On Amras: Some Thoughts and Questions.

[Nicholas Palazzo]

No one is arguing that the Feanorians have a right to the Silmarils by the time we get to the third kinslaying. But the Feanorians certainly think they do. They think they are justified in the same way that the various actors in World War I felt justified. Someone was withholding what they felt was their property.

And I am not saying that people don't do things they know are wrong. I certainly have. But we justify it at the time. "But I need this. But I want this."

 

[cellardur]

No one is arguing that the Feanorians have a right to the Silmarils by the time we get to the third kinslaying. But the Feanorians certainly think they do. They think they are justified in the same way that the various actors in World War I felt justified. Someone was withholding what they felt was their property.

Not here, but I have seen arguments made previously that the Silmarils always belonged to the House of Feanor, so it's worth clarifying. I think a strong argument can be made that the Sons of Feanor have lost the right to Silmarils as soon as they slayed their kin and burnt the ships, which is the tragedy. They spend all those years fighting for something they no longer have any right too and the Silmarils themselves will reject them.

World War I was a lot more complicated than the case of the Silmarils and the principle of 'clean hands' can be applied to every single country.

And I am not saying that people don't do things they know are wrong. I certainly have. But we justify it at the time. "But I need this. But I want this."

A reason for doing something is not justifying your actions. Justification means you are giving reasons why your action was RIGHT. I think those are the key differences. When I was younger I once had my cake and then stole my little brothers cake. My reason for doing it was I liked cake and wanted to have some more. I knew it was wrong, but there was no attempt to justify it. If I had tried to justify it, I would have reasoned that 'My brother always gets more cake than I do. It's unfair he is always getting more food than I. So it's only fair that I take the cake to make up for it.' That would be an attempt to justify my actions. m times it's just a question of their desire being greater than their reason.

 

[Nicholas Palazzo]

Not here, but I have seen arguments made previously that the Silmarils always belonged to the House of Feanor, so it's worth clarifying. I think a strong argument can be made that the Sons of Feanor have lost the right to Silmarils as soon as they slayed their kin and burnt the ships, which is the tragedy. They spend all those years fighting for something they no longer have any right too and the Silmarils themselves will reject them.

World War I was a lot more complicated than the case of the Silmarils and the principle of 'clean hands' can be applied to every single country.

Obviously WWI was complicated, but you had a bunch of people who were pretty much all in the wrong and all thought they were in the right. The only argument we are making is that the Feanorians consistently justify their behavior to themselves, not that they are justified.

A reason for doing something is not justifying your actions. Justification means you are giving reasons why your action was RIGHT. I think those are the key differences. When I was younger I once had my cake and then stole my little brothers cake. My reason for doing it was I liked cake and wanted to have some more. I knew it was wrong, but there was no attempt to justify it. If I had tried to justify it, I would have reasoned that 'My brother always gets more cake than I do. It's unfair he is always getting more food than I. So it's only fair that I take the cake to make up for it.' That would be an attempt to justify my actions. m times it's just a question of their desire being greater than their reason.

I had to smile when reading this, because I remember doing similar things as a child. As an adult, my though processes became more complicated. Many of the moments that I am the least proud of involved me attempting to justify my behavior to myself. "I have tried to do all the right things and it got me no where." "I'll find a way to make up for it later." "I'm doing the best I can."

 

[MithLuin]

The Fëanoreans are, shall we say, not trustworthy narrators. Their versions of events are not necessarily the truth. You'll notice the example I used in my answer was that of Henry VIII demanding a divorce. He certainly came up with many moral and legal justifications as to why he was right, but that didn't make him right. More importantly, though, I do not think he set out to become a Protestant. That is indeed what happened, but that wasn't his goal when he began. He wanted to get his way, and so he took more and more extreme measures to get it when he was denied. Eventually, the pope excommunicated him and he seized control of the Church in England and dissolved the monasteries. This from the guy who got the title 'Defender of the Faith' for denouncing Martin Luther. Had he not met resistance, things likely would not have escalated to that point [or, who knows, they may have for unrelated reasons; arguing historical hypotheticals is difficult].

