Turgon Across the Age

[Marielle]

First of all, I want to thank cellardur for prompting me to think about Turgon's actions throughout the Silmarillion in a completely new light. It's definitely food for thought, but I think he can be interpreted in several ways, and we get the fun of deciding which interpretation we go with.

To put my cards immediately on the table, I am sympathetic to the quasi-messianic take on Turgon that Corey proposed -- drawing on the early idea of Melkor feeling dread whenever he encountered Turgon in Valinor, if I recall correctly -- but for perhaps an unusual reason. If we take this tact on Turgon, we get to tell a story rarely told, and even more rarely told well (looking at you, George Lucas) -- the messiah that wasn't, the chosen one who failed.

That being said, I think that cellardur's points should be considered, even if I would offer opposing interpretations of them.

Turgon is going to make a number of really bad calls.
1. Keeps everyone except his messages locked away, but shows favouritism and allows Aredhal to leave.
2. Forces Maeglin to stay in Gondolin, but will later let Huor and Hurin leave.
3. Orders the brutal execution of Eol, which makes even Idril distance herself from the Noldor.
4. After all Hurin/Huor have done for him he refuses to let Hurin back in the city.

These are just big mistakes he makes off the top of my head.

1. Now, I'm the first to admit I don't know the unpublished material -- or even the published Silmarillion, as well as some here, but I don't recall any sense in which there's a majority, or significant minority, or anyone other than Aredhel wanting to leave Gondolin. We certainly could go in that direction -- "we came to explore Middle Earth, and you've locked us in this one (admittedly lovely) valley?" -- but I tend to think of Gondolin like Doriath or Lothlorien, where almost everyone is quite content to stay and do the same thing for a millennium., which would make Aredhel's attitude the deviant one. Also, Ulmo did sort of tell Turgon to make a secret stronghold. I think letting Aredhel leave is an act of love, not favoritism, though of course those lines can be blurred easily.

2. I'd never thought to contrast Maeglin and Hurin before! And I certainly can see the comparison. But Turgon is in a bit of a different situation with Eol and Maeglin. Gondolin's security depends on it remaining a dead secret. Turgon does not know Eol or Maeglin, and has every reason to believe Eol at least can't be trusted with the secret, that he would have no loyalty or fondness for Turgon or the Noldor to in any way risk his own neck to keep the location hidden. Turgon might not be perfectly fair to Eol, perhaps, but it's hard to blame him for being harsh to the man who kidnapped and impregnated his sister.

Maeglin, I agree, is a bit of a more murky call. It's something I look forward to discussing more.

3. I confess I don't recall what you're referring to here, with Idril. Is it something from the later unpublished materials?

When it comes to the "brutal execution" of Eol, well. Yes. Turgon does order an elf executed, which is a Big Deal. But think about it from Turgon's view. This stranger, who professes to hate the Noldor, kidnapped a princess of the Noldor, Turgon's own beloved sister, "wed" her, and kept her and her son prisoners in his home for years. When they flee, he pursues, and demands their return. Even when he scornfully renounces his "rights" to Aredhel, he asserts his authority over Maeglin even to the level of Roman pater familias, and chooses death for his adult son. Then he brandishes a weapon in the king's own hall and attempts to strike down the kinsman of the king, wounding his own "wife". Then, he conceals that the weapon is poisoned, until the princess' wound festers, and presumably isn't exactly helpful in providing an antidote. Turgon has been offended as Noldo, King, and Brother -- is it any surprise he's not exactly merciful?

Does that justify capital punishment? Well, if you believe it ever is, probably. But cellardur's certainly right to point out the aberration of elvish law and custom, and I think there's definitely a case that Turgon is acting in wrath against Eol, not justice.

4. When Turgon rejects Hurin, doesn't he get a lamenting line about even Hurin falling under Morgoth's sway? So he underestimates Hurin, like Morgoth did. It's tragic, but I don't think Turgon can be accused of simply being callous here.



Celladur's final point (in the original post), that emphasizing/building Turgon up too much could distract from his grandson is a good one. I'd like to think and talk more about that.

All this is to say that I think we have a lot to think through and plan for Turgon's character arch. I look forward to the years ahead; but more pressingly, where do we think we need him at the beginning of Season 4?

 

[Ange1e4e5]

First of all, I want to thank cellardur for prompting me to think about Turgon's actions throughout the Silmarillion in a completely new light. It's definitely food for thought, but I think he can be interpreted in several ways, and we get the fun of deciding which interpretation we go with.

