illustration from forever months ago that never escaped the rough sketch stage, probably because it is too depressing to paint. words from my elwing fic, she that was young and fair
hahaha imagine. imagine seeing your son at six and then the next time you see him he’s taller than you. and realising you’ll never know how tall he’d been at ten. imagine that. imagine reuniting with your son after six thousand years and the first thing you ask him is ‘how tall were you at ten’ because you had pictured him so clearly at that age yet knowing full well that you couldn’t possibly know. how tall he was at ten. who was taller. him or elros. how tall was elros at ten. boys grow so differently don’t they. especially at ten. imagine spending six thousand years wondering that. imagine seeing your mother and realising she looks younger than you. because she was so young when she… haha why don’t i just fucking die. anyway this is why i didn’t finish this.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
(Finally motivated to make this because someone said the Silmarillion elves committed 'all the war crimes', and while I know, I know they were just exaggerating for comic effect it still drives me up the wall.)
First piece of housekeeping: Technically speaking war crimes are war crimes because they were defined as such in various treaties. You aren't technically violating the Geneva Conventions if you aren't signatory to them. But, they do often get talked about more like universally applicable rules.
Second piece of housekeeping: I think no one is actually accusing the Fëanorians of, like, cutting undersea communications cables or impersonating the Red Cross. There are some war crimes which are obviously not applicable and I'm not going to discuss them.
Third piece of housekeeping: There are a lot of provisions in the Geneva Conventions. Someone else can go through all of them if they like. So, I'm going to go with this list gleaned from the section of the Wikipedia page on war crimes about the international criminal court:
Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
Torture or inhumane treatment
Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
Taking hostages
Directing attacks against civilians
Killing a surrendered combatant
Misusing a flag of truce, a flag or uniform of the enemy
Settlement of occupied territory
Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
Using poison weapons
Using civilians as shields
Using child soldiers
Firing upon a Combat Medic with clear insignia.
Summary execution
Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy
Fourth piece of housekeeping: I'm not just going to look at the Fëanorians. That's not fair. There's elves vs. other elves, elves vs. dwarves, dwarves vs. elves, Angband vs. everyone, everyone vs. Angband, etc. I should probably define some of these groups starting out but I'm not going to.
So. This will be long.
1. Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
I'm a little puzzled about this one, actually. I thought that was just… assumed to be part of war???
Killing as more than a means to some non-killing-related end???
At any rate I'm inclined to say everyone conducting war in the Silmarillion did this. I don't think anyone was trying to minimize military casualties.
2. Torture or inhumane treatment
Angband did this, obviously.
A lot.
Really a lot.
We don't have any record of any elves doing it, or dwarves, or Edain.
…Except Túrin's outlaws but they're kind of a weird circumstance.
3. Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
(Seems like there might be a lot of wiggle room in 'unlawful'…)
Well, anyway, Angband also did this, obviously, a lot.
The dwarven sack of Menegroth counts as this.
Seizure of the swan-ships arguably counts as this one, though I'd actually hesitate on that one. I think that wasn't a war crime, that was a crime crime, because they weren't at war.
If the Fëanorians scavenged from Menegroth before leaving that probably counts, but that's speculation.
The Host of the West did destroy Angband, if you want to count that.
4. Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
Angband, yet again. It's a little less obvious here since it's not like they put prisoners in the regular army unless you count orcs, but brainwashing prisoners and sending them out as agents probably counts.
Also their treatment of prisoners of war generally violates a lot of stuff in the Third Geneva Convention.
I do not think we have grounds to say anyone else did this, partially because I'm not sure we have grounds to say anyone else ever took any prisoners.
Elrond and Elros are a gray area, but if they ended up fighting with the Fëanorians there's no reason to believe it was against anyone but Angband.
Oh, and I suppose the Host of the West took prisoners, but I'm sure they didn't do this.
5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
I mean, you could say that prisoners of war in Angband got the same kind of trial that anyone else in Angband got?
But otherwise Angband again, yeah.
The Host of the West… I'm not sure. Do you count the judgments of Ëonwë as a fair trial?
Everyone else: No prisoners, not an issue.
…Look I don't know what to say about Túrin and Mîm. I'm inclined to say a lot of the outlaws' bad behavior was crime crime not war crime. I don't know.
6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
Angband back in the definitely column here.
I don't think anyone else is. Sure, Menegroth and Sirion were abandoned, but it wasn't because the Fëanorians stuck around chasing people away.
7. Taking hostages
Angband, explicitly with Maedhros and I think implicitly elsewhere.
The Easterlings serving Angband also explicitly took hostages.
