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.
I'm still not certain (or have forgotten ) when you say practical or pragmatic, how much you intend "coldly pragmatic". I still would prefer "mildly pragmatic, with strong feelings" and don't think that's necessarily ruled out by what we've written so far.We've made him a practical person
Maglor tries to reject the Oath at the end of the War of Wrath, but Maedhros persuaded him to help steal the Silmarils.Welcome, Ziggy!
I'm still not certain (or have forgotten ) when you say practical or pragmatic, how much you intend "coldly pragmatic". I still would prefer "mildly pragmatic, with strong feelings" and don't think that's necessarily ruled out by what we've written so far.
The twins killing each other in the Third Kinslaying is an interesting (very dark) interpretation, although we wouldn't be able to do that in SilmFilm.
Edit: I've been pondering why Tolkien never said Maglor forswore the Oath, when Maedhros did. They both tried equally hard to break the Oath, so it's odd. I have some ideas how to creatively interpret that so Maglor doesn't act out of character.
Both of them try equally hard to break the Oath for 26 years before the Third Kinslaying. I'm very confused why everybody seems to continually disagree that this ever occurred at all, or that Maedhros ever forswore the Oath, when these events stated explicitly in multiple volumes of HoME and even in the 1977 Silmarillion. It's frustrating that I have to keep reminding everyone and still nobody seems to believes me.Maglor tries to reject the Oath at the end of the War of Wrath, but Maedhros persuaded him to help steal the Silmarils.
What I mean is that at the end of the War of Wrath in the published Silmarillion, Maedhros wants to seize the Silmarils. Maglor doesn’t want to, but he yields to Maedhros.Both of them try equally hard to break the Oath for 26 years before the Third Kinslaying. I'm very confused why everybody seems to continually disagree that this ever occurred at all, or that Maedhros ever forswore the Oath, when these events stated explicitly in multiple volumes of HoME and even in the 1977 Silmarillion. It's frustrating that I have to keep reminding everyone and still nobody seems to believes me.
Generally, the type of unnecessary change most anathema to me is exaggerating or distorting a character into a misrepresentation of the person depicted by the author, especially erasing flaws from "good guys" and erasing positive traits from "bad guys," making them black and white. Especially with a character I like. One of the most wonderful and compelling things about Tolkien's writing is that even with tangible, cosmic forces of Good and Evil, he makes most of his characters complex and interesting.
Because (in the plot I’ve had) he hates Dior for existing and wants to destroy everything related to Beren, Luthien and Dior. His servants leave Dior’s sons in the forest to starve.I like that! Although I'm not following why that leads to Dior's sons being left in the forest. Please explain?
Because it’s slower and more psychologically torturous to leave them to starve? He must have taken a leaf out of Bane’s book with leaving some hope to poison the soul of whoever was trying to save them.Oh, you mean his motive for wanting the little boys murdered in cold blood. Yes, I agree completely. I thought you meant a reason for the method they were killed. Like, why a snowy forest instead of a sword, or a candlestick in the dining-room.
What do you think of my idea of Celegorm marking out Dior for him to kill personally?Well, Celegorm is dead by the time the decision to leave the boys to starve is made. It's his servants who do that, presumably in retribution for their lord's death. But also possibly because they might not think they have any right to personally kill Thingol's heirs, either, and decide that a decision like that is above their paygrade - let nature take its course, leave the woodelves in the woods and see how they fare.
It's cruel and vindictive, and yes, a bit cowardly.
We will have to include it, though, because it gives the audience the hope that when Maedhros finds out and chastises them, he might be in time to rescue the boys, but...we will then snatch that hope away by having them hide from the searchers (whom they would not perceive as 'rescuers!')
I'm not sure how we'll want to handle the open-ended resolution of them never being found; will our last glimpse of them on screen be them hiding in the woods somewhere, fallen asleep together, with the audience not sure if they're even still alive?
It of course sets up the fostering of Elrond and Elros after the Third Kinslaying at the Havens, but I'm not sure what more we want from this incident.
Ziggy, sorry not to respond earlier, but my Fëanorean fanfiction can be found on The Silmarillion Writers Guild website:
http://www.silmarillionwritersguild.org/archive/home/viewuser.php?uid=13
'Lessons from the Mountain' has character studies on the whole family in it .
Because Dior is the son of Beren and Luthien. Celegorm wanted to take Luthien for himself, so he hates Dior for existing and, alongside acquiring the Silmaril, wants to wipe out their line.One question..
why exactly would he want to kill dior?