To put my cards immediately on the table, I am sympathetic to the quasi-messianic take on Turgon that Corey proposed -- drawing on the early idea of Melkor feeling dread whenever he encountered Turgon in Valinor, if I recall correctly -- but for perhaps an unusual reason. If we take this tact on Turgon, we get to tell a story rarely told, and even more rarely told well (looking at you, George Lucas) -- the messiah that wasn't, the chosen one who failed.

That being said, I think that cellardur's points should be considered, even if I would offer opposing interpretations of them.



1. Now, I'm the first to admit I don't know the unpublished material -- or even the published Silmarillion, as well as some here, but I don't recall any sense in which there's a majority, or significant minority, or anyone other than Aredhel wanting to leave Gondolin. We certainly could go in that direction -- "we came to explore Middle Earth, and you've locked us in this one (admittedly lovely) valley?" -- but I tend to think of Gondolin like Doriath or Lothlorien, where almost everyone is quite content to stay and do the same thing for a millennium., which would make Aredhel's attitude the deviant one. Also, Ulmo did sort of tell Turgon to make a secret stronghold. I think letting Aredhel leave is an act of love, not favoritism, though of course those lines can be blurred easily.

2. I'd never thought to contrast Maeglin and Hurin before! And I certainly can see the comparison. But Turgon is in a bit of a different situation with Eol and Maeglin. Gondolin's security depends on it remaining a dead secret. Turgon does not know Eol or Maeglin, and has every reason to believe Eol at least can't be trusted with the secret, that he would have no loyalty or fondness for Turgon or the Noldor to in any way risk his own neck to keep the location hidden. Turgon might not be perfectly fair to Eol, perhaps, but it's hard to blame him for being harsh to the man who kidnapped and impregnated his sister.

Maeglin, I agree, is a bit of a more murky call. It's something I look forward to discussing more.

3. I confess I don't recall what you're referring to here, with Idril. Is it something from the later unpublished materials?

When it comes to the "brutal execution" of Eol, well. Yes. Turgon does order an elf executed, which is a Big Deal. But think about it from Turgon's view. This stranger, who professes to hate the Noldor, kidnapped a princess of the Noldor, Turgon's own beloved sister, "wed" her, and kept her and her son prisoners in his home for years. When they flee, he pursues, and demands their return. Even when he scornfully renounces his "rights" to Aredhel, he asserts his authority over Maeglin even to the level of Roman pater familias, and chooses death for his adult son. Then he brandishes a weapon in the king's own hall and attempts to strike down the kinsman of the king, wounding his own "wife". Then, he conceals that the weapon is poisoned, until the princess' wound festers, and presumably isn't exactly helpful in providing an antidote. Turgon has been offended as Noldo, King, and Brother -- is it any surprise he's not exactly merciful?

Does that justify capital punishment? Well, if you believe it ever is, probably. But cellardur's certainly right to point out the aberration of elvish law and custom, and I think there's definitely a case that Turgon is acting in wrath against Eol, not justice.

4. When Turgon rejects Hurin, doesn't he get a lamenting line about even Hurin falling under Morgoth's sway? So he underestimates Hurin, like Morgoth did. It's tragic, but I don't think Turgon can be accused of simply being callous here.



Celladur's final point (in the original post), that emphasizing/building Turgon up too much could distract from his grandson is a good one. I'd like to think and talk more about that.

All this is to say that I think we have a lot to think through and plan for Turgon's character arch. I look forward to the years ahead; but more pressingly, where do we think we need him at the beginning of Season 4?

2. I thought Maeglin wanted to stay in Gondolin, being enamored of what he had heard from his mother in her own longing, and wanting Idril.

3. Eol's execution is the first in recorded history I believe. Turgon wanting Eol dead might be considering that:
Eol kidnapped and raped Idril, then tried to kill his own son, and wound up killing his "wife", does that count as kinslaying?
For some reason, I'm in favor of Turgon killing Eol personally, to emphasize his wrath.

 

[Ange1e4e5]

On the other hand, what about Turgon makes Morgoth dread him?

 

[cellardur]

On the other hand, what about Turgon makes Morgoth dread him?

I am sorry and have been really busy this week so I have not had a chance to reply. I will give my thoughts in more detail.

What Turgon has that makes him special, is he is Earendil's grandfather.

 

[Ange1e4e5]

Anyways, Turgon’s got to have some great amount of moral fiber, or his grandson would not have been chosen to be the envoy to the Valar.

 

[cellardur]

Anyways, Turgon’s got to have some great amount of moral fiber, or his grandson would not have been chosen to be the envoy to the Valar.

I am not sure it works like that. I will address the issue more later. Earendil is also the great, great grandson of Finwe, who was even more flawed and obstinate to the Valar than Turgon.

