Nicholas Palazzo
Well-Known Member
This has been retconned as of today. It has been decided that the Sons of Feanor spoke the Oath in Tirion.
On Amras: Some Thoughts and Questions.
- Thread starter Trevor Trumbull
- Start date
This has been retconned as of today. It has been decided that the Sons of Feanor spoke the Oath in Tirion.
Yes. The death of Amrod before the renewal of the Oath made this necessary.
Also, Amras will *not* be renewing the Oath, as his anti-Oath stance will predominate his characterization going forward. So, he too needs to already have sworn it once.
Amras *will* survive the 3rd Season.
Thank you for all of your input into this question.
Amras, however, will remain anti-Oath, so whatever he does moving forward, it will not be to initiate the 3rd Kinslaying. If he dies at the Havens, it will be as a result of opposing the kinslaying there.
Also, Amras will *not* be renewing the Oath, as his anti-Oath stance will predominate his characterization going forward. So, he too needs to already have sworn it once.
Amras *will* survive the 3rd Season.
Thank you for all of your input into this question. Amras, however, will remain anti-Oath, so whatever he does moving forward, it will not be to initiate the 3rd Kinslaying. If he dies at the Havens, it will be as a result of opposing the kinslaying there.
To celebrate, I'm going to take a look at how another TV-show played out the idea of sons having differing ideas of following their father's orders/legacy, and how a death in the family impacted those dynamics.
Because I can
Sam and Dean Winchester on Supernatural
Dean, the older brother, is portrayed as the obedient son who has a bit of hero-worship for his father. Sam, his younger brother, is much more likely to question and fight with their father. We are introduced to them when Sam is 22 and Dean is 26; they're young adults, and neither of them has been living or working with their dad for some time (though more recently in Dean's case).
In this scene, it's been 6 months since they've heard from their dad, and he contacted them with information he wants them to follow up on.
When they do reunite, Sam continues to fight with their Dad, leaving Dean in the unenviable position of playing referee.
Then...things change. Their Dad dies. More specifically, he dies so that Dean can live. And one of the last things Sam ever said to him was an accusation that he didn't care about Dean. Naturally, they are both a bit messed up by this, but their attitudes switch. Sam tries to become the dutiful son, honoring his father's memory. Dean...starts to express his anger and rails against the man now that he's not there any more.
Sam does get a chance to reconcile with his father, through the wonders of time travel. Of course, his father doesn't *know* he's his father, as this scene happens before Sam's birth, but irony aside, we can see that Sam's attitude has definitely shifted.
Dean...never really gets the chance to resolve his side of things. Years later, we can see it underlying some of the things he says. Which might seem odd, because superficially, he had a chance to say goodbye to his father, while Sam did not, and fewer regrets about his relationship with his dad. But...their dad kinda screwed up that goodbye.
This scene happens 10 years after his father's death:
Obviously, I'm not suggesting we do the same thing or make a direct parallel or anything like that. Some of the only similarities between John Winchester and Fëanor are the obsession and larger-than-life persona. Nor do I think that Amrod and Amras' views are parallel to Sam and Dean's. Also, Sam and Dean are the main characters of their show. They have significant screen time in every single episode. So, the opportunities to tell that story are much more varied than we will have with the limited screentime we can devote to Amras moving forward.
We are making Amrod question the Oath, question the quest for revenge, question the decision to leave their mother behind, question Fëanor's leadership. And of course Amras disagrees with him, defending all of those things, and toeing the family line.
But then Amrod dies, killed by their father's decision. Suddenly, Amras has a reason to go back on a lot of what he said. Suddenly, Amrod makes a lot of sense. And now he feels the need to speak for Amrod, who can no longer speak. So, he takes on his brother's mantle, and will be the voice opposing the Oath. He's still bound by it, but he now realizes it's evil and will condemn them all. So, I see him as the conscience of the Fëanoreans. Lots of outsiders will condemn them, but other than Amras, they're going to refuse to accept the guilt, or ignore it, or in some other way disregard all of that judgement heaped on them. Their actions are justified in their eyes, so. But Amras will be the one who never falls for that. He doesn't try to justify (because doing that would justify Amrod's murder). He won't have a lot of screen time, but when we do see him, he can articulate these sorts of thoughts about the Oath and the Doom of Mandos and give voice to something that otherwise wouldn't come up internally in the Fëanorean debates.
I think we can work with that. There will likely be places where it will be difficult to make his character work, but I think we can do some interesting things with him, showing him go on.