That is what I am saying here. No one plans a kinslaying. They plan a 'get the silmaril back' mission, and when they meet staunch resistance, the result is a kinslaying. I'm not saying they're shocked and surprised every time this happens. I am saying that that was not their goal, that was not what they would have been talking about while planning, and things only escalated to that point when they were denied their actual object in the mission (regaining a silmaril). The only deliberately-planned kinslaying is the 4th and final one. Maedhros and Maglor do not try to negotiate with Eonwë; the plan was always to break into his camp and steal the silmarils, which they did. Surely, they planned all along to kill any guards who tried to stop them. But of course, they really planned to die once they got them - they were supposed to be slain in their attempt to fulfill the Oath and bring it to an end at last. The fact that Eonwë let them go meant that that, too, did not go according to plan.

The Silmarillion is written with a historical perspective - the narrator knows what is going to happen, and comments accordingly. That is why the Watchful Peace seems short in the book, even though it lasted for hundreds of years. [Which might be in part why the Execs think that nothing will happen in Season 4 because it is just 'Of Beleriand and its Realms'...that is the impression the text gives.] But this also means that the reader is primed to view these events as Kinslayings before they even happen, as if the bloodshed were inevitable. Before they happened, they doubtless did not seem quite so inevitable.

Whether or not the Oath gives them the right to behave in that way is, of course, a viewpoint in which they are unlikely to find the sympathy of anyone, especially not the viewers. So it is all the more important that we give one of them a voice to question the legitimacy of deeds done in service to the Oath - enter Amras, the none-too-happy 'conscience' of the Fëanoreans, while the rest of them are too busy justifying themselves to listen to him. We can likely work with that, and there will no doubt be times when we find it useful to have a character who can say such things within the council of the Fëanoreans. And, perhaps we will corrupt or change him over time, and perhaps we will find him inconvenient at times, but as a starting point, I am satisfied.

And, again, because I can....a scene from this week's episode of Supernatural ~

 

[cellardur]

Henry VIII for all his selfish reasons did grew up just after the War of the Roses. Being the grandson of Edward IV and the son of Henry VII, he was the living embodiment of the new peace in some ways. In the near 500 years since the Norman conquest, a woman had never managed to rule England. The last time Matilda had tried it plunged the country into another civil war. There was a very likely prospect the bad times would come back if he did not have a son, which is why life can be so ironic. He had two daughters one jointly and one solely capable of ruling the country.

Back to the Feanorians I am in agreement they are constantly justifying their actions, but maybe Amras could express Dior's reasoning. Why don't the Feanorians focus on getting the Silmarils from Morgoth, before trying it with other elves. After all it was Morgoth, who murdered their grandfa

I am not sure there is much difference between the 3rd and 4th kinslaying. Before they murder the guards, they first try and negotiate for the Silmarils too, but Eonwe rejects them. They must have known Eonwe was almost certain to reject giving it to them. The happens with Elwing's people they must have known the answer was likely to be negative, but still planned to go and slaughter to take it. I don't think these two cases were the situation getting out of hand, they were following a path they had followed previously and knew it was likely going to end up with the slaughter of their kin.

This is why I think it's so fitting that every son of Feanor dies by the hands of an elf, whether it's suicide or they are slain by another elf.

 

[Faelivrin]

We are *not* required to show Amras breaking the Oath. He hates the Oath, but still considers himself beholden to it. *If* he were to break the Oath, it would be during the 3rd Kinslaying and immediately result in his death (paralleling Amrod). We will likely have different ideas when we get to Season 10 (or whenever the attack on the Havens is), so I'm willing to let this conversation sit for a bit.

We *are* permitted to allow Caranthir to survive Doriath and initiate the 3rd Kinslaying, if necessary.

That is very welcome news indeed! Those things take a lot of the pressure off of Maedhros and Maglor's story.

Some of what you had posted earlier suggested that you think .... maybe... you may be able to persuade Corey to let us show Amros changing his mind about some of this after the 5th Battle or during the 2nd Kinslaying. Am I right in reading that into your earlier post? It was this:

Yes, I will want to see a shift in Amras. The 5th Battle changes everything for the Fëanoreans, and we should see that seismic shift hit Amras, too. Because you can't be the doomsman for centuries and never give into despair without *some* sustaining hope, and his moorings are being worn away. Also, for someone who has been publicly denouncing his family and making no secret of his scorn for them for years to then join in fighting with them in a battle - something had to give, there, and the fact that they all got wounded in the battle and it was close - surely that makes them re-evaluate the cold distant shunning thing. We will get to that at that point, though.