I am not saying Turgon was Morgoth come again, in fact he was one of the most moral and upstanding of the Noldor, but out of the exiles he is not Finrod (beloved by virtually everyone), Galadriel or Glorfindel.

He is an outstanding individual, but with flaws like all of the Noldor.

 

[cellardur]

First of all, I want to thank cellardur for prompting me to think about Turgon's actions throughout the Silmarillion in a completely new light. It's definitely food for thought, but I think he can be interpreted in several ways, and we get the fun of deciding which interpretation we go with.

To put my cards immediately on the table, I am sympathetic to the quasi-messianic take on Turgon that Corey proposed -- drawing on the early idea of Melkor feeling dread whenever he encountered Turgon in Valinor, if I recall correctly -- but for perhaps an unusual reason. If we take this tact on Turgon, we get to tell a story rarely told, and even more rarely told well (looking at you, George Lucas) -- the messiah that wasn't, the chosen one who failed.

I don't like this idea, because Earendil was always the Chosen One, like no other character in the whole of Tolkien's legendarium. He was special from the moment he is born and was eagerly awaited. Secondly we already have a story about an immensely gifted character falling: Feanor.

1. Now, I'm the first to admit I don't know the unpublished material -- or even the published Silmarillion, as well as some here, but I don't recall any sense in which there's a majority, or significant minority, or anyone other than Aredhel wanting to leave Gondolin. We certainly could go in that direction -- "we came to explore Middle Earth, and you've locked us in this one (admittedly lovely) valley?" -- but I tend to think of Gondolin like Doriath or Lothlorien, where almost everyone is quite content to stay and do the same thing for a millennium., which would make Aredhel's attitude the deviant one. Also, Ulmo did sort of tell Turgon to make a secret stronghold. I think letting Aredhel leave is an act of love, not favoritism, though of course those lines can be blurred easily.

Aredhel is definitely defiant and headstrong, but so are 90 percent of Finwe's descendants. I agree with you there is a thin line, between favouritism and love. In this case Turgon knew letting her go would cause trouble to his kingdom, but he chose making her happy over the future of his kingdom. I don't think this is a great decision especially when he won't march out for war, but allows it on the whim of his sister.

2. I'd never thought to contrast Maeglin and Hurin before! And I certainly can see the comparison. But Turgon is in a bit of a different situation with Eol and Maeglin. Gondolin's security depends on it remaining a dead secret. Turgon does not know Eol or Maeglin, and has every reason to believe Eol at least can't be trusted with the secret, that he would have no loyalty or fondness for Turgon or the Noldor to in any way risk his own neck to keep the location hidden. Turgon might not be perfectly fair to Eol, perhaps, but it's hard to blame him for being harsh to the man who kidnapped and impregnated his sister.

I think kidnapped is too strong a word, there was some love between the two of them and perhaps Turgon was right in his decision, but his punishment and the manner of the execution is excessively harsh in my opinion.

Maeglin, I agree, is a bit of a more murky call. It's something I look forward to discussing more.

It's extreme to threaten his own nephew with death if he desired to leave the city. Maeglin never says anything, but he clearly feels a certain resentment about it. Huor and Hurin were given a chance to leave, after just a year (which is nothing to the elves), but he was told 'stay or die.'

3. I confess I don't recall what you're referring to here, with Idril. Is it something from the later unpublished materials?

When it comes to the "brutal execution" of Eol, well. Yes. Turgon does order an elf executed, which is a Big Deal. But think about it from Turgon's view. This stranger, who professes to hate the Noldor, kidnapped a princess of the Noldor, Turgon's own beloved sister, "wed" her, and kept her and her son prisoners in his home for years. When they flee, he pursues, and demands their return. Even when he scornfully renounces his "rights" to Aredhel, he asserts his authority over Maeglin even to the level of Roman pater familias, and chooses death for his adult son. Then he brandishes a weapon in the king's own hall and attempts to strike down the kinsman of the king, wounding his own "wife". Then, he conceals that the weapon is poisoned, until the princess' wound festers, and presumably isn't exactly helpful in providing an antidote. Turgon has been offended as Noldo, King, and Brother -- is it any surprise he's not exactly merciful?

Turgon's behaviour is understandable. However, compare his behaviour to that of Eonwe (to Maedhros/Maglor), Frodo to Saruman, Theoden to Wormtongue or even Orodreth to Celegorm/Curufin. Those are just some examples of kings having every right to hand out the death penalty, but they choose mercy. Turgon had every right to hand out the death penalty, but I don't think Aragorn or Elrond would have thrown Eol off a cliff.

4. When Turgon rejects Hurin, doesn't he get a lamenting line about even Hurin falling under Morgoth's sway? So he underestimates Hurin, like Morgoth did. It's tragic, but I don't think Turgon can be accused of simply being callous here.