Because I can
Sam and Dean Winchester on Supernatural
Dean, the older brother, is portrayed as the obedient son who has a bit of hero-worship for his father. Sam, his younger brother, is much more likely to question and fight with their father. We are introduced to them when Sam is 22 and Dean is 26; they're young adults, and neither of them has been living or working with their dad for some time (though more recently in Dean's case).
In this scene, it's been 6 months since they've heard from their dad, and he contacted them with information he wants them to follow up on.
When they do reunite, Sam continues to fight with their Dad, leaving Dean in the unenviable position of playing referee.
Then...things change. Their Dad dies. More specifically, he dies so that Dean can live. And one of the last things Sam ever said to him was an accusation that he didn't care about Dean. Naturally, they are both a bit messed up by this, but their attitudes switch. Sam tries to become the dutiful son, honoring his father's memory. Dean...starts to express his anger and rails against the man now that he's not there any more.
Sam does get a chance to reconcile with his father, through the wonders of time travel. Of course, his father doesn't *know* he's his father, as this scene happens before Sam's birth, but irony aside, we can see that Sam's attitude has definitely shifted.
Dean...never really gets the chance to resolve his side of things. Years later, we can see it underlying some of the things he says. Which might seem odd, because superficially, he had a chance to say goodbye to his father, while Sam did not, and fewer regrets about his relationship with his dad. But...their dad kinda screwed up that goodbye.
Obviously, I'm not suggesting we do the same thing or make a direct parallel or anything like that. Some of the only similarities between John Winchester and Fëanor are the obsession and larger-than-life persona. Nor do I think that Amrod and Amras' views are parallel to Sam and Dean's. Also, Sam and Dean are the main characters of their show. They have significant screen time in every single episode. So, the opportunities to tell that story are much more varied than we will have with the limited screentime we can devote to Amras moving forward.
We are making Amrod question the Oath, question the quest for revenge, question the decision to leave their mother behind, question Fëanor's leadership. And of course Amras disagrees with him, defending all of those things, and toeing the family line.
But then Amrod dies, killed by their father's decision. Suddenly, Amras has a reason to go back on a lot of what he said. Suddenly, Amrod makes a lot of sense. And now he feels the need to speak for Amrod, who can no longer speak. So, he takes on his brother's mantle, and will be the voice opposing the Oath. He's still bound by it, but he now realizes it's evil and will condemn them all. So, I see him as the conscience of the Fëanoreans. Lots of outsiders will condemn them, but other than Amras, they're going to refuse to accept the guilt, or ignore it, or in some other way disregard all of that judgement heaped on them. Their actions are justified in their eyes, so. But Amras will be the one who never falls for that. He doesn't try to justify (because doing that would justify Amrod's murder). He won't have a lot of screen time, but when we do see him, he can articulate these sorts of thoughts about the Oath and the Doom of Mandos and give voice to something that otherwise wouldn't come up internally in the Fëanorean debates.
I think we can work with that. There will likely be places where it will be difficult to make his character work, but I think we can do some interesting things with him, showing him go on.
Nicholas Palazzo
Well-Known Member
To celebrate, I'm going to take a look at how another TV-show played out the idea of sons having differing ideas of following their father's orders/legacy, and how a death in the family impacted those dynamics.
Because I can
Sam and Dean Winchester on Supernatural
Dean, the older brother, is portrayed as the obedient son who has a bit of hero-worship for his father. Sam, his younger brother, is much more likely to question and fight with their father. We are introduced to them when Sam is 22 and Dean is 26; they're young adults, and neither of them has been living or working with their dad for some time (though more recently in Dean's case).
In this scene, it's been 6 months since they've heard from their dad, and he contacted them with information he wants them to follow up on.
When they do reunite, Sam continues to fight with their Dad, leaving Dean in the unenviable position of playing referee.
Then...things change. Their Dad dies. More specifically, he dies so that Dean can live. And one of the last things Sam ever said to him was an accusation that he didn't care about Dean. Naturally, they are both a bit messed up by this, but their attitudes switch. Sam tries to become the dutiful son, honoring his father's memory. Dean...starts to express his anger and rails against the man now that he's not there any more.
Sam does get a chance to reconcile with his father, through the wonders of time travel. Of course, his father doesn't *know* he's his father, as this scene happens before Sam's birth, but irony aside, we can see that Sam's attitude has definitely shifted.