The Fëanorians took Elrond and Elros. It doesn't seem to have been terribly effective, but it was hostage-taking.
Celegorm and Curufin holding Lúthien could be this if you consider the Fëanorians to have been at war with Doriath at that point, but that's sort of dubious? Maybe a war crime, maybe a crime crime.
8. Directing attacks against civilians
Angband.
The Fëanorians attacked the entire communities of Menegroth and the Havens of Sirion. They may or may not have made any attempt to avoid deliberately killing noncombatants in one or both cases, but they were unavoidably attacks on civilians.
The dwarven attack on Menegroth is similarly an attack on civilians.
If you consider any orcs, trolls, balrogs, vampires, werewolves, etc. to be civilians, then the Host of the West almost certainly did this. You can argue that none of them counted as civilians; you can also argue that the Host of the West managed not to attack e.g. orc children, but I don't think that's very likely.
The Easterlings serving Angband did have civilians, but I think it's more likely the Host of the West avoided attacking those.
9. Killing a surrendered combatant
I don't think anyone is directly attested as doing this?
The overall impression one gets of the First Age is a general deficit of surrender.
But: if anyone surrendered to Angband's forces rather than trying to fight or escape until they physically couldn't, I'm sure some of them were killed (and some weren't, because Angband wanted slaves).
If any orcs/werewolves/vampires/trolls/dragons/balrogs dared to surrender rather than fight to the death or escape, I'm sure some to most of them were killed.
If any dwarves of Nogrod tried to surrender to Beren and the Ents, they were killed.
We don't know about the dwarven sack of Menegroth or any of the Kinslayings (on either side).
The Host of the West accepted at least some surrenders, but we don't know if it was all of them.
10. Misusing a flag of truce, a flag or uniform of the enemy
Angband doesn't get much of an opportunity for this because no one trusts their truces and it's not like switching flags or uniforms would help, insofar as there are uniforms.
But they did propose a negotiation under false pretenses.
Of course the Fëanorians also agreed to it under false pretenses.
The Silmaril Quest is absolutely full of people disguising themselves as Angband's forces. If you want to get pedantic about it uniforms and flags were not the key part of those disguises, but I think it's the same idea?
I feel like the Easterlings who announced their allegiance change mid-battle may also count as this?
11. Settlement of occupied territory
Angband generally prefers the scorched-earth approach, but they do settle their Easterlings in occupied territory.
No one else does this.
Like the Fëanorians had enough people left to 'occupy' anything.
(Or I guess arguably the Host of the West occupies Angband but not for very long and they definitely don't settle there.)
12. Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
Angband does some of this in the form of enslaving them back in, uh, Angband, but it's true that mostly it depopulates by slaughter and most of the survives flee with no deportation as such. It doesn't deport the Edain.
Again, most others have no occupied territory.
Though everyone does have to leave Beleriand. :( Should that be attributed to the Host of the West?
13. Using poison weapons
Angband: yes.
Everyone else: No evidence of this. I wouldn't necessarily rule out them trying it against Angband if they thought it would work.
Although I suppose you could argue that weapons inimical to Angband by nature could count as poison…? Naahhh.
14. Using civilians as shields
I don't think Angband did this one, actually?
Edain civilians as hostages, yeah, but Angband didn't have much in the way of its own civilians and didn't expect anyone to try to avoid hitting them.
Angband's Easterlings most likely tried to keep their civilians out of the way like sensible people.
15. Using child soldiers
Whether it was possible for Angband to do this with orcs depends on your interpretation.
Everyone else…
Not child soldiers in the 'take them from their families, indoctrinate them, send them out for shock value' sense.
But child soldiers in the sense of 'people we would consider children are considered adults and treated as such', yeah.
And I expect also in the sense of 'people who are not considered adults and who no one really wants fighting, but there is no true place of safety and no one wants them helpless, either'.
16. Firing upon a Combat Medic with clear insignia
Existence of combat medics with clear insignia is uncertain.
If they existed I'm sure Angband fired on them and tbh I wouldn't bet against anyone else doing so.
17. Summary execution
Okay, this can mean killing combatants who surrendered again, but to avoid double-counting let's say we mean non-combatants.
Well, Angband, regardless.
It would not surprise me if the Fëanorians did this in Menegroth, considering that Celegorm's servants expected to get away with murdering children, but that's not definite.
18. Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy
Angband's Easterlings did this in Dor-lómin.
The rest of Angband…
It seems likely? In one context or another. But I don't think there are direct statements on it.