Yet Melian tries to help him and even Thingol as proud as he is has pity in his heart for Hurin. Yes Turgon had his reasons, but again do you think Aragorn, Elrond or Gandalf would have turned Hurin away? The same people that gave Saruman and Gollum a chance for redemption?


Turgon is noble and wise, but he is not going to be as noble as some around him or others will be after him. I think to try and paint him as a new Earendil does his character a disservice.

 

[MithLuin]

Concerning the death penalty in Tolkien's work, I think Gandalf's statement to Frodo is the gold standard. When Frodo points out that Gollum deserves death, Gandalf is quick to reframe the question:

"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."

So, certainly, the noblest characters are going to follow this standard, recognizing that while they might need to pass judgement, they do not necessarily need to execute someone, as having the power of life and death over someone goes above and beyond what a ruler should do. But it does not go beyond what a ruler has a right to do. In other words, there is a difference between someone deserving the death penalty, someone having the right to enforce the death penalty, and having the death penalty be the right thing to do.

As king of Gondolin, Turgon had the right. As an elf who was guilty of attempted murder and murder of the king's sister, Eöl deserved death. It's on the last point, of whether or not Turgon should have had Eöl tossed off the walls of the city, that Gandalf's condemnation would apply. But please note that while Gandalf is urging pity, he doesn't make a moral imperative of it.


Eärendil is the messianic figure, of course. He's the one who is foretold, and who changes everything. Turgon, however, is the one on screen, and is therefore an appropriate target of prophecy. It's true that when Tolkien wrote about Melkor suffering disquiet whenever Turgon's shadow crossed him in Tirion, it was pointing to a more direct role for Turgon in Morgoth's demise. But it's still certainly true that, as Huor will prophetically point out, from him and Turgon a new star shall rise. The narrator of the Silmarillion can name-drop Eärendil long before his birth. We can't. We have to rely on a sense of destiny/prophecy/fate to build anticipation of the coming of Eärendil. And so, we're doing that through Turgon.

Here is what we've done so far. Turgon's wedding occurs at the exact moment that Fëanor creates the silmarils. So, it's a bit...comedic...that Fëanor gate-crashes Turgon's wedding with his brand new jewels. But, hopefully we will have begun the connection of the fate of the silmarils with the fate of Turgon's family in that moment.

Then, we have 'Melkor on probation' doing some fortune telling for the Noldor. Keep in mind that during this time, Melkor is not recognized as evil by most of the inhabitants of Valinor. So, it's a casual enough conversation, though it certainly ties into the unrest of the Noldor. At any rate, Melkor does not like what he sees in Turgon's future.

Turgon is the one who looks back at Tirion as they leave, mourning its loss already.

The way the Noldor in Fingolfin's Host find out they have been stranded in Araman is that Turgon has a prophetic dream/vision showing him the shipburning of the Fëanoreans. We have shown elves experiencing dreams/visions before, usually (but not always) tied to Ulmo, and so this begins marking Turgon out as someone in his generation who might be prone to that.

And when the host of Fingolfin is deciding to cross the Helcaraxë, Elenwë and Turgon have a private conversation about the future of their family in Middle-earth. She expresses the need to go to Middle-earth in the terms of hope for the Noldor, for the future...and thus we see a hint that Elenwë may see their daughter Idril as having the key role that she does in bringing Earendil into existence and saving the remnant from the destruction of Gondolin. Nothing concrete will be said, but the idea of Turgon being a source of hope will be started.


I don't think that any of this is too messianic, and I think that most of it does point towards a future destiny and does not focus on Turgon himself. I do think he will be a bit different in character after the crossing of the Helcaraxë, though. Certainly, we'll see more anger and bitterness and paranoia from him that we did not before. But by the time that Turgon gets around to building Gondolin, it will seem right and fitting that he do so. That source of hope for later is crystalized in leaving behind the suit of armor. Someone is coming.....

 

[amysrevenge]

What if it *looks* like all the prophecy points to Turgon, but it actually has been pointing to Earendil all along? Would it feel like a cheap bait-and-switch, or clever misdirection/what-a-twist?

 

[cellardur]

What if it *looks* like all the prophecy points to Turgon, but it actually has been pointing to Earendil all along? Would it feel like a cheap bait-and-switch, or clever misdirection/what-a-twist?

That's fine by me as long, as more observant and discerning viewers can tell it won't be Turgon. For example, Ulmo asking him to leave a suit of armour behind etc, or the messenger having to plead for both Men and Elves.