Dean...never really gets the chance to resolve his side of things. Years later, we can see it underlying some of the things he says. Which might seem odd, because superficially, he had a chance to say goodbye to his father, while Sam did not, and fewer regrets about his relationship with his dad. But...their dad kinda screwed up that goodbye.
This scene happens 10 years after his father's death:
Obviously, I'm not suggesting we do the same thing or make a direct parallel or anything like that. Some of the only similarities between John Winchester and Fëanor are the obsession and larger-than-life persona. Nor do I think that Amrod and Amras' views are parallel to Sam and Dean's. Also, Sam and Dean are the main characters of their show. They have significant screen time in every single episode. So, the opportunities to tell that story are much more varied than we will have with the limited screentime we can devote to Amras moving forward.
We are making Amrod question the Oath, question the quest for revenge, question the decision to leave their mother behind, question Fëanor's leadership. And of course Amras disagrees with him, defending all of those things, and toeing the family line.
But then Amrod dies, killed by their father's decision. Suddenly, Amras has a reason to go back on a lot of what he said. Suddenly, Amrod makes a lot of sense. And now he feels the need to speak for Amrod, who can no longer speak. So, he takes on his brother's mantle, and will be the voice opposing the Oath. He's still bound by it, but he now realizes it's evil and will condemn them all. So, I see him as the conscience of the Fëanoreans. Lots of outsiders will condemn them, but other than Amras, they're going to refuse to accept the guilt, or ignore it, or in some other way disregard all of that judgement heaped on them. Their actions are justified in their eyes, so. But Amras will be the one who never falls for that. He doesn't try to justify (because doing that would justify Amrod's murder). He won't have a lot of screen time, but when we do see him, he can articulate these sorts of thoughts about the Oath and the Doom of Mandos and give voice to something that otherwise wouldn't come up internally in the Fëanorean debates.
I think we can work with that. There will likely be places where it will be difficult to make his character work, but I think we can do some interesting things with him, showing him go on.
Unfortunately, I have seen a bunch of these scenes quite recently, thank you very much, Marie....
But while I am not a tremendous fan of the show, it does illustrate that attitudes can shift over time, and in reaction to events. The assertion by the hosts that Amras can only be one way or another for the next five hundred years seems... odd to me. Why they see it this way was not a question I feel they answered. They seemed to spend most of their time addressing an argument we weren't making, that being the textual argument.
*beams* Your wife has good taste!
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. If we have decided that he's alive and what his story is right now, that's enough to be moving on with. All we needed from them today was an assurance that they want him to live through the Season.
Because honestly, if they did not give us that, I would have had him support Maedhros in the parley and get slaughtered there to get rid of him, rather than plan a suicide scene. All of which I did not want to do. But the idea that there's a way for him to die at the Havens? We're good - he's pretty much a blank slate character, so we just have to have him make sense for himself moving forward.
The other thing we should probably do is film a lot more twins scenes during Seasons 2 & 3, and then use them for flashback fodder whenever Amras is remembering Amrod. Just little snippets of memory to show that Amras is (in a way) living in the past with his dead brother.
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. If we have decided that he's alive and what his story is right now, that's enough to be moving on with. All we needed from them today was an assurance that they want him to live through the Season.
Because honestly, if they did not give us that, I would have had him support Maedhros in the parley and get slaughtered there to get rid of him, rather than plan a suicide scene. All of which I did not want to do. But the idea that there's a way for him to die at the Havens? We're good - he's pretty much a blank slate character, so we just have to have him make sense for himself moving forward.
The other thing we should probably do is film a lot more twins scenes during Seasons 2 & 3, and then use them for flashback fodder whenever Amras is remembering Amrod. Just little snippets of memory to show that Amras is (in a way) living in the past with his dead brother.
Nicholas Palazzo
Well-Known Member
I think that if we have compelling activity for Amras in the outlines, we can stave off his execution.
Thank you for announcing the outcome of this. I really greatly appreciate knowing what the decision was.
I think I have time today to watch the podcast if it's online already.
EDIT: Since it understandably isn't online yet, I do not know in detail what decisions were made about what we are allowed/able to write for Amros, Maedhros, and Maglor from now on. But it looks to me like some/most/all? of the Fëanorian story arcs we had planned and that are in the book have to be changed and rewritten to accomodate Amros being anti-Oath. A lot of worries are in my mind about those story arcs and what changes we need to make and plan for going forward, and I am wondering what we can and can’t write. And if we can preserve any of our previous plans.