—Or actually I guess they made promises to Maeglin about Idril! Not sure if that should count when they didn't actually do anything and I'm not sure they ever meant to.
Eöl and Aredhel in the worst interpretation was not part of a war. It was a crime crime and a diplomatic disaster.
Celegorm and Curufin's behavior towards Lúthien was only questionably part of a war and I'm not sure whether it qualifies here, so I'm going to say no.
Eighteen in the somewhat arbitrary list…
Fëanorians: Definitely four (1, 7, 8, 10), possibly/arguably as many as nine (1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17).
Non-Fëanorian Exiles: Definitely two (1, 10), possibly/arguably as many as five (1, 9, 10, 15, 16).
Iathrim+Lúthien&Beren: Definitely two (1, 10), possibly/arguably as many as five (1, 9, 10, 15, 16).
Dwarves of Nogrod: Definitely three (1, 3, 8), possibly/arguably as many as five (1, 3, 8, 9, 16).
Host of the West: Definitely one (1), possibly/arguably as many as seven (1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 16) (that's what you get for winning).
The Host of the West did destroy Angband, if you want to count that.
Nah, the property destruction rule is explicitly about ruining stuff you don't need to: fortresses, military airfields and arms factories are all considered legitimate targets.
no one is actually accusing the Fëanorians of, like, cutting undersea communications cables or impersonating the Red Cross. There are some war crimes which are obviously not applicable and I'm not going to discuss them.
Not the Fëanorians, no, but if you interpret the undersea cables rule as a general ban on destroying vitally important, hard-to-replace communications infrastructure, I think there's an argument to be made for Sauron's corruption of the palantirs.
Sure, Menegroth and Sirion were abandoned, but it wasn't because the Fëanorians stuck around chasing people away.
I don't know enough to say exactly which paragraph would apply, but "fucked up your city so badly that no one can live there anymore" certainly feels like the kind of thing that should fall under these rules, even if that wasn't the actual goal of the attack. The Fëanorians might have been able to claim ignorance at Menegroth, but not after that.
(Also, speaking of Doriath, Thingol's refugee policy and language ban.)
...do we actually know anything about Thingol's refugee policy?
---------------------------------------------
I love (in a very dark way) that Angband has committed pretty much every single war crime on the list.
...Tbh, Eönwe did offer a fair trial to a lot of people; it's not his fault that those people didn't actually want a fair trial, but for him to waive all consequences just like that.
And in general, I don't think we know enough about the actions of the Host of the West to pass judgement on them, although I'm inclined to think they went about everything as righteously as possible... *bites down impassioned defence* but I suppose you may regard it differently if it fits with your interpretations and not necessarily be wrong.
The Silmaril Quest is probably closer to spying than war, though even more than that a secret third thing...
"The Easterlings announcing their allegiance change mid-battle" is a hilarious way to phrase things, 10/10.
You can postulate that some refugees were allowed through the Girdle, either by the 'dire need' proviso or by Melian choosing to allow them in. It's a question without a definitive answer in the text and I don't think there's an authorial intent answer either.
Key points:
Beren got in but Beren wasn't supposed to be able to get in; dire need is not an automatic pass.
Celegorm and Curufin fled Himlad and ended up in Nargothrond, so they were either allowed through Doriath or forced to follow a dangerous path around it. In either of those cases someone should have brought it up during Lúthien's interactions with Celegorm and Curufin during the Silmaril Quest. No one does.
So I don't think there's a canon answer to that question and it comes down to your opinion of Thingol.
In the published SIlmarillion, Doriath explicitly allows in mass refugees on two occasions:
Sindar after the Dagor Bragollach:
"The most part of the Grey-elves fled south and forsook the northern war; many were received into Doriath, and the kingdom and strength of Thingol grew greater in that time, for the power of Melian the queen was woven about his borders and evil could not yet enter that hidden realm." (Chapter 18)
Survivors of Nargothrond:
"Now new tidings came to Doriath concerning Nargothrond, for some that had escaped from the defeat and the sack and had survived the Fell Winter in the wild, came at last to Thingol seeking refuge; and the march-wardens brought them to the King." (Chapter 21)
(Has anyone written a fic where Celebrimbor is one of those refugees yet)
i asked earendil about his flying ship and he basically says it’s exactly as dope as it looks. yeah real fucking awesome every time. and it pays well too
Thinking about the last confrontation between Curufin and Celebrimbor before the former departs Nargothrond for good. What if he makes one last attempt to convince/scold his son into coming with him, but Celebrimbor fixes him with a cold, adamant look and says, very deliberately, "What I have left behind I count now no loss."
