Feanorean Storylines

[Faelivrin]

Corey has also declared he intends to completely turn Maedhros' character story upside down and make him enthusiastic about the Third Kinslaying instead of reluctant. That's a bridge too far for me. I am not OK with Maedhros being a psycho. He's supposed to have character development and become somewhat sympathetic, not be a repeat of Eol or Curufin. Yuck.

This is a gross misrepresentation of what was said, and I'm not going to pretend it isn't. All that was said is that he doesn't want Maedhros to be convinced to participate in Kinslaying III by another party. That he wants him to go into it fully knowing that it is horrible and that it is wrong, but that Maedhros feels he has no choice. This is precisely his mindset when he and Maglor steal the Simarils from the host of the Valar, and is thus, not a change in his personality, but rather an acceleration to that point. Now, I think a valid argument can be made that since we will see Maedhros do this later, there is no need to repeat the same note, but that is a far cry from the claim that Maedhros is a psycho of the Eol or Curufin variety.

I heard the same words as you, unless I misheard a word or two, but I apparently do not see the Third Kinslaying in the same way as you. I think that our opinions about what happened that led to that battle and why it was started, and how the brothers reacted afterwards, must be really very drastically different.

My interpretation is that Maedhros before the Third Kinslaying is very different from Maedhros after the War of Wrath. He is resigned to give in to the Oath not because he doesn't care about resisting it, or knows it's wrong but doesn't have any objection to doing evil. He is resigned because he has already had the experience of trying to resist the Oath for 26 years, and being forced by outside pressure to obey it against his will. One of those outside forces was the Oath tormenting the surviving brothers for 11 years, but Maedhros and Maglor didn't actually give in until Amros started the Kinslaying with a vow to win the Silmaril. It was that action of Amros which finally broke Maedhros and Maglor's resistance, and they "gave relucatant aid". If Amros hadn't been there urging them on, I think they would have resisted somewhat longer before giving in, and Earendil would have gotten back to the Havens before they did so. In fact I think the point of the foreboding that came upon Earendil was the Valar (Ulmo?) motivating him to get home and be there before disaster struck.

It was only because Maedhros had actually experienced the total abject failure of his previous attempt to break the Oath, a failure caused partly by Amros being the first to give in, that he finally gave up and didn't try to resist again. I can't believe he would feel that he had no choice until he had actually tried to make a different choice and found himself unable to do so (or rather, thought he was unable to resist any longer). I don't think he could get to that point of total resignation after the War of Wrath, if he started the Third Kinslaying entirely of his own accord, without first fighting against the Oath.

But if no outside pressure is forcing him to start the Third Kinslaying against his will, if it's all his idea from the beginning and he hadn't tried to break the Oath beforehand, even though he knew that Kinslaying is evil, then he just didn't care enough about right and wrong to even try to resist the Oath. That mostly is the moral state he's in before the Second Kinslaying, like all his brothers (except the ones who don't even admit that Kinslaying is wrong at all). His character arc to my mind is that he changed significantly after the Second Kinslaying because seeing the bloodshed again greatly sharpens his remorse, and that change needed to be broken/undone by an outside pressure before Maedhros could possibly reach the state of total defeat and resignation he is in after the War of Wrath. At that point, where he doesn't even try to put up a fight against the Oath, his will to resist is basically broken. And he wasn't somebody whose will could be broken without a real fight, or Morgoth would have shattered his mind on Thangorodrim. It's an arc that goes from "Yes it's bad, but not evil enough for me to really stop it." to "Oh God what have I done, I won't do this ever again." to "I can't keep fighting it any longer, I don't have the strength." The arc requires him to fight against an outside pressure and lose. The pressure has to come from outside his own will for him to strive against it.

Amros gives in first, more easily and more wholly, and starts that battle apparently without remaining qualms. If he realizes it's evil, he doesn't really care anymore. That's why he's not reluctant.

 

[Nicholas Palazzo]

The idea that Maedhros engages in Kinslaying III against his will is certainly not a way I would read it. It might be against his judgement, or even against his wishes, but he chooses to engage in it of his own free will.

IF I were forced to figure out a way to manage the rest of the story without Amras, I would simply move Maedhros' attitude during Kinslaying III to Kinslaying II. That said, I feel that it is more important to construct a storyline for Amras rather than try to make an ironclad case that he must be preserved. If he is not, there are ways to deal with that that without the collapse of the universe, and thus using this sort of argument will only encourage those being argued with to find ways that it would work.

 

[Faelivrin]

I am sorry that my panic attack is upsetting to other people. I am trying not to post while upset or express most of the frustration I feel, and I need to keep trying harder.