Again, I know you may have already decided these things and I will watch the podcast as soon as I am able. These are just the things I am brainstorming and want to talk and make plans about, when we can.
The thing I'm most concerned about is how creating/adding an unchangeably anti-Oath character would affect his brothers' canonical stories and personalities and politics. Is there anything we can do, or plan out, that can still allow us to depict Maedhros and Maglor as repentant and reluctant after the 2nd Kinslaying, not fanatically pro-Kinslaying? Can we make Caranthir survive the 2nd Kinslaying and start the 3rd Kinslaying? Amros is nearly a blank slate in Tolkien's texts, but Maedhros and Maglor have recorded personalities and their development of repentance surrounding the 2nd Kinslaying is very important to me. I really really really do not want to get rid of that repentance story, a story that I really like that makes them likeable characters to me. But making Amros unchangeably anti-Oath both takes away from their repentance (by copying it, preceeding it, and exaggerating it) and pushes Maedhros and Maglor to remain pro-Kinslaying and instigate the 3rd Kinslaying on their own initiative with no outside input. I would rather rewrite Caranthir to replace Amros as the nuanced character able-to-change-his-mind, than get rid of the Maedhros and Maglor remorse arc.
I think I have time today to watch the podcast if it's online already.
EDIT: Since it understandably isn't online yet, I do not know in detail what decisions were made about what we are allowed/able to write for Amros, Maedhros, and Maglor from now on. But it looks to me like some/most/all? of the Fëanorian story arcs we had planned and that are in the book have to be changed and rewritten to accomodate Amros being anti-Oath. A lot of worries are in my mind about those story arcs and what changes we need to make and plan for going forward, and I am wondering what we can and can’t write. And if we can preserve any of our previous plans.
Again, I know you may have already decided these things and I will watch the podcast as soon as I am able. These are just the things I am brainstorming and want to talk and make plans about, when we can.
I want to be glad he won't die, and I am really grateful to you for your work talking to Corey about this, MithLuin. But the decision that he can never change his mind for 500 years really has me worried about how and what we can write.
Which of our character arc suggestions did the Hosts like, if any? Does this decision mean that he is not resigned to the Oath? Our ideas were basically all about a nuanced, interesting, multi-dimensional person, so... now what happens to those ideas?
The thing I'm most concerned about is how creating/adding an unchangeably anti-Oath character would affect his brothers' canonical stories and personalities and politics. Is there anything we can do, or plan out, that can still allow us to depict Maedhros and Maglor as repentant and reluctant after the 2nd Kinslaying, not fanatically pro-Kinslaying? Can we make Caranthir survive the 2nd Kinslaying and start the 3rd Kinslaying? Amros is nearly a blank slate in Tolkien's texts, but Maedhros and Maglor have recorded personalities and their development of repentance surrounding the 2nd Kinslaying is very important to me. I really really really do not want to get rid of that repentance story, a story that I really like that makes them likeable characters to me. But making Amros unchangeably anti-Oath both takes away from their repentance (by copying it, preceeding it, and exaggerating it) and pushes Maedhros and Maglor to remain pro-Kinslaying and instigate the 3rd Kinslaying on their own initiative with no outside input. I would rather rewrite Caranthir to replace Amros as the nuanced character able-to-change-his-mind, than get rid of the Maedhros and Maglor remorse arc.
Last edited:
Wouldn't that go against the pattern that Feanor and the sons of Feanor die when they have instigated a Kinslaying?
Last edited:
Another question I have is about how we depicted the immediate reaction to Amrod's death: we wanted the Feanorians to believe that anyone who breaks the Oath will immediately die and go to the Void.
Do we have to change Episode 8 to get rid of that idea, now?
If Amros is never taking part in any Kinslaying again, repeatedly breaking the Oath, and suffering no serious consequences (not dying nor suffering unbearable torment)... then every other Feanorian who doesn't break the Oath clearly isn't even bothering to try. This would be very bad for the story of Maedhros and Maglor, again.
Do we have to change Episode 8 to get rid of that idea, now?
If Amros is never taking part in any Kinslaying again, repeatedly breaking the Oath, and suffering no serious consequences (not dying nor suffering unbearable torment)... then every other Feanorian who doesn't break the Oath clearly isn't even bothering to try. This would be very bad for the story of Maedhros and Maglor, again.
Last edited:
I'm trying to break my habit of editing my posts. I'm trying to brainstorm what we can do going forward.
I hope that is the case Haakon.