Stunned speechless, all Curufin can do is leave him.
like ultimately the question of "who is right and wrong" is deeply uninteresting to me, because to me the legendarium is shaped around a premise that i fundamentally reject: i.e. that there is a certain hierarchy which is good and when that hierarchy is taken to its furthest and most violent excesses, only then does it become bad. the racial hierarchy the noldor seek to defend is bad because it necessitates excessive violence, however there is a hierarchy amongst the elves in which the elves of valinor are wiser and more knowledgeable than the primitive elves of arda who need to be taught in order to be civilised. the racial hierarchy the noldor pursue with the eternal war cry of "no other race shall oust us" is bad because of its violence, but there is a legitimate hierarchy of holiness in which the valar and elves are unsullied by original sin, while men are tainted by it and will never escape it even when they gain ascendance over arda & this hierarchy is just coincidentally organised entirely on racialised lines. the numenorean kings and their excesses are bad because of the violence used to enforce that kingship & to grow its influence, but if a king is wise and good like aragorn is then kingship & the violence it entails is performed in the correct amount of moderation. the new gentry installed in the shire is bad because it performs too much state violence, but the old gentry is fine and good because the violence of rents and land enclosures and deference on the basis of birthright is implicit rather than explicit.
at no point do we interrogate whether this hierarchy should exist in the first place at all & whether the implicit threat of violence, or civilising missions, or the coercive structures of sinfulness and holiness are any less dangerous than the most outright forms of violence. the canon cannot recognise the bridge that lies between the outright excesses of violence and the implicit threat of it contained in the various coercive structures of hierarchy. to recognise it would topple the essential premises of the canon. the goal of all righteous action and righteous war in the legendarium is to ultimately return the hierarchy to the original state designed by eru iluvatar and to remove those excesses of violence, but not eliminate them entirely. probs fertile terrain for a structuralist analysis of the legendarium, but i've forgotten everything i ever read about levi-strauss lmao.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Although Tolkien never really discussed this at length, the plot of LOTR and especially Silmarillion imply some really interesting ideas about immortality. Sure, he says that mortal men need to accept their mortality, because it’s inevitable, and the pseudo-immortality offered to some of them is a trap that will take their selfhood and autonomy. But then he also writes a whole race of immortals and says that they need to learn to accept loss and grief and change: even if they themselves don’t die, time will pass and things will change, and an immortal who cannot let go of ephemeral things will die over and over, or break the world in trying to recover what he lost.
turning over the question of the silm unreliable narrator and the thing is for a text to have an unreliable narrator, it has to have internal contradictions or improbabilities that signpost its unreliability to us. one of the few places that this happens is in the leithian tale. the narrative very much illustrates to us how much of the heavy lifting luthien is doing in freeing beren from tol sirion, getting them into angband, putting morgoth to sleep and then getting out.
however, when this passage is narrativised later, at the start of the final chapter on earendil & the war of wrath, this is how it is told: "...which Beren had won and Lúthien had worn...".
in other words, luthien is reduced to a passive actor. someone who bears the jewel, but is erased from having played a substantial part in actually, actively winning it from morgoth. we actively do see a sexist bias playing out, in reaffirming the men transform the world, women give birth ("for the nissi the making of things new is for the most part shown in the forming of their children, so that invention and change is otherwise mostly brought about by the neri", LaCE).
given the direct contradictions in the description of how the silmaril was won in the beren & luthien chapter, we can point to this one instance of unreliability.
I think that a lot of time what people in the fandom are talking about when they reference "unreliable narrator" is actually more like narrator bias. Because the narrator doesn't have to be unreliable to be biased in the way that they present events. Any account of history will have bias to it and so it makes sense that the Silm gives off that vibe as well, imo, given that it is meant to be a history as well.
🥲 ok so i know i am going to sound like a complete asshole pedant here, so please bear with me:
1) i am not entirely certain about where the line lies between an unreliable narrator and a biased one when we talk about the silmarillion - and i am not sure that we are all operating on the same definitions of "bias" and "unreliability". i'm not suggesting that we put a disclaimed before each and every post that defines this line, but i think the lack of common ground makes interpretation and conversation difficult and moreover, results in a lot of slippage in the casual conversation of fandom.
2) talking about this from the pov of purely literary technique, which is how i would frame tolkien's alleged framing of the silmarillion as a historical document produced by the collective efforts of rumil & pengolodh - the quenta being produced specifically by pengolodh - i also struggle to differentiate between the viewpoint that pengolodh presents to us and tolkien-as-author's preoccupations in writing the silmarillion.