IF I were forced to figure out a way to manage the rest of the story without Amras, I would simply move Maedhros' attitude during Kinslaying III to Kinslaying II.

Then we would have to radically change when those Kinslayings happened, because the sons of Feanor attack Dior immediately after they hear he has the Silmaril, but when they hear that Elwing still has it Maedhros foreswears the Oath and waits 26 years to attack, and somehow gets his brothers to wait as well. Those 26 years are necessary for Elwing and Earendil to grow up and have kids. If he had no reluctance or remorse, and didn't care that it was wrong, he would have attacked immediately again, when Elwing was a little kid.

The delay before attacking Elwing was only possible because the most ferocious, ruthless brothers had died at Doriath. If Maedhros tried to delay attacking Dior? Celegorm and Curufin would have attacked without him, immediately. So he'd still be attacking Elwing immediately, when she's a little kid.

 

[MithLuin]

One aspect of storytelling, particularly in film, is to preserve a sense of agency.

If you read picture books, you'll note that in every single one, the kids solve their own problems, NOT the parents. In stories for older children, the parents are often removed from the picture in some way, so the kids can have adventures of their own. The reason for this is not to teach kids that parents are useless, but to make the kids - the main characters of the stories - the agents driving the action forward.

Tolkien does not explicitly tell us which of the brothers is the primary instigator of the attack on Doriath. But Maedhros has been the leader for 500 years, so *either* we make it him, *or* we tell a story of why he is no longer in charge and someone else is calling the shots. I'm fine with Curufin intrigue as the explanation there, so we're fine. But. Since when does Amras tell Maedhros what to do? For the Havens, it is clearly Maedhros' decision to move forward. We can have Amras (or, in his absence, Caranthir) give Maedhros a push in that direction, but we really can't remove his agency here without weakening his character.

As for why he would wait 26 years if he is going to approve both massacres, there is the story of his guilt over the loss of Elwing's brothers. We can make use of that.

 

[Ange1e4e5]

One aspect of storytelling, particularly in film, is to preserve a sense of agency.

If you read picture books, you'll note that in every single one, the kids solve their own problems, NOT the parents. In stories for older children, the parents are often removed from the picture in some way, so the kids can have adventures of their own. The reason for this is not to teach kids that parents are useless, but to make the kids - the main characters of the stories - the agents driving the action forward.

Tolkien does not explicitly tell us which of the brothers is the primary instigator of the attack on Doriath. But Maedhros has been the leader for 500 years, so *either* we make it him, *or* we tell a story of why he is no longer in charge and someone else is calling the shots. I'm fine with Curufin intrigue as the explanation there, so we're fine. But. Since when does Amras tell Maedhros what to do? For the Havens, it is clearly Maedhros' decision to move forward. We can have Amras (or, in his absence, Caranthir) give Maedhros a push in that direction, but we really can't remove his agency here without weakening his character.

As for why he would wait 26 years if he is going to approve both massacres, there is the story of his guilt over the loss of Elwing's brothers. We can make use of that.

The published Silmarillion mentions that Celegorm “stirred up his brothers to prepare an assault on Doriath.”

 

[Faelivrin]

The Quenta and Annals are also explicit that the twins led the attack on the Havens, and the older brothers “gave reluctant aid”. That’s not Maedhros being the leader. After the Fifth Battle he has lost his leadership. He struggles to regain control and is unsuccessful during those Kinslayings.

I don’t interpet that to mean Amros tells him what to do, but Amros has his own followers who do obey him. And I see a psychological thing where Maedhros and Maglor are wavering but still barely resisting, but Amros or his decision to start persuades them, essentially. They are not willing but they give in while they still could have resisted longer. But they still choose not to take the leadership in that attack, do not order Elwing’s twins kidnapped, maybe even don’t quite give their full effort.

 

[MithLuin]

Sure, Celegorm is the one with a personal beef against Dior for...existing...when Celegorm himself would have liked to have married Lúthien. But we know from Nargothrond that Celegorm may be the public voice, but Curufin is very much instigating in the background. So, most likely, we will tell that story as a 'Curufin challenges Maedhros for leadership' situation, rather than 'Celegorm seizes control of the Fëanoreans' story.

My point is, that with the death of Celegorm and Curufin in Doriath, why would Amras think he can call the shots? Is Maedhros *that* removed from power that Amras can make something happen that Maedhros is opposed to? Because if that's the case, we're going to be seeing post-5th-battle Maedhros as a more broken shell of himself than he was after being stapled to Thangorodrim and losing a hand!