Seriously, MithLuin, thank you so much for your hard work in putting together that summary and persuading the Hosts. This is a big relief.

I was really worried that my brainstorming was being too negative, and I'm so glad that it's a bit less rigid than I feared.

The podcast is already up online (which is impressively fast) so I can already watch it and I have time today.


RE: right to the Silmarils
Eonwë was clearly right when he said that after the 3rd Kinslaying, Maedhros and Maglor had lost their claim. The Silmarils burnt them.

Did they lose their right already after the 2nd Kinslaying? I think so they did. I don’t know whether they would have been burned if Elwing had given in to their letter to her, but I do think it was perfectly understandable for her to reject their demand. They didn’t personally murder her father and brothers, but they were partly responsible.

Did they lose their right immediately after the 1st Kinslaying? I’m less certain either way about that. The 1st Kinslaying is wicked, but I don't know if it's enough to show that the Kinslayers had become utterly wicked people at that point.

Would they ever regain their right, if they had submitted to Eonwë? Or, having not submitted, could they ever regain their right to the Silmarils after atoning in Mandos and being cleansed and reincarnated? I think the answers are no, and definitely never.


RE: Justification
I don’t think anyone is trying to justify the things the Fëanorians did. I think, after the 1st Kinslaying, some of them begin to feel remorse (Maedhros, Maglor, Amros) but not especially strongly – they continue to justify in their heads. This self-justification is a lot easier when Thingol is actually probably in the wrong as well, and not behaving any more politely than the sons of Fëanor. It’s only after the 2nd Kinslaying that they more honestly acknowledge this was wrong, but they still continue to a more limited extent trying to justify their actions as unavoidable. Otherwise, they would have admitted that Eonwë was right when he delivered a judgment from Manwë.

That is what I am saying here. No one plans a kinslaying. They plan a 'get the silmaril back' mission, and when they meet staunch resistance, the result is a kinslaying. I'm not saying they're shocked and surprised every time this happens. I am saying that that was not their goal, that was not what they would have been talking about while planning, and things only escalated to that point when they were denied their actual object in the mission (regaining a silmaril). The only deliberately-planned kinslaying is the 4th and final one.

Weelllll.... I might quibble a bit. The 4th killing was entirely premeditated, and the 1st Kinslaying was definitely an escalation that nobody (except maybe Feanor) really thought possible. The 2nd and 3rd were, however, foreseen possibilities. Once the diplomatic options failed, the actual battles were premeditated -- they had to be planned out. And I suspect that Celegorm and Curufin really did have Kinslaying as their goal and preference. It's telling that when the Fëanorians receive Thingol’s scornful response to their letter, while Maedhros replies nothing and concentrates on attacking Morgoth instead, Celegorm and Curufin immediately and openly declare their intent to destroy Doriath after the Fifth Battle. Sure, they say “if the Silmaril were withheld” but Kinslaying looks suspiciously like their first resort, not their last.

And, well, the almost-Kinslaying at Nargothrond. They threatened battle and bloodshed without carrying it out. But getting Finrod killed was the very next thing they tried, not their last resort. They made no attempt to negotiate with Finrod. Just think, if they had helped regain the Silmaril from Morgoth, helped keep Finrod alive and Luthien safe, and asked in return for Finrod to help them politely persuade Thingol to give the jewel to their brothers, since he had no right to even ask for it. With the Doom it probably would have failed, but they could have tried.

 

[Faelivrin]

Back to the Feanorians I am in agreement they are constantly justifying their actions, but maybe Amras could express Dior's reasoning. Why don't the Feanorians focus on getting the Silmarils from Morgoth, before trying it with other elves.

The Fifth Battle was Maedhros trying to do that. After the Nirnaeth Arnoediad, I think pretty much everyone in Beleriand knows they can't defeat Morgoth. I'd prefer Amros to start telling people they're all Doomed.