3) to be clear, i am decently versed (tho by no means an expert at all) in literary theories that position the primacy of reader response & interpretation of the text such as death of the author, reader response, deconstruction & other critical forms that also interpret the text as object within a social/cultural/political/constructed context, so i am not trying to suggest that author intention is the only lens by which we might interpret a text.
4) the reason i am suggesting this is because tolkien notoriously, elsewhere, is resistant to any interpretation of the text that deviates from his own - all authors are controlling to an extent, but tolkien sometimes approaches outright hostility in, say, even the question of interpreting character appearances. i am very much team, "the author must and can be jettisoned when doing a reading of the text", however, in suggesting that pengolodh is a biased narrator, we are also suggesting that there is a differentiation between pengolodh and tolkien - and this to me is not intuitively obvious or even revealed in the analysis that people have done, especially when it comes to the interpretation of various events in the silmarillion.
5) (please note i really do respect the author of that essay, think they've done wonderful work for fandom and otherwise really enjoy their fanworks for the depths and ideas they reveal to me & their interrogation of tolkien's constructed world, so i'm not saying this because i have a grudge or a bone to pick or a particular standpoint, but because i am seriously considering this question in an academic sense)
6) bc i think for nearly every argument raised, i can find a counter-argument from tolkien's other writings about the legendarium and the silmarillion. why are gondolin, doriath and nargothrond so central to the narrative? well, an interesting in-universe reading is to position it as pengolodh's bias. but if i was to consider tolkien's preoccupations, his earliest work on the silmarillion was the tale of earendil, followed by the lay of leithian, and therefore the much simpler contextual explanation is that those three realms are of importance because... that was what tolkien was interested in writing about and those locations were where events on which the story turned took place! why does thingol get so much time to speak? because he plays a central action-generating role in the lay of leithian and turin's tale, both of which are huge chunks of the silm text. why is feanor's death presented differently from fingolfin's? because feanor in the silmarillion symbolises the tragic "fall" story that tolkien was building in the narrative. (i am not going to get into the question of the reading in regards to caranthir, bc i will somewhat get into it later.)
7) given all of this and given the fact that if you take a step back and do an overall structural reading of the silmarillion as a narrative, specifically in reference to the works of medieval literature and mythological texts that tolkien was working from/against, there are many strong reasons to support the lack of differentiation between pengolodh and tolkien which is to do with the specific mythology that tolkien is constructing, the tropes and ideas that he's building on viz. a fall from grace, the defeat of evil, redemption etc. tolkien identifies pengolodh as a narrator, but tolkien also gifts pengolodh omniscience as a narrator.
8) the reason i brought up the luthien example above is because it is an example of an internal narratorial contradiction that you would classically use to identify a biased narrator being deployed as a deliberate literary technique! and as several people have pointed out in the notes, this is...also...unfortunately how tolkien interprets the leithian tale himself. which then does raise the question: if pengolodh is a biased narrator, how much does pengolodh's viewpoint differ from tolkien's, if at all? how do you distinguish between the author's bias and the narrator's bias, if the two are frequently conflated per this particular instance? if the two are conflated, can the tools of historiography actually be employed to identify pengolodh's alleged bias?
9) because again, if i was to take the question of a biased historian seriously, then i would have to interrogate the framing of events such as
manwe responding to fingon's prayer - heavily implied to be cause & consequence, but would otherwise have to be repositioned as nolofinwean propaganda, given, again, pengolodh is a vassal of turgon's
similarly, fingolfin's arrival in middle earth being framed in the context of the rising of the sun & moon and "flowers sprang beneath his marching feet" - another moment, if we take pengolodh seriously as a biased narrator, that would point to nolofinwean hagiography
"not wholly unwilling" - how and where does pengolodh get this information from re. aredhel's marriage? who does this come from?
"the oath of the sons of Fëanor was waked again from sleep" - plus constant mentions of the oath "awaking" raises the question re. how pengolodh knows this? who has told him this? if its a feanorian, isn't it in their interest to present themselves as compelled (as this suggests) and therefore unable to control the violence they committed? if its a non-feanorian elf, then where have they received this information from? is it in the interests of the noldor to position the violence of the feanorians as coming from a source outside themselves, rather than a conscious and consistent choice? because if it is the latter, then how does that morally implicate the rest of the noldor in their violence? these are questions that i would be asking of a historical framing!