The way I see it, Tolkien wrote it as brothers-who-aren't-Maedhros bringing up the idea, suggesting that they need to go after the silmaril, and Maedhros agrees. In the case of Doriath, he thinks, well, send them a letter, make our claim, we can work this out diplomatically. But whoever wrote that letter was far from diplomatic, and it failed. And at the Havens, he thinks, okay, we'll word the letter *nicely* this time, and it's a bunch of women and children and refugees and their lord is away at sea - surely they will see reason and we can resolve this diplomatically.

So, yes, Maedhros is reluctant to initiate kinslayings, but he does so to follow through on the demands that were ignored. I don't think he was dragged to the field unwillingly in any of these cases. He's seen too many battles at this point to feel that squeamish about it, and he's a practical person, so he expects others to make the practical, reasonable choice. It's like the 'cake or death?' skit -- you're supposed to be smart enough to choose cake! It's not his fault these people are idiots who refuse to give up the silmaril when they *know* what the Oath requires of the Fëanoreans....

 

[Faelivrin]

I can’t imagine that ignoring the Havens for 26 years can come from being merely slightly reluctant, with no remorse or repentance. That doesn’t make sense to me. They need powerful motivations to resist torment for 11 years. If Maedhros still only cared about right and wrong when it’s convenient then he would not have delayed the Third Kinslaying long enough for Elwing to have kids.

If you want me to belive that Maedhros and Maglor had no remorse or repentance then you’d have to convince me if some other very powerful motivation for resisting torment for 11 years trying to spare the Havens, and why it took 11 years of torment before they gave in to the Oath. Why would they do that if they don’t have much conscience? And convince me why that story is better than a character arc of tragic failure to redeem themselves.

 

[MithLuin]

Umm, I don't think they lack remorse or repentance? So obviously I have no reason to attempt to convince you of that.

Maedhros' pragmatism is not something that overrules right and wrong, but something which leads him to make practical choices. He is sometimes surprised when others make highly emotional choices that endanger themselves (like the Shipburning). I think that is in play at Doriath and the Havens, as both massacres could have been avoided if they'd only turned over the silmaril to its rightful owners. Just like there would have been no initial Kinslaying if the Teleri had just given them the ships.

I am not suggesting that he has no concept of honor, but that he does aim for 'reasonable' in his politics.

My solution for 3rd-Kinslaying-without-Amras is to give Caranthir Amras' role by allowing him to survive Doriath. If Amras is not available because he's already dead. I'd rather he *not* be dead, of course, so it's hopefully going to be a moot point.

 

[Ange1e4e5]

So we have Caranthir survive Doriath, since in the book Caranthir is killed there?

 

[Faelivrin]

Only if we’re forced to kill Amros.

Umm, I don't think they lack remorse or repentance? So obviously I have no reason to attempt to convince you of that.

Alright, once again we’re apparently saying similar things but in much different words and confusing each other.

To me “willing” means not needing to be coerced by the Oath, at all - being motivated enough to do it solely because they want the Silmaril. All the sons seem to have been fully willing at the Second Kinslaying, if somewhat reluctant. Not so at the Third.

By coercion I don’t mean literally mind control, though. They still gave in, but unwillingly.

Does that show them being weak? Yes! They were morally weak and overborne by the Oath. It’s a story of their fall and utter failure, and maybe damnation. Their fall is both horrible (wrong) and pathetic. They trapped themselves in an Oath unbreakable without the grace of God, which they didn’t earn. It conquered them.

There’s a different kind of strength in admitting you did something terribly wrong. Maglor apparently admitted in public by composing the Noldolante. Maedhros probably admitted privately, and maybe publicly when he foreswore the Oath. But he wasn’t strong enough to accept judgment.


EDIT: How is Amros "calling the shots" in the Third Kinslaying? He is in charge of his own military force, as every prince is. Maedhros and Maglor were wavering in their resistance to the Oath, and Amros persuaded them to come with him, but they chose not to lead the attack because they didn't even want to be there at all.

But he doesn't set out to "call the shots" because he thinks he can. He gives in to the Oath and stops fighting it, and resolves to attack with or without his brothers' help, because he accepts it as his Doom. He has control over his own personal military force and can order them to attack anyone, with or without permission from Maedhros. If he's fully convinced that the Oath is the Doom of them all, he probably figures that his older brothers will inevitably come along anyway.

 

[Ange1e4e5]

Sure, Celegorm is the one with a personal beef against Dior for...existing...when Celegorm himself would have liked to have married Lúthien. But we know from Nargothrond that Celegorm may be the public voice, but Curufin is very much instigating in the background. So, most likely, we will tell that story as a 'Curufin challenges Maedhros for leadership' situation, rather than 'Celegorm seizes control of the Fëanoreans' story.

