and marriage to Lothiriel over and over again, endlessly re-interpreting those two characters and changing the scenario of how and when they met. Enough is enough for me as a reader.)
I think certainly within any given story one must decided if they are “they are (mostly) good guys or bad guys.”
For Claudio/Darth Fingon’s new story “Blood as Warm as a Bird” (bad Maedhros–good Elwing) see this link: http://community.livejournal.com/a_l_e_c/7529.html
I’m going to reply to all of Oshun’s comments in one swoop …
I find the very idea of Tolkien’s intent to be a thorny one. He created something that he explicitly stated that he hoped would serve as a mythology or lost history for his people, the English. Now, no one will convince me that Tolkien, of all people–who studied medieval literature, for Manwe’s sake!–did not know what that meant. If anyone understood the complexity that is history, particularly assigning “good” and “evil” roles in history, it would have been JRRT. If anyone would have understood how a political or social climate could influence the expression of history and myth through story and literature, it would have been JRRT.
So I have a hard time believing that, if he was set on framing his stories as such, that he had an “intent” in the same sense that writers of stories that aren’t to act as history/myth can make choices with the intent of having the reader see the story in one particular way. I believe that he would have understood that, as history, his stories would have been turned and looked at from the perspectives of those who weren’t participating in their writing and that he opened his stories to that by 1) framing them as history/myth and 2) expressing the hope that other hands would take up his work where he left off.
Of course, I’m also well aware of my hypocrisy in scorning the idea of “intent” when my whole theory is dependent on Tolkien’s intent!
However, I agree with you that there is no wrong way to look at a story, and stories that seek to stick close to JRRT’s perceived intent are not inferior to stories that take off in wild directions with history and myth as the excuse. One, obviously, appeals more to me than the other, but that is just my opinion, which matters exactly as much as anyone else’s does!
On Rhapsody’s comment on taking sides …
I’m first of all kind of boggled that people write the same scene (only that scene? really??) over and over again. The closest I’ve come to that was a piece I was working on once where I was pursuing all sorts of ideas about what happened to Maglor, wild, tame, and fanonical alike. The only reason I stopped working on that piece and never published it was because it was lost when the disk it was on corrupted.
I have seen stories that take the same scene from two PoVs. I tend to find these hard to get through, as the author usually repeats a good bit between stories (even verbatim), so I end up skimming for the new stuff and don’t get the effect that I think the author intended. For such a model to work for me, each story must be unique enough on its own and also work to comment on the others. I think this becomes increasingly difficult, the more times one attempts to write the same scene.
Moreth’s Alqualondë is a story that does this well. Now how well “Alqualondë” would work if she’d added a third drabble from a third PoV … I think it would be very difficult to do so.
I’m not Rhapsody, so I can’t be certain, but I think she was replying more to the notion that one must decide whether the Feanorians are “all good” or “all bad,” not just the motley mix of virtues and flaws that characterize all of us as humans. I think this tendency was more pronounced when I got involved in the fandom: There were the stories where Feanor was an absolute miscreant who beat Nerdanel and raped Maedhros, and there were the stories where Celegorm was a misunderstood kitten who was moved to reluctant self-defense during the War of Telerin Aggression and found his name sullied ever after. Nowadays, I don’t see so much of that … but that is probably because of where I hang out, to a large degree.
But that was how I interpreted her comment.
However, I do agree with you: I’m not keen on re-imagining my characters. My characters are humans; whether they are “good” or “bad” will largely depend on the PoV from which I am looking at them. As for my own judgment, I default to the idea that I use when building characters: that every person must sleep at night so, at the end of the day, he or she must be able to live with his or her deeds in order to do so. Or: no one is a bad guy in his or her own eyes.
Thanks for the link to Claudio’s story, too. I will definitely be adding that to my must-read list!
” “Was Maglor wimpy?” because I, like you, am driven insane by all the pansy!Maglors out there. ”
Oh yes, please write that! For cryin out loud, he’s got Feanor’s and Nerdanel’s blood pumping through his veins. It is physically impossible for him to be wimpy.
Sheesh.
I will absolutely write a post against wimpy!Maglor!
Just as soon as my school schedule settles down, I will start the research. (I think that you will also be pleased to know that I’m working on an extended series arguing against the depiction of Feanor as a villain … 
)
Also, I have to say, it’s really good to see you around again.
I wanted to add a comment about the Valar here, since they were recently discussed on the SWG yahoo group. This is just my own perspective – I’m not arguing for how ‘canon’ this interpretation is.
Had the Noldor not rebelled, and taken matters into their own hands, the deliberation of the Valar in the darkness of the dead Trees would have likely led to a War against Morgoth in the near future. Feanor could have been part of it, and Morgoth would almost certainly have been taken down. Depending on how long it took, Doriath might have been in trouble, but it is possible that Melian could have held out long enough. I don’t think they would have done anything like that until after the rising of the sun at the earliest…but I doubt it would have been until the end of the First Age.
This didn’t happen.
By…impatiently…rebelling and taking matters into his own hands, Feanor effectively said he didn’t want the Valar’s help, and he wanted to fight this war himself. The Doom of Mandos was to warn him that he would fail, but when he persisted…they left him to it. The Valar allowed the Noldor to make their own choice in this matter. If anything, they show a much greater respect for the autonomy of the Noldor, not treating them as ‘erring children’ but rather as ‘responsible adults’ – how precisely should they have acted towards the Noldor? Forced them to do what was in their best interest?
That is…an odd way of looking at it, I know. I don’t think the Valar enjoyed doing things this way at all, and I don’t think they were sitting on their hands. Didn’t Manwe weep when he heard Feanor’s response to the Doomsman? But – he also recognized that the songs Feanor boasted of could not be bought in any other way. So his decision was – so be it. If you truly wish to fight a hopeless war without aid, then you may do so. Far be it from the Valar to force themselves upon you – they will let you learn your own lessons in your own time, and use only advice to deter you if you choose not to listen to their wisdom.
So, they waited until someone came from Middle Earth and asked for their help. Ulmo was impatient, so he didn’t just wait around, but did his best to get a mariner messenger over there pronto. As soon as Earendil arrived, the War of Wrath was kindled.
Yeah, so, maybe Feanor shouldn’t have taunted them saying that they would follow him….but maybe if he had waited, he’d have found out that they were really on his side. The whole thing’s an unfortunate mess, but we already knew that.
Oh, and while this story doesn’t have Fingon and Maedhros hating one another (they were best friends), Fingon is very angry with the implications of Maedhros’ oath, and it is politics that makes him keep talking to him about the plans for the 5th battle…..
http://www.storiesofarda.com/chapterview.asp?sid=4818&cid=19477
(I know I’ve mentioned perelleth’s ‘In Vino Veritas’ before, but not in this thread, anyway
)
“And this, so far as we know, was Tolkien’s final word on the subject (7).”
We have something more interesting… and more late!
It’s “Tale of years”, several short pojects for (unwritten) continuation of Grey Annals. It’s 1950s and HOME XI.
In version B (A has only “The Third and Last Kin-slaying”, B&D end earlier) we read:
“532 [> 534 > 538] The Third and Last Kinslaying. The Havens of Sirion destroyed and Elros and Elrond sons of Earendel taken captive, but are fostered with care by Maidros. Elwing carries away the Silmaril, and comes to Earendel [> Earendil] in the likeness of a bird.”