why is eol's narrative framed as essentially unreliable? what does what he says about noldor colonialism in middle earth say about the noldor if this is re-framed as the product of a biased and hateful mind? (btw in the essay quendi and eldar which is actually named as composed by pengolodh v. the published silm text where he is not identified, eol is re-framed in some truly ugly and racially laden ways that pengolodh accepts as essentially revelatory of a "biological" "truth")
how does pengolodh know that idril appeared as the sun to maeglin? - again, if i was a historian, this would appear to me as a hagiographic detail that glorifies the noldor, framed against the racial connotations that are borne in maeglin
flowers of niphredil blooming with luthien's birth - again, another hagiographic detail that serves to establish luthien as a divinely chosen figure by the valar and which resists any agency that luthien might have on her part in choosing her own fate
the whole multiple iterations of doom and fate & the suggestion that everything to do with luthien is the result of an already pre-planned doom - again, how does a historian know this? how can he infer this? is he reporting on folktales? in which case, why do we accept the fate & doom reading as the only true one? on the other hand, if it is a matter of his bias as a noldo - why is it important to the noldor to establish luthien, a half-sindarin princess, as merely a vehicle of fate? why is it important to later re-frame her as a mere maiden, who passively wears the silmaril and plays no part in freeing it?
similarly, how does pengolodh know that namo is moved to pity? - if pengolodh is a historian based in middle earth, how does he have access to this information? is this information that the valar present to the elves? is this information that is conveyed by luthien herself? if so when and how? how does this serve his bias as a noldo if he is a biased narrator?
the framing of the founding of nargothrond & the expulsion of the petty dwarves - both framed as very much narratively justified or else reduced to minutiae/lacunae in the text. reading with a critical eye, a historian/scholar might interrogate why this framing is either diminished or presented as essentially justified (and therefore mim as unreasonably bitter against the noldor & therefore unjustified in the resentment with which he approaches turin et al) and suggest a real case of colonial bias on the part of the noldor. a group that pengolodh is a member of.
the difference in framing of "the oath...was waked again from sleep" v. "it seemed to them that in the Silmaril lay the healing and the blessing that had come upon their houses and their ships" - i.e. positioning what would seem to be the SoF's metaphysical belief re. their Oath as essentially truthful and real versus both the Sindarin and Gondolindrim refugees' metaphysical belief in the power of the silmaril as essentially unprovable/false. if pengolodh has a bias, it is not oriented against the feanorians here.
and again, i can go on and on, interrogating basically every piece of action if i wanted to, using this "biased narrator" framing!
10) which sort of brings me to the point i was trying to work through which is that - i think this is perfectly fine to explore as a reading. i think its a very interesting reading of the canon! however i think it raises a couple of problems when it is presented as analysis i.e. as an essential truth about the canon. which is what a lot of people do. which is where a really huge slippage occurs between "what if this canon is narrated by a biased narrator" and "this canon is narrated by a biased narrator - therefore everything in the narrative is automatically suspect" (this is the textbook effect of an unreliable narrator and again, nobody has been able to identify for me why this is not happening in pengolodh's case)
first is, if we take this premise for truth, then we essentially have no grounds on which to treat the silmarillion as a shared canon that we are fans of. everything is up for interpretive grabs, anyone can suggest events happened in ways other than narrated. i know people want to stress the difference between a biased narrator and an unreliable one, but this work has not been done! everyday, people are using these terms & modes of analysis interchangeably - and this is evident even within the original essay - to interrogate whether or not events in canon happened the way they did, or if they are to be interpreted the way they are. to narrow it down further: if the narrator is biased and therefore we can suggest "maybe caranthir is framed as racist because of anti-feanorian bias", then its basically impossible to actually ask what the relationship is between feanor's speech, his oath, what his sons believe and their political project in middle earth. because anyone can suggest that a) feanor's speech is being framed as such retrospectively, b) any evidence of caranthir's racially loaded comments is highlighted because of bias and may not be reflective of the total reality and therefore c) nothing can be inferred about any racial themes in the canon.
and like, i see this happening everyday in the curufin tag which i follow and this is not my idea of fandom "fun". i'm in the fandom because i like the canon, its themes and narrative. if i wanted to reimagine the narrative differently, i would write fanfiction or make up headcanons, but i, critically, could not pass this off as possible canon. like at the baseline level we have to agree that events happened the way they did in the narrative or we're at the stage where we're abandoning a state of fannish relationship with the canon - and we have to be honest about what we're doing in that case.