My point is, that with the death of Celegorm and Curufin in Doriath, why would Amras think he can call the shots? Is Maedhros *that* removed from power that Amras can make something happen that Maedhros is opposed to? Because if that's the case, we're going to be seeing post-5th-battle Maedhros as a more broken shell of himself than he was after being stapled to Thangorodrim and losing a hand!

The way I see it, Tolkien wrote it as brothers-who-aren't-Maedhros bringing up the idea, suggesting that they need to go after the silmaril, and Maedhros agrees. In the case of Doriath, he thinks, well, send them a letter, make our claim, we can work this out diplomatically. But whoever wrote that letter was far from diplomatic, and it failed. And at the Havens, he thinks, okay, we'll word the letter *nicely* this time, and it's a bunch of women and children and refugees and their lord is away at sea - surely they will see reason and we can resolve this diplomatically.

So, yes, Maedhros is reluctant to initiate kinslayings, but he does so to follow through on the demands that were ignored. I don't think he was dragged to the field unwillingly in any of these cases. He's seen too many battles at this point to feel that squeamish about it, and he's a practical person, so he expects others to make the practical, reasonable choice. It's like the 'cake or death?' skit -- you're supposed to be smart enough to choose cake! It's not his fault these people are idiots who refuse to give up the silmaril when they *know* what the Oath requires of the Fëanoreans....

So what pushes Maedhros to violence with the third kinslaying?

And why did Dior not give up the silmaril?

 

[Faelivrin]

So what pushes Maedhros to violence with the third kinslaying?

Several things: Despite repenting of the actual killing, he still really badly wants that Silmaril and still absolutely believes it's his rightful inheritance as well as a matter of honor. He's proud. He probably sees the act of withholding the Silmaril as equivalent to theft. He probably believes it was wrong of Thingol to demand a Silmaril in the first place, which is actually true. All that stopped being enough after the Second Kinslaying, but he is bound by the Oath and it does torment him and his brothers for 11 years when they try to break it. After Turgon has died he declares himself King of the Noldor and expects to be respected as such. Lastly, Amros persuades him to stop fighting the Oath.

I think that if he and Maglor had completely given up all desire and claim for the Silmarils, and had stronger moral conviction, they would have resisted a while longer. They gave in before their wills were broken, they didn't resist to their utmost limit, as Frodo resisted the Ring. Maedhros also gave up all hope.

And why did Dior not give up the silmaril?

I don't know. Thingol's motivations and personality are described, but not Dior's. He's a blank slate essentially, so we can decide how we want.

As a first guess, I would say that he despises Celegorm and Curufin, and despises or doesn't respect the Kinslayers in general. He presumably has tremendous respect for his parents and what they accomplished. If he sees the sons of Feanor as having already lost their right to the Silmaril due to the Kinslaying at Alqualonde (he may be right) and he may decide to make a moral stand. When people stand up against Morgoth or Sauron even when they expect to lose, it's because they regard giving in to the Dark Lord as wrong and/or cowardly, and/or hate him. So if Dior hates the Feanorians, and/or believes that giving in to a wicked threat is wrong... well there are states today that have a policy of categorically refusing to negotiate with people they consider terrorists, no matter what they threaten. Theoden refuses to negotiate with Saruman, even when Treebeard essentially has Saruman at his mercy and Theoden could theoretically dictate terms.

There's also a question of whether Dior trusts the Feanorians not to attack after he hands over the Silmaril. If he figures they're all as vile as Celegorm and Curufin, he may expect them to attack no matter what he does.

Lastly, the letter they sent to Dior was really obnoxious.

But I would hope that Dior talked to his council of advisors about it and didn't decide unilaterally.

 

[Faelivrin]

My point is, that with the death of Celegorm and Curufin in Doriath, why would Amras think he can call the shots? Is Maedhros *that* removed from power that Amras can make something happen that Maedhros is opposed to? Because if that's the case, we're going to be seeing post-5th-battle Maedhros as a more broken shell of himself than he was after being stapled to Thangorodrim and losing a hand!

"Broken shell" isn’t what I have in mind, and I don't think it's necessary to do that in order to depict the Third Kinslaying as-written. Let me reword myself. “Broken” wasn’t a good word for what I imagine.

The sons of Feanor have several competing forces in their minds:

1. Pride and desire for the Silmarils
2. Desire to keep their word, obey the Oath (voluntarily) out of honor
3. Animosity towards people who keep the Silmarils from them
4. Desire not to kill innocent people
5. The force of the Oath itself to attack their minds

1-4 are internal desires of their own minds and wills, while 5 is a self-imposed but now external force that acts on them.


