Fight Like a Magical Girl

The Elves are not the children of the Valar, they are the Children of Eru. The Valar themselves are "creations" of Eru but not his children, per se; there's a distinct difference between the more ambiguous relationship of Eru to the Valar and the firmly paternal relationship of Eru to the Elves (and Men). However, it is true that the Valar act like somewhat overprotective parents to the Elves that live in their domain.

The only Elves we meet in LOTR who lived in Valinor are Galadriel and Glorfindel, not Celeborn. It is true that Tolkien had some drafts where Celeborn also lived in Valinor, but those were retcons written after LOTR had already been published, and do not make sense with the text of LOTR. In the published LOTR, Celeborn is a Sinda elf who never went to Valinor, but he was a relative of Elu Thingol, an Elf king who was married to Melian the Maia, who lived with her husband in Middle-earth and definitely influenced their kingdom.

(Also, Glorfindel is doubly unique in that he came to Middle-earth from Valinor, died in Middle-earth, was reborn in Valinor, and then came back to Middle-earth. Galadriel just went the one time and stayed.)

The power of the Elves and of the Numenoreans has less to do with "proximity to Valinor/the Valar" and more to do with...well, for the Elves, it's connection to and mastery over the Soul, an for the Numenorean Men it's literal direct ancestry from both Elves and Maiar that gives them the foundation to build on that same kind of mastery. This is a complicated subject, and while geography plays a role in power, it's not as important as other aspects IMO.

Elrond having less power than Galadriel is...debateable. Personally I would rank them about equal. He is certainly less flashy with his power than she is, though.

Technically Beren was the ancestor of the Numenorean kings, so yes "part of the line," but again it's more complicated than that... Luthien (daughter of Melian and Thingol, half-Maia and half-Elf) is the ancestress of Aragorn, but it's also important to note that her granddaughter Elwing married another half-elf, Earendil, whose mother Idril was a Valinorean elf living in Middle-earth. Their children are Elrond, who chose to be an Elf (and has a lot of magical power!) and Elros, who chose to be a Man and became the first King of Numenor. Eventually Elros' Numenorean descendants founded Gondor and Arnor, etc etc etc, and Aragorn is the product of all that impressive ancestry - with a lot of human generations in-between to water it down. Arwen, as Elrond's daughter, is much more closely related to the original Elf-mortal couples (and her mother, Elrond's wife, is the daughter of Galadriel and Celeborn, mixing in even more impressive ancestors!).

Aragorn's power is not just to do with his ancestry, though; like with the Elves of old, it's a lot to do with his own internal mastery of his spirit. Faramir, also of Numenorean ancestry, has similar capabilities - but notably, his brother Boromir did not. This is because insight/foresight/"magic" was something he both had talent in and worked to master, like Aragorn. (Aragorn had the benefit of being raised by elves.)

The analysis of magic objects is spot-on, and the most relevant part of this discussion, so great job there. I would just like to emphasize the discussion of willpower, because that's really what it boils down to: yes, proximity to the Valar helps; yes, elven ancestry helps, but when you come down to it, the most important thing is strength of will. Elves, Maiar, Valar, Numenoreans, even regular humans and hobbits (and dwarves) - some might have a leg up when it comes to their innate willpower and connection to their own souls, but any one of them, given the strength of will and the practice of making it stronger, has magical potential.

At the time of LOTR, Cirdan has long since given his Ring of Power (Narya) to Gandalf. The third ringbearer is actually Elrond. (Again, not less powerful than Galadriel, just not as obvious!)

Another example of the Ring's (Sauron's) will dominating its bearer is when Sam briefly carries it, he has a vision of ruling over an amazing garden. Being Sam, he has the practicality to not fall for that temptation, but it goes to show that the Ring will manipulate its bearers with whatever would work best against them.

endurance: grab a handful cant solve this mystery on a empty stomach

you bite onto something hard and metalic

composure [legendary] success: you bite through as if it were nothing, you cannot show weakness infront of this kid, you wouldnt want to have a repeat of cuno

interfacing: you feel as if you have just become one with technology

It's very good, and was prescient for a lot of the early days of the covid pandemic. I found myself returning to it often in the first couple of years because of how steadfast it was in its hopefulness.

Last year she wrote a novelette, "The Year Without Sunshine," which attacks a similar problem in a similar way; instead of pandemic, this one is about the aftereffects of a distant nuke or a massive volcano explosion (it doesn't say), which has churned a great deal of dust into the air, causing massive damage to society and agriculture. The story covers one neighborhood, pulling together to keep each other alive--not through violence, but through lawn potatoes and message pinboards and bicycle-powered oxygen concentrators.

"Maya angelou's family killed a pedophile that raped her, and that just traumatized her more. "I thought that I had caused the man’s death, because I had spoken his name. That was my seven-and-a-half-year logic. So I stopped talking for five years." Read I know why the caged bird sings."

and here is my comment:

the fantasy of killing a pedophile to defend your child is... an escape from reality. as with all fantasies where a single act of violence stands for a lifetime of effortful care. it lets us off the hook for the day to day labor of actually protecting the human beings around us. it gives us an excuse to look away from what abuse actually looks like.

it allows us to ignore that setting boundaries is a daily practice. it allows us to ignore the subtle ways in which we punish children for having boundaries. it allows us not to think about things we can do, the effort we can put in, in smaller repeated ways, to be kind and caring. to be safe to talk to.

it is a grand gesture that, were you to actually go through with it, would neither prevent the harm that you fear nor help your child to heal from it. it is an idea with no bearing on reality for 99.99% of people, while rape and abuse are a reality for a large fraction of people.

it is not useful to imagine killing a pedophile. it is not useful to claim you would kill a pedophile. it wouldn't be useful to actually attempt to kill a pedophile in almost any situation.

it is useful to think about how you can help your child know they can get help. they can say no. they can tell adults to stop. they deserve to be comfortable. they deserve to be informed.

the entire point of the post is that your child will not be saved by your imagined wrath. the entire point is that your day to day actions, and your attitude towards children as people, are more impactful to your child's well-being. far more realistic. more important.

not least because your child doesn't need you to be wrathful. they need your love. they need care. they need attention.

meanwhile, the public performance of wanting to kill child abusers doesn't do anything to child abusers. most child abusers believe they are doing the right thing for their children.

saying you want to kill abusers doesn't signal anything good to children, either. as others have said, it makes children more afraid to speak up and ask for help. that might be their mom, their coach, their troop leader. it gives those abusers leverage; the children cannot tell if they want things to be stable.

and it makes it harder for adults to BELIEVE children, too! because if their child was really abused, then they've staked their honor on committing that violence, even if it was against their brother or spouse or grandpa or pastor or neighbor or their other kid's favorite babysitter. and if they don't want to do that, well... then they must decide whether they believe completely their child, or whether their child's boundaries must really be respected, or... if maybe it's impossible to know.

how many abuse survivors have tried to disclose, only to be told that so-and-so wouldn't do that, or they didn't mean it, because so-and-so loves you and we all like so-and-so. this dichotomy goes both ways, psychologically. if a child abuser is entirely evil and has to be killed, then someone who's not entirely evil and i don't want to kill can't be a child abuser. this must be something else. there must be a mistake.