Concerning the death penalty in Tolkien's work, I think Gandalf's statement to Frodo is the gold standard. When Frodo points out that Gollum deserves death, Gandalf is quick to reframe the question:



So, certainly, the noblest characters are going to follow this standard, recognizing that while they might need to pass judgement, they do not necessarily need to execute someone, as having the power of life and death over someone goes above and beyond what a ruler should do. But it does not go beyond what a ruler has a right to do. In other words, there is a difference between someone deserving the death penalty, someone having the right to enforce the death penalty, and having the death penalty be the right thing to do.

As king of Gondolin, Turgon had the right. As an elf who was guilty of attempted murder and murder of the king's sister, Eöl deserved death. It's on the last point, of whether or not Turgon should have had Eöl tossed off the walls of the city, that Gandalf's condemnation would apply. But please note that while Gandalf is urging pity, he doesn't make a moral imperative of it.


Eärendil is the messianic figure, of course. He's the one who is foretold, and who changes everything. Turgon, however, is the one on screen, and is therefore an appropriate target of prophecy. It's true that when Tolkien wrote about Melkor suffering disquiet whenever Turgon's shadow crossed him in Tirion, it was pointing to a more direct role for Turgon in Morgoth's demise. But it's still certainly true that, as Huor will prophetically point out, from him and Turgon a new star shall rise. The narrator of the Silmarillion can name-drop Eärendil long before his birth. We can't. We have to rely on a sense of destiny/prophecy/fate to build anticipation of the coming of Eärendil. And so, we're doing that through Turgon.

Here is what we've done so far. Turgon's wedding occurs at the exact moment that Fëanor creates the silmarils. So, it's a bit...comedic...that Fëanor gate-crashes Turgon's wedding with his brand new jewels. But, hopefully we will have begun the connection of the fate of the silmarils with the fate of Turgon's family in that moment.

Then, we have 'Melkor on probation' doing some fortune telling for the Noldor. Keep in mind that during this time, Melkor is not recognized as evil by most of the inhabitants of Valinor. So, it's a casual enough conversation, though it certainly ties into the unrest of the Noldor. At any rate, Melkor does not like what he sees in Turgon's future.

Turgon is the one who looks back at Tirion as they leave, mourning its loss already.

The way the Noldor in Fingolfin's Host find out they have been stranded in Araman is that Turgon has a prophetic dream/vision showing him the shipburning of the Fëanoreans. We have shown elves experiencing dreams/visions before, usually (but not always) tied to Ulmo, and so this begins marking Turgon out as someone in his generation who might be prone to that.

And when the host of Fingolfin is deciding to cross the Helcaraxë, Elenwë and Turgon have a private conversation about the future of their family in Middle-earth. She expresses the need to go to Middle-earth in the terms of hope for the Noldor, for the future...and thus we see a hint that Elenwë may see their daughter Idril as having the key role that she does in bringing Earendil into existence and saving the remnant from the destruction of Gondolin. Nothing concrete will be said, but the idea of Turgon being a source of hope will be started.


I don't think that any of this is too messianic, and I think that most of it does point towards a future destiny and does not focus on Turgon himself. I do think he will be a bit different in character after the crossing of the Helcaraxë, though. Certainly, we'll see more anger and bitterness and paranoia from him that we did not before. But by the time that Turgon gets around to building Gondolin, it will seem right and fitting that he do so. That source of hope for later is crystalized in leaving behind the suit of armor. Someone is coming.....

Thanks for the summary and I will be listening to episode, 17 and 18 this weekend. I don't have a any arguments with the way Turgon has gone so far, as long as later faults will be seen.

 

[Faelivrin]

Like Cellardur, I do not see Turgon as a messianic or morally perfect figure. The Hosts talk about him as though he is Jesus Christ himself, a morally infallible perfect saint, and call him "unfallen". But in the books he doesn't come across to me as any of these things.

Turgon is an object of prophecy, and of dread for Morgoth, _only_ because Earendil will be his grandson. Turgon is not depicted as either a messiah or a saint by Tolkien. He is not prophesied as a moral savior. He gets some credit for not opposing Idril's marriage the way Thingol did, but he is not the messiah himself. Some Noldor might misinterpret the vague prophetic indications (if they hear any) as pointing towards Turgon himself, but they would be mistaken. To my recollection, the only time Turgon himself is looked to as a savior is after the Fifth Battle, when he's viewed as a potential _military_ savior. That's simply because his kingdom hasn't been destroyed yet, and has nothing to do with being morally superior to other Exiles.

Ulmo chose Turgon to bring his plans, apparently including Earendil, into being. That should be for a reason. We have shown that Turgon is somewhat more pious than the average Exile, for example having him discuss what the Valar will do in response to the Darkening of Valinor, instead of discussing what the Noldor should do. We've also shown Finrod being the officiator at the funeral on the Helkaraxe, and saying a prayer to Ulmo. Neither one has blood on their hands at Alqualonde. So, yes, they are both less guilty and more pious than than some Exiles. Ulmo has reasons to prefer them over Fingon, or Fingolfin, let alone a Feanorian.