second is, if we take this premise for true, we have basically taken the endless watsonian v. doylist debate from other fandoms and then made it "real" within the bounds of the silmarillion i.e. there is no means to actually take a step back from the universe and do a critical reading of the text, because the text itself cannot be assumed to be true or read as true, because we do not know if events took place the way the author has written them. to illustrate, if i do a reading of colonial themes or biases present in the canon, it is entirely possible for someone to say "well that's not true because the story is framed negatively because of a political purpose within the text, so this is not a fair interpretation". to take the example above, if i take charles w. mills' critical reading of race in middle earth and then use it to analyse caranthir's relationship with other races and suggest that some of the framing represents tolkien's own bias esp. viz. the dwarves, i can basically not do so, because the textual framing is unreliable and therefore any analysis i do can be explained away with "that's not what tolkien intended" or "we don't know because there's a biased narrator who is not tolkien writing here".
which brings me to my third and final point - then when and how, if at all, can anyone do a critical reading of tolkien? at what point does this argument become a means of dodging any engagement with questions of race, misogyny, gender, colonialism? these are all deeply uncomfortable questions for any fandom to confront and is also, in my experience, the source of the most vicious doylist v. watsonian analytical fights in fandom at large. just the very act of suggesting the narrative is governed by anti-feanorian bias means that we then have to do twice the work of proving, therefore (for example), that there is a raced and gendered framework to their narrative, in proving that feanor's political vision is both masculinist and colonialist and that this is passed down to his sons - already not an easy position to prove without some very carefully sourced and contextualised proof in the text, because i promise you, any attempted reading in this vein will invite literally endless quibbles unless your reading work is ironclad and 100% sourced.
so, you know. wyd!
TL;DR: lnsomma expresses the criticism i have even of the biased narrator question much more succinctly than i do here. it's an enjoyable reading but if we accept this reading as tolkien's 100% intention and therefore worth interrogating the text to it as a form of analysis, we run into some serious analytical issues such as. not having an actual shared canon to operate on. bc what exists invites endless goalpost moving and rationalisation.
This is finally finished, which means I can go write my paper in peace.
So: Beren. I’ve been thinking about him recently. What’s his deal? What is he besides a human who’s out of his depth in a world of Valar, Maiar, and elven royalty, constantly needing to be rescued by his demigoddess girlfriend? Here’s what I think.
(Warning: contains rambling and ~personal character revelations~ and lots of quotes)
It’s a seal, Eärendil tells himself, absurdly, frantically, as Vingilot approaches the shoreline. A seal, serene and satiated, taking her repose on the rocks. But Sirion is in ruins, and something glows beneath the moveless form.
In leaden silence, Eärendil rolls his wife onto her back. The Silmaril washes his vision white, blinds him to her face. He yanks it from her neck and her head snaps forward with the force of it; lolls back lifeless. Eärendil screams: regret and rage and grief so grand it might swallow him.
When he stands at last, it is with a star upon his brow and vengeance burning in his breast. He sets a westward course.
Eärendil’s demand for recompense never reaches the ears of the Valar. For he dies alone in the empty streets of Tirion, feet scored and bloody from the diamond dusted streets no mortal was meant to tread.
The Silmaril has returned to the land of its creation. Eönwë bears it to the King and Queen of Arda.
Varda sets it to sail the skies; calls it a sign of hope.
In Endor, the armies of the West with their golden banners allow the lie to take root; myth spreads like wildflowers in a scorched land, and the hearts of Exiles are lifted up.
And is it not right that it should be so? Have they not suffered enough?
Last of all Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed; and it is sung that the axe smoked in the black blood of the troll-guard of Gothmog until it withered, and each time that he slew Húrin cried: ‘ Aurë entuluva! Day shall come again!’ Seventy times he uttered that cry; but they took him at last alive, by the command of Morgoth, for the Orcs grappled him with their hands, which clung to him still though he hewed off their arms; and ever their numbers were renewed, until at last he fell buried beneath them. Then Gothmog bound him and dragged him to Angband with mockery.
Thus ended Nirnaeth Arnoediad, as the sun went down beyond the sea. Night fell in Hithlum, and there came a great storm of wind out of the West.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
[Excerpt from Sorrow Beyond Words: Collected Testimony of the War of Wrath, 4th Edition; ed. Elrond Peredhel. Archive of Cîw Annúminas, inaugural collection]
“Simply reaching Menegroth was a struggle. Doriath had become a twisting nightmare of overgrowth and rot and mists, as Morgoth’s power warred with the remains of the Girdle and our old songs. Ai, our home, our haven! I know the name of every holly in Region, before the exile. We found deadfalls surrounded by dozens of animals who’d lain down beside the trees and rotted before they died. Blind moose more antler than flesh staggered towards us even after a dozen arrows. Vines covered in dripping thorns reached for our eyes. The cherry trees were overladen with fruits that smelled like gangrene. Deildhod stumbled into a nest of maddened vipers, and only escaped because their tails were all tangled together into a festering mass and could hardly move. We never saw or heard a single bird. I’m amazed we lost no one in that whole push through Region. No, I speak a lie. I know how we passed through with nothing worse than scrapes. Elrond was with us, and the ghost of Melian’s love still recognized her kin.