Before the Second Kinslaying, 5 may be acting to influence 2, but isn’t overt. 1-2 are quite strong. Celegorm and Curufin are also motivated strongly by 3 (hate for Dior), and have no 4 (no mercy at all). Maedhros and perhaps Maglor are somewhat reluctant but 4 is not especially strong in them.

After the Second Kinslaying, for Maedhros and Maglor 4 (desire to have mercy) has become a resolve to resist the Oath stronger than 1-2; and 3 (animosity for Elwing) is probably very weak. They resist the Oath for what an elf would call a few years, but 5 (the Oath) gets stronger and stronger until it is greater than 4 (will to resist the Oath). Their resolve to resist is weakened by 1 (desire for the Silmaril), and when Amros resolves to attack the Havens he gives them the final push. They still had strength to resist the Oath for at least a little while longer, but they gave in before it actually broke their wills entirely because they still wanted the Silmaril very badly. That is, they did not fix the entirety of their wills upon resisting. They did not resist to the very utmost limit of their strength, as Frodo resisted the Ring. But they didn't attack the Havens of their own accord, they were coerced/pressured by the Oath (more than they were persuaded by Amros or their own desire for the Silmaril). The resistance they put up was overthrown.

Once Amros orders his own personal army to attack the Havens, what is Maedhros supposed to do?

• Order and/or persuade Amros not to attack? That worked for 26 years, but Amros isn’t listening to Maedhros anymore. He’s only listening to the Oath now.
• Fight against Amros and his army? Maedhros wants to attack his brother even less than he wants to attack the Havens, and that would be sure to damn him to the Everlasting Darkness.
• Stand aside? That would a good choice, but Amros and the Oath itself persuade him to participate.
• Lead the attack? He hates all of this and doesn’t even want to be there. He does not want to lead.
• Go alone without ordering his own army to participate? Well... we could depict that, but I don’t think it’s likely, or even really plausible.

Yes, the strength of the Oath becomes greater than the strength of Maedhros’ leadership (which has deteriorated). It conquers and devours all the sons of Fëanor, one by one. Amros knows the Oath is their Doom and will devour them all.

Because Maedhros has given in at last to the pressure, he gives up all hope that he is capable of breaking the Oath. But he’s wrong. If you prefer, you can interpret that as a self-defense/excuse for his sins. Or as a humble admission that he isn’t strong enough to make himself resist (I think that's unlikely). Regardless, after the War of Wrath he is convinced that if he went to Valinor he would not be able to resist starting another Kinslaying, and he gives up without even trying to resist. Again desire for the Silmaril weakens his resolve.


Whether the above should be called "willing" or "unwilling" is a matter of taste, perhaps.

What I would not agree is that starting the Third Kinslaying was Maedhros or Maglor’s idea, that Maedhros or Maglor was the military leader of the assault, or that any of the three surviving brothers did this with no coercion (without the "torment" by the Oath). I would rather take what Tolkien wrote and try to understand what it means and how to depict it, as I understand it.

 

[Alcarohtar]

Amras goes against the will of Maedhros when he starts the attack on the Havens. Amras knows that he will die, "it's better than to suffer from the oath, we'll all die in the end anyway". Maedhros and Maglor joins to try to save their brother. They love him, Amras is their brother, he's family.

 

[amysrevenge]

On the subject of willing vs unwilling...

Consider Frodo claiming the Ring as his own at the Cracks of Doom. Is he willing or unwilling?

 

[Ange1e4e5]

On the subject of willing vs unwilling...

Consider Frodo claiming the Ring as his own at the Cracks of Doom. Is he willing or unwilling?

Bit of both. The Ring is essentially an addiction and claiming the Ring at that point is willing, I believe; though it wasn’t in the beginning.

 

[Faelivrin]

Frodo's will is entirely broken. He chooses to claim the Ring, but only after expending every last fragment of his will resisting it. Personally, I wouldn't use the word "willing" for Frodo's decision there.

EDIT: But what word we use is less important than what we mean by it.

 

[amysrevenge]

That's sort of where I was leaning - you could paint Maedhros doing the 3rd Kinslaying in a similar light, if you wanted to.

 

[Faelivrin]

I do see a similarity, but at the risk of repeating myself, I don't think any son of Feanor resisted as thoroughly as Frodo.

And while I do strongly want to show Maedhros and Maglor have repented after the Second Kinslaying, it's fair to say they didn't repent enough. They weren't willing to sacrifice themselves to prevent abstain from another Kinslaying.