But that does not mean that Turgon is pure as the driven snow, or never makes mistakes. He's not flawless. He is an Exile. Turgon is already fallen. Even Finrod and Finarfin have fallen. Every Exile has. And Turgon is said to be the most fiercely unwilling to reconcile with the Sons of Feanor after the Noldor reunite. The Hosts want Angrod to be enormously more angry and unforgiving than Turgon, but that is the opposite of what the books say. Angrod is angry, but as he points out to Thingol: he forgave the Feanorians, and stayed silent about their misdeeds for over 60 years. In contrast, Turgon never forgave the Feanorians, not even those who didn't participate in burning the ships. His anger is perfectly understanable, certainly. But he does not live up to the ideals of mercy and forgiveeness that Tolkien holds up as ideal in the LotR.

Again, he shows this in executing Eol -- an understandable decision, but still a decision made by a person with moral imperfections.

 

[Marielle]

Like Cellardur, I do not see Turgon as a messianic or morally perfect figure. The Hosts talk about him as though he is Jesus Christ himself, a morally infallible perfect saint, and call him "unfallen". But in the books he doesn't come across to me as any of these things.

I confess myself, frankly, puzzled by this reaction to the hosts' comments, to the point I wonder if we even listen to the same broadcasts. Possibly, this may be because I have been a regular listener/participant in Corey's projects since 2011, and so am familiar with Corey, Dave, and Trish's senses of humor, hyperbole, etc. and so take for granted that others "get it" when he's exaggerating for effect, or fails to find the right word in stream-of-consciousness discussion.

But, honestly. Corey knows very well that Turgon is not Jesus Christ, and to insinuate that he really thinks that seems willfully to misunderstand. Corey did use hyperbole to make the larger point -- there is something special about Turgon in the Legendarium. Melkor in Valinor is wary, feels a sense of doom, whenever he encounters Turgon. No, he's not pure and clean as the wind-driven snow. But he's a big deal. He is depicted much more as Ulmo's choice than Earendil. In a way, that's exactly what makes Earendil so special -- Ulmo's plan calls for Turgon but Eru chooses Earendil.

But I must firmly disagree with you that the "only" thing special about Turgon is his grandson. That, frankly, is not true in the early renditions of the Legendarium, and it's debatable later on. It's problematic, to say the least, to claim "Tolkien said/depicted" in any dogmatic way, because Tolkien's thinking and text evolved constantly over his lifetime, and not always linearly. Tolkien was not Whiggish in his writing: he was willing to allow a new idea to develop but heavily modify or even -- though rarely -- abandon it if it didn't work -- see his early ideas of Frodo being captured in Minas Morgul for an example.

I confess I am struggling not to be peeved and defensive -- I've been seeing a lot of criticism recently that I've kept catching myself interpreting as an attack on the Hosts' love for or knowledge of Tolkien's works. Some seem to accuse them of betraying the text or just flat out getting lore wrong (which, like above, is more complicated than some fan think). I have a great deal of respect for Corey as a Tolkien expert and scholar, and I am well aware of all three's nuanced and not-altogether-positive views of the LotR and Hobbit films. Now, none of the hosts are Tolkien reincarnate, and their virtues as a theoretical show producers can be questioned, but suggestions that they doesn't know what they're talking are just silly. Hopefully, however, this is just me reading into the occasional post a subtext that isn't there -- it is certainly easy to misunderstand the tone of written communication.

The Hosts want Angrod to be enormously more angry and unforgiving than Turgon, but that is the opposite of what the books say. Angrod is angry, but as he points out to Thingol: he forgave the Feanorians, and stayed silent about their misdeeds for over 60 years. In contrast, Turgon never forgave the Feanorians, not even those who didn't participate in burning the ships. His anger is perfectly understandable, certainly. But he does not live up to the ideals of mercy and forgiveness that Tolkien holds up as ideal in the LotR.

I understand and do not disagree with the larger point, but I wonder if we aren't talking past each other, and about two different things. Or, at the very least, radically differing in our interpretations of the hosts' and others comments. Angrod wanting to slaughter the Feanoreans after the Feast of Reconciliation would be a contradiction of the text -- him really rather hoping he can punch his stupid uncle in his stupid face right after the Burning of the Ships and the Crossing of the Helcaraxe isn't. At least, not to my reading. It's simple enough for an epitomizing text to say that Angrod was angry and got over it; we now have to show it, but giving it a storyline. Having Angrod release his anger in the beginning of Season 4 makes complete sense to me, as that's what the whole of the Host of Fingolfin has to do -- grudgingly or otherwise -- between the rising of the Sun and the Feast. But saying "a whole group of people got over their problems" is 1) weird and difficult and 2) less interesting on screen than giving a detailed account of one individual's journey.