“Esgalduin had nearly been dammed by one of Hírilorn’s fallen boles, but the bridge still held. We crossed and reached the ruined gates, wrought twice and broken twice. Within there was only darkness to be seen; we knew not what manner of horrors Morgoth had sent to infest the city, but Ingwion was unwilling to leave them at the rear of his forces as he moved north, if it could be helped. Celeborn stood at Elrond’s right and myself at his left. Far less an honor guard than the heir of Elu Thingol and Melian Besain deserved. Yet in those dark days it was all the honor we could muster. King Dior Eluchíl had known thirty-six summers when he was unrighteously slain. Queen Elwing Nimaew thirty-five when despair took her to the sea. Lord Elrond Peredhel beheld the city of Elu for the first and only time in his twenty-ninth summer.
“Elrond stood before his inheritance and Sang. He sang a lament, for the lost endless years of joy and peace, for deep halls lit by birdsong and echoing with wisdom, for the Forsaken People who awoke the forest and earth with many voices, for the works of beauty never to be seen again on this side of the sea. He sang a promise, that the glory of Menegroth will be remembered in the songs of Middle-Earth for as long as its children endure. He sang thanks, for the protection the halls granted us until it could shelter us no more. As his song at last ceased, I thought I heard nightingales answering him.
“Stars shone on his brow, and his hair glistened as the vault of night, and the memories of our once-eternal bliss in the woods of Thingol’s realm under Elbereth’s gifts arose in my mind. Let Oropher dream of a deep hall for his own; let Celeborn reign where he will at his wife’s side! I knew in my heart, as the echo of nightingale songs faded, that there was no lord or king I would ever stand beside save Elrond Elwingion.
“The living stone in which our kingdom once thrived knew his voice, and at long last laid down its burden and passed. The darkness over Menegroth was lifted, and we went forth into its corpse, and no beast or orc could stand before us. I do not sing of what we found and left behind when we cast down the bridge and gave leave for the river to flood the caves. It is not worth remembering.”
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
One of the interesting things about Tom Bombadil is that his words have a very poetic rhythm even in prose. Take his first speech:
Whoa! Whoa! steady there! Now, my little fellows,
where be you a going to, puffing like a bellows?
What's the matter here then?
Do you know who I am? I'm Tom Bombadil.
Tell me what's your trouble!
Tom's in a hurry now. Don't you crush my lilies!
It also fits very well with the "Hey dol merry dol" he often sings.
Ever since I noticed this, reading this part has been hard to do without saying his parts out loud. It's so neat!
The rhythm he constantly carries really makes me feel like he's a part of the land around him in a way, his voice is always lilting like rolling hills. It adds to the way it seems like trouble slides off him like water off a duck, he won't be caught, he won't get stuck and stagnant, he'll just keep flowing on as he always has done
Yes! This is something that I love, the way that Tom’s song-cadence spills out not only into his prose, but at places into the speech of the hobbits, into the narration, even into the speech of other characters who are far away and only talking about him.
He told them tales of bees and flowers, the ways of trees, and the strange creatures of the Forest, about evil things and good things, cruel things and kind things, and secrets hidden under brambles.
Frodo:
“Goldberry! My fair lady, clad all in silver green! We have never said farewell to her, nor seen her since the evening!”
And the one that really hit me, Gandalf at the Council of Elrond:
“And now he is withdrawn into a little land, within bounds that he has set, though none can see them, waiting perhaps for a change of days, and he will not step beyond them.”
It even spills over into meta! Your “he won’t get stuck and stagnant, he’ll just keep flowing on” has the same cadence!
Yes! I'm delighted to see that awareness of the fact that Tom Bombadil speaks in meter is spreading! I'm having real trouble describing it though. It's easy enough to tap out:
ONE TWO THREE four five, ONE two THREE four FIVE six
"Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow"
but he can add unstressed syllables pretty much wherever he wants.
"This is Goldberry's washing-day, and her autumn-cleaning"
Versifying by stresses rather than by syllables is characteristic of (unsurprisingly) Anglo-Saxon poetry. I enjoyed the discussion here.