Unless you meant Amros should suggest they die trying to fight Morgoth even though he knows it's hopeless?

 

[amysrevenge]

As far as rights to the Silmarils. If Morgoth had turned around, come back, and plunked the Silmarils into Feanor's hand seconds after the swearing of the Oath, they'd have burned a hole clear through. It wasn't any Kinslayings that did that, it was the Oath.

 

[cellardur]

The Fifth Battle was Maedhros trying to do that. After the Nirnaeth Arnoediad, I think pretty much everyone in Beleriand knows they can't defeat Morgoth. I'd prefer Amros to start telling people they're all Doomed.

Unless you meant Amros should suggest they die trying to fight Morgoth even though he knows it's hopeless?

I am still unclear where we are going with Amros' character. If he is depressed and hates the oath, then though he realises defeating Morgoth is impossible, he views it as the best option. This way they are probably going to die, but at least they die trying to fulfill the oath AND are hurting Morgoth.

 

[amysrevenge]

That's a good point actually - he could possibly be a constant voice to go after Morgoth, and our boy Maedhros will have to periodically justify just why they aren't going after him.

 

[Faelivrin]

I am still unclear where we are going with Amros' character. If he is depressed and hates the oath, then though he realises defeating Morgoth is impossible, he views it as the best option. This way they are probably going to die, but at least they die trying to fulfill the oath AND are hurting Morgoth.

I am very unclear on it too, but I don't want him to be depressed.

 

[Faelivrin]

I’m watching the most recent podcast now, and I am confused by some of what I am hearing about Amros. I could be very mistaken (I do misunderstand and misinterpret people all the time) but, from what I think I'm hearing, it doesn’t sound to me as though Corey saw the awesome document MithLuin made summarizing our ideas. He kept asking “What is Amros’ reaction? You have to suggest something,” as though we had not suggested anything. I don’t really entirely understand what was happening in last Friday's conversation, or where Corey was coming from.

I do see a very, very condensed slide very vaguely summarizing a few parts of MithLuin's document on the Power Point, but... (this is not in any way a criticism of how MithLuin handled the situation.)

It just seems to me like Corey wasn’t actually responding to our ideas, for the most part. The idea of Amros being resigned to the Oath, instead of fanatically for or against it, and being affected/persuaded/changed at all by the torment from resisting the Oath, did not come up (unless I missed hearing them?). The concern to avoid greatly altering Maedhros and Maglor’s personalities (into vicious with no remorse after the 2nd Kinslaying) has not been mentioned either.

Did he not read your document, MithLuin? Or did he read all of our ideas before the podcast started, and reject most of them?

I especially do not understand the response to Nick's plea to give us a chance to write a nuanced character. It sounds to me that he said he will not give any such ideas a chance, that he's saying he will not even look at any of them. Am I mishearing, wildly misinterpreting, and/or missing something, or is that actually truly what he's saying? Did he truly refuse to even read them, after asking us to offer character arc ideas in past podcasts?


It is still very unclear to me what we are going to do from now on.

If Corey has rejected most of our ideas (or declined to read MithLuin's document), is that rejection absolute and Final and without appeal, or is there any chance he might later be persuaded to read some them ... at some time in the future?

Do we have any ... latitude to write depictions of a nuanced, non-fanatical Amros into the script outlines for his review, or is this a Final Decision that we are never allowed to use the ideas we already came up with (summarized in this thread) and must write all-new ideas from scratch? Writing some kind of character ideas into the script outlines and presenting them to the Hosts seems to me needed to keep Amros alive henceforth. Brainstorming and refining good ideas hasn't been any trouble for us, but the ones we already created were really awesome.

 

[MithLuin]

I shared the post I made here with the Exec Team as a google doc. Corey Olsen and Dave Kale both viewed it, and in fact had it open during the podcast. Please do not accuse someone of not reading something when he made references to it during the podcast.

I made the Powerpoint. Corey Olsen added the slide about adapting the text, but the 'Concerning Amras' slide was as I wrote it. I probably shouldn't have put the Turgon comparison on there, but that was the most direct and concise way I could think to put 'he's not mopey and whiney and depressed - he's just mad at the culprits.'