Turgon, I agree, comes closer to a deviation from the text, but I think we could, in Season 4, show him as deeply bitter -- but not violently so -- against the Feanoreans. His anger might be icy, but that does not mean it isn't burning. And again, even in the passages that most hint at a quasi-possible-savior-figure Turgon, the story ends with him failing. Tolkien, to my knowledge, never wrote a version of the story where Turgon responds appropriately to Ulmo's request. But it needs to be believable that he could have -- that Ulmo could believe it was possible he would, for the sake of Ulmo's status with the audience, if not Turgon's. Turgon is proud -- yes. Turgon can be wrathful and hold grudges -- yes. But he was also great, as his (wonderful, heroic, and flawed) father was before him. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but I don't think the story actually suggested for him in Season 3 -- his desire to see Middle Earth, his sense of destiny and purpose for himself and his family, his dreams, and his love and grief for his family -- fundamentally violates the character as we see him in the various versions of the Legendarium.

 

[Faelivrin]

Possibly, this may be because I have been a regular listener/participant in Corey's projects since 2011, and so am familiar with Corey, Dave, and Trish's senses of humor, hyperbole, etc. and so take for granted that others "get it" when he's exaggerating for effect, or fails to find the right word in stream-of-consciousness discussion.

No, I don't know how to tell if Corey is using a joke or hyperbole or sarcasm, or being serious, unless he laughs after a punchline. I don't know him personally. I figured out Corey was joking about killing Amros in podcast 3.18 because he said "I'm joking."


So, Corey declared outright that Turgon never, _ever_ makes a single bad decision in his _entire_ life, until he chooses to stay in Gondolin after Ulmo's warning. He said "That's the first" time that Turgon ever makes any mistake at all, _ever_. That's a very stark and extreme declaration that the character is literally flawless and infallible and perfect. Corey also declared outright that Turgon is "unfallen", and I am pretty sure I remember him using the word "Messiah". He also said that when Turgon arrives in the Nirnaeth Arnoediad, the glad greeting he receives is _not_ because he brings military reinforcements, but because he is the prophesied savior who will defeat/destroy Morgoth. Those were the actual words Corey used in the podcast.

If you interpret all of that as hyperbole or a joke, that's fine. Maybe you're right. But I heard the words that I heard. We were told never to show Turgon making any mistakes or errors of judgment, ever, until Tuor comes to Gondolin.


I just ... cannot take the words "Messiah" and "unfallen" lightly in a Christian context. They are strong words with specific meanings in Christianity. I'm also bothered by claims that any non-Divine person, real or fictional, is literally infallible. Infallibility is an exclusive trait of the Almighty, not ordinary people or even lesser deities/Valar. So, yeah, when I hear that somebody is supposed to be an unfallen Messiah who has never ever made a mistake, I can only interpret that as a direct comparison to Jesus Christ.

I don't know anything about the Hosts except what they say on YouTube, and I make no a priori assumptions that they never make mistakes or forget what is in a book. They have made mistakes. I also do not agree with all of the things they say.

 

[Ange1e4e5]

So which one do we go with?

As for Corey, he's simply wrong. Earendil saves them since he is the one who journeys to Valinor to plead for the Exiled and the Edain. And Turgon doesn't do anything particularly messianic in the story.

 

[Faelivrin]

The closest Turgon himself comes to being a literal prophesied Savior* is that, in the earliest versions after the Lost Tales, Ulmo wants Turgon to lead the last Noldor to war against Morgoth, and plans to persuade the Valar to come help. But that's Ulmo's attempt to make Turgon into a _military_ savior, not a moral/religious Messiah/prophet/Savior. And Turgon is having none of it, so it never happens.

But in any case, Turgon doesn't need to be morally perfect and infallible to be either a potential or an actual military savior. Before the Nirnaeth Arnoediad, Elves and Men were saying similar things about Maedhros being a military savior who would defeat Morgoth and "shut the gates of Angband".

*outside whatever may be said in the Lost Tales, which I don't recall

 

[Ange1e4e5]

What if it *looks* like all the prophecy points to Turgon, but it actually has been pointing to Earendil all along? Would it feel like a cheap bait-and-switch, or clever misdirection/what-a-twist?

Feels a bit cheap.