If we are required to show Amros breaking the Oath and taking part in no Kinslaying again, would we be allowed to write that Amros dies in the 2nd Kinslaying, somehow? That might preserve the "break the Oath and die horribly" fear that we wanted to depict in Episode 8... But then would he need to be killed by his own brothers to maintain the pattern? ... on purpose this time?
I hope that is the case Haakon.
If we are required to show Amros breaking the Oath and taking part in no Kinslaying again, would we be allowed to write that Amros dies in the 2nd Kinslaying, somehow? That might preserve the "break the Oath and die horribly" fear that we wanted to depict in Episode 8... But then would he need to be killed by his own brothers to maintain the pattern? ... on purpose this time?
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.
It's important to keep in mind that Kinslayings are only called Kinslayings in retrospect. Before hand, they are planning a diplomatic negotiation, backed with the force of an army and the threat of violence. But no one has to die if their opponent just hands over the silmaril, which rightfully belongs to the Fëanoreans.
I realize this is like saying that Henry VIII would not have had to split with the Catholic church nor execute Sir Thomas More if the pope had just granted him a divorce in the first place. Technically true, but I wouldn't say that schism was therefore the pope's fault. But I am saying that one can make such threats somewhat flippantly, never thinking you'll actually have to follow through. Situations can ... escalate. For 500 years, 'fulfilling the Oath' meant fighting a war against Morgoth. The situation in Doriath is ... new.
Edit: Editing your posts is fine. I do it all the time. It is always possible that someone might reply before you complete your edit, but that's not usually a major source of confusion.
We *are* permitted to allow Caranthir to survive Doriath and initiate the 3rd Kinslaying, if necessary.
It's important to keep in mind that Kinslayings are only called Kinslayings in retrospect. Before hand, they are planning a diplomatic negotiation, backed with the force of an army and the threat of violence. But no one has to die if their opponent just hands over the silmaril, which rightfully belongs to the Fëanoreans.
I realize this is like saying that Henry VIII would not have had to split with the Catholic church nor execute Sir Thomas More if the pope had just granted him a divorce in the first place. Technically true, but I wouldn't say that schism was therefore the pope's fault. But I am saying that one can make such threats somewhat flippantly, never thinking you'll actually have to follow through. Situations can ... escalate. For 500 years, 'fulfilling the Oath' meant fighting a war against Morgoth. The situation in Doriath is ... new.
Edit: Editing your posts is fine. I do it all the time. It is always possible that someone might reply before you complete your edit, but that's not usually a major source of confusion.
I am not sure I agree with this at all.
The 1st kinslaying was, because the Feanorians were trying to steal the Teleri's most precious creations.
The 2nd kinslaying was after the Feanorians (according to our story had even murdered Thingol's brother) had killed a large number of Thingol's kin, stolen and burnt the Teleri ships. It was Luthien and Beren that had gained the jewel through lots of sacrifice. Perhaps Thingol/Dior should have handed over the jewel to avoid conflict, but they had a right to take the Silmaril as a weregild.
By the 3rd kinslaying, the Feanorians had no right to demand the jewel after killing Elwing's brothers and parents.
The Valar, Eonwe and Silmarils themselves agree the Feanorians have no right to them.
Last edited:
I know, but just imagine the situation.
I own a priceless diamond ring.
A local gangster steals my ring.
I go to my friend to ask to borrow his priceless car to chase down the criminals.
He says no, so I murder him and steal his car.
My friend's niece then goes through lots of danger and gets the ring back.
I demand the ring from her son.
He says no, so I murder him, his wife and his two young sons.
This is before we even get to the 3rd Kin-slaying. Just imagine I go to a judge, lay down all the facts and demand my ring be given back to me.
Nicholas Palazzo
Well-Known Member
I don't think Marie is arguing that what the Feanorians did was ok objectively. But they don't wake up in the morning and say, "Gee, I hope I get to slay some Kin today." Every evil act has a justification in the mind of the actor.
I think the point was that the Feanorians no longer had any right to the Silmarils, not whether their actions were right or wrong. I think everyone here agrees murder is wrong. The question is whether after whatever punishment the Valar handed the brothers, whether they should then be given the Silmarils.
Or even more apt whether they had a right to the Silmarils, before offering any atonement or requesting forgiveness for their crimes.
I don't agree with the last point. Sometimes people act out of selfishness or anger and they don't think their behavior can be justified. I personally have done things, I felt was wrong before, I felt was wrong at the time and afterwards.