Corey's focus was on the death of Amrod having a clear impact on Amras. His contention is that there is no way that Amras can go back to 'business as usual' and just continue to work with his family as if nothing has changed. He presented the two extremes as options of showing that, but that does not mean he's opposed to nuance. What he is opposed to is losing the impact of the murder of his twin in connection to the Oath. The fact of the matter is that Amras is not *essential* for any stories in the First Age. [His role in the 3rd Kinslaying could be played by Caranthir, as was discussed in the podcast.] Cutting him will not ruin the story. So, it was a valid question to ask whether or not we should keep him around. We've decided that, yes, we can keep him.

As for the post-5th battle Fëanorean storyline, we obviously have not discussed that in any detail yet, and will revisit all the nuance of that when we get there. That might well be 8 seasons away, though, so clearly a lot can happen in that time. We'll all have a much better handle on the Fëanorean characters and have a pretty good idea of what they each would or would not do at that juncture. IF we are going to have Amras side with Curufin at that point, we'd better have a good reason why. Because on the surface, it doesn't make much sense if he's been opposing him all along to suddenly switch now. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't do that -- we've just been instructed to be careful to be consistent with the character throughout. He can't suddenly change his tune for 'the plot demands it!' reasons. That's all.

Corey's response to Nick was that overarching character development is very much within the purview of the Exec Team, and they will make choices concerning it. They leave some stuff up to the script writers (such as where to put Fëanor's death in this episode), but they aren't going to abdicate on an issue like this. That doesn't mean it can't be discussed as we go.

 

[Faelivrin]

I shared the post I made here with the Exec Team as a google doc. Corey Olsen and Dave Kale both viewed it, and in fact had it open during the podcast. Please do not accuse someone of not reading something when he made references to it during the podcast.

I am sorry. Thank you for corecting that MithLuin. I guess I didn't convey enough how very confused I was by Corey's response. The reason I got so confused is that I thought I was not hearing responses to anything except the Power Point slide. And, well, his response to Nick was so strongly definite and perplexing to my mind.

but that does not mean he's opposed to nuance.

Corey's response to Nick was that overarching character development is very much within the purview of the Exec Team, and they will make choices concerning it. They leave some stuff up to the script writers (such as where to put Fëanor's death in this episode), but they aren't going to abdicate on an issue like this. That doesn't mean it can't be discussed as we go.

Every decision has always been theirs in the end, anyway, right? It looks like you are saying that we will be allowed to suggest some ideas about Amros in forum posts or even maybe script outlines, but the ideas must only be for ..... like.... one single episode at a time. I'm feeling really rather... timid... about how we can depict Amros from now on.

IF we are going to have Amras side with Curufin at that point, we'd better have a good reason why.

Well, it seems like he wouldn't even need to side with Curufin. It seems to basically only be necessary that he either participates in the Kinslaying, or dies as a (seeming) consequence of not joining in. Though if he dies Caranthir would need to survive instead, as you said.

 

[Nicholas Palazzo]

So, my request for them to trust us on the matter of Amras was more playful than pleaful. Prof. Olsen's response to me was valid, but I was trying to make a point. I think that the view that Amras cannot have a shifting position over the next five hundred years is rather ... human.

 

[Haakon]

A bit off topic but I think that regarding the question of final decisions and who makes them, the answer is obviously the executives - on one level. On the other hand, you can look at the changes that have been made to the season 3 outline, how it looked at the beginning and how it has turned out - there were some firm decisions made that have now been changed. The First Battle is now first of the battles, for example, even though if was decided it wasnät going to be (twice). Yes, as Faelivrin says, we do it episode by episode, but it is possible. The execs are often open to discuss things that they once have said were final.
The downside of this to me is that there's a risk of losing track of what's going on and what the outline really looks like at the moment (speaking for myself). Is there a valid outline somewhere?

 

[Faelivrin]

I think that the view that Amras cannot have a shifting position over the next five hundred years is rather ... human.

You mean, not elvish?

I just.... really loved Haakon's idea of Amros being resigned to the Oath and the Doom. It was my favorite idea, although I know that we had not actually come to an agreement among our various ideas.

 

[Nicholas Palazzo]

You mean, not elvish?

Precisely.