I've felt that Turgon's attitude in Middle-Earth is more resigned, displayed with trying to make Gondolin into a twin of Tirion. This means that when Tuor comes, he doesn't want to leave because he feels like he can't. If they leave Gondolin, where else is there to go? Valinor is closed off to them entirely. None of his ships have returned. All he is certain of is that the savior will come from his line, not necessarily him.

 

[Faelivrin]

He wants to die as a King, not as the leader of a pitiful, ragged band of refugees cowering on the coast. His attitude at death is like Fingolfin's, in that way.


The only literary example I know of, depicting a false messiah, is Paul Muad'Dib in the first 3 Dune books. He's clearly set up in comparison to Jesus, as well as Mohammed to a lesser extent. He's genuinely a heroic character, at least by the moral standards of the setting. But Frank Herbert also shows the reader, from early in book 1, that Paul is an imperfect human being, and that the prophecies about him are basically fraudulent. At the same time, Herbert skillfully builds up reader expectations about Paul being a savior, and then ruthlessly tears them down. It's a deliberate bait-and-switch, and yet it isn't truly cheap because a reader who pays close enough attention can see from the start that Paul isn't what he's made out to be.

In this case, the prophecies about Earendil are quite genuine, and they will actually be fulfilled: both militarily, in the defeat of Morgoth, and spiritually, in the forgiveness of the Exiles. Earendil's personal traits also seem to be murky enough that we can likely make him exceedingly noble and morally upright, moreso than Turgon, without contradicting how he's depicted in the books. I don't have any suggestions, though, about how to make it look like the prophecies point to Turgon himself, without it being a bait-and-switch. At the same time, the most gut-punching, heart-wrenching way to tell the Nirnaeth Arnoediad is by building up false hopes in the audience before the defeat -- just like the Elves and Men got their hopes up before the battle. There _are_ some characters who apparently think those prophecies are about Turgon himself.

One thing about Turgon and Gondolin, and also in a way Nargothrond, that does dimly resemble what Corey wants, is this: Turgon is selected by Ulmo (and evidently by Manwe as well) to have this hidden city from which hope will come. And he cooperates with Ulmo and the Eagles for centuries, if not always in a heartwarming way. When Ulmo tells him what the next step in the plan is, via the foretold messenger whom Turgon has been expecting, the audience will hope he'll continue to cooperate. And... he doesn't. It isn't a sudden out-of-character fall from grace, but it will be a letdown -- for Ulmo, for Tuor, and for the audience. I don't aim to soften that letdown. I just really don't want to build up unreasonable levels of expectation about Turgon before that letdown.

I don't think that any of this is too messianic

Right, I don't think what has been put in the outlines so far is infallible, or without wrath. He's upright enough to be a fitting person for Ulmo to choose, but we show him making a mistake and falling by joining the Rebellion. And in Ep 12, I think, we depicted him being very angry at Feanor and his sons.

About execution, I think Cellardur's point is that it isn't out of character for Turgon to want to execute Feanor, because he does execute Eol. That holds whether or not it was right or a good idea to do so. I do think Feanor and Eol both deserved death. But executing them isn't ideal or saintly according to the very highest ideals Tolkien points towards via Gandalf. And if Turgon, who hates the Feanorians more fierely than anyone, doesn't want to execute Feanor, then no character should be advocating violence against the Feanorians. Which may make it tricky to set up "peril of war between the hosts" in Mithrim.

 

[Ange1e4e5]

Right, I don't think what has been put in the outlines so far is infallible, or without wrath. He's upright enough to be a fitting person for Ulmo to choose, but we show him making a mistake and falling by joining the Rebellion. And in Ep 12, I think, we depicted him being very angry at Feanor and his sons.

About execution, I think Cellardur's point is that it isn't out of character for Turgon to want to execute Feanor, because he does execute Eol. That holds whether or not it was right or a good idea to do so. I do think Feanor and Eol both deserved death. But executing them isn't ideal or saintly according to the very highest ideals Tolkien points towards via Gandalf. And if Turgon, who hates the Feanorians more fierely than anyone, doesn't want to execute Feanor, then no character should be advocating violence against the Feanorians. Which may make it tricky to set up "peril of war between the hosts" in Mithrim.

How is Turgon unfallen and simultaneously an Exile?

And then there’s me, who suggests that Turgon personally executes Eol.

 

[Faelivrin]

How is Turgon unfallen and simultaneously an Exile?

He can't possibly be both, and that's my point. All Exiles are fallen, and all of them made at least one mistake that caused their fall.

We can continue to depict Turgon as a basically decent person, less guilty and more pious than many other Exiles, without making him literally unable to make mistakes.

 

[Ange1e4e5]

I might be the biggest idiot for suggesting Turgon personally execute Eol.