The moral fibre of the Noldor

There are certainly places we agree in our interpretation, cellardur. While I see that some of what I post makes sense to you, before I veer off in a direction that loses you, likewise parts of what you say have me nodding in agreement. Such as this, for instance:



Sounds good to me! Pride leads people to dismiss/use/overlook others as 'beneath them', and certainly some of the Noldor do seem to write off the Sindar. How and when they accept Men as useful allies also demonstrates some of that. Caranthir seems almost surprised that Haleth's people were able to fight off the Orcs. And despite his friendship/close dealings with the Dwarves, he was unable to conceal his scorn for their unlovely (in his eyes) appearance. He is, admittedly, one of the worst offenders when it comes to pride, because he has so little mitigating charisma to smooth anything over.

And yet we are dealing with characters who are (for the most part) quite noble, so they are not going to have a lot of sneaky underhanded trickery going on. Occasionally, yes. (Certainly from a character like Curufin.) But political maneuvering is not the dominant theme of the story, either. Finrod works to build himself a kingdom; he does not on any level scheme to acquire one. At most, he overlooks any property claims from the Petty-dwarves.
I have addressed this in my reply to Nick, but even these noble characters fall victim to political manoeuvring and attempts for power.
I am a bit puzzled by your analysis of character choices regarding Fingolfin. That is (clearly) not how I saw those decisions happening. I'll have to take a closer look and go back to check some things, but I think there's some missing data here.
Fingolfin is a hero, without any doubt and has an incredible last stand, but I will give you few quotes, which illustrate his faults for me.

Thus died Fingolfin, High King of the Noldor, most proud and valiant of the Elven-kings of old.

The mightiest and proudest was Ar-Pharazôn the Golden of all those that had wielded the Sceptre of the Sea-Kings since the foundation of Númenor

(Morwen)Eledhwen, proudest and most beautiful of mortal women in the days of old.


So perished Elendur......in his strength and wisdom, and is majesty WITHOUT PRIDE, one of the greatest, the fairest of the seed of Elendil

Now I am not comparing Fingolfin to Ar-pharazon (though it can be said he too leads his people into a ruinous campaign), but I think Morwen is a fit comparison. The language Tolkien uses when describing these characters shows they share similar traits and their biggest weakness being PRIDE.
The Option that was actually chosen was this:
Fingolfin is extremely distrustful of Fëanor's leadership in the wake of their father's death, but considers himself bound to silence when it comes to opposing him because of the word he gave before the throne of the Valar trying to heal their feud: "Half-brother in blood, full brother in heart will I be. Thou shalt lead and I will follow. May no new grief divide us." Thus, when Finarfin urges him to do something about Fëanor's reckless leadership, he responds that his hands are tied.

Fëanor and Fingolfin's rivalry was a major plot point of the later part of Season 2, of course. Things escalated to the point of Fëanor putting a sword at his half-brother's throat (as in the book.) [We did make a point of showing Fingolfin's guilt in that escalation, by the way]. The question is, how seriously would a character like Fingolfin take his publicly-given word? What is his leeway for breaking it or going against it in spirit? That is where pride comes in; sure, keeping his word is noble, but pride reinforces that decision by not letting someone back down and lose face or look like a liar.

What we are told in the text is that, after the Oath, "Fingolfin and Turgon his son therefore spoke against Fëanor, and fierce words awoke, so that once again wrath came near to the edge of swords." We are not told what resolves this situation or shuts down the looming fratricide, other than Finarfin's and Orodreth's calm words. What we chose to use was to have Fëanor throw Fingolfin's words back at him, saying that he promised before Manwë's throne to follow him. Thus, if Fingolfin continues to argue against Fëanor, he's now faithless.

Fingolfin chooses to keep his word, despite his misgivings. This is the action of a leader with some flawed decision-making skills. True, he's not actively campaigning against his elder half-brother or claiming the crown since he was acting king of Tirion for the past few years. He's trying to fix things.

This does have the added benefit of getting the audience thinking about the seriousness of making and keeping an Oath, which is an important thematic concept in this story. We have to teach them that cultural significance in this episode. But...we made the decision to keep Fingolfin's character consistent with how he was before he got news of his father's death, not just to further a plot line.

While it is certainly possible that Fingolfin could start a whisper campaign of lies to discredit Fëanor, or openly accuse him of things that are not true, I do not think the text ever suggests that Fingolfin behaves in this way after their father's death? The quote I gave above was specifically in reaction to the Oath of Fëanor, and how it was a blasphemous Oath that no one should make. It was not over Fingolfin claiming the kingship.



Option C
Fingolfin does not take part in the Kinslaying at all.

Obviously, this is the option that the published Silmarillion goes with. While we know that Fingon drew his sword and rushed in, the text does not suggest that his father Fingolfin was even there. And yet, our story is about the rivalry of Fëanor and Fingolfin, so it seemed more important to involve Fingon's father at this point in the story. So, we made Fingolfin, later High King of the Noldor in Middle-earth, guilty of kinslaying and personally taking part. As part of the chaos on screen, we wanted to see the moment when he switched from 'What is happening? This is madness!' to the decision to kill, and thus witnessing a Noldo death was important. Note that in the book, part of the reason Fingon rushes in without ascertaining how the fight began is because he sees his kinsmen falling in battle and rushes to their aid.




...and the Hosts will no doubt reconsider some things when we get there. The iconic duel between Fingolfin and Morgoth will no doubt proceed on screen almost exactly as it does in the book. This scene is like 'Eowyn fights the Nazgul' - you try to capture it as it is, because it's awesome. There is a question of how we foreshadow it, and it does matter a *lot* if Morgoth is standing outside within sight of Fingolfin when the Sun rises and his declaration of war is issued. Because, yes, if he can see him - he likely will address Morgoth personally in this scene. How much of a 'come down and fight me!' we include in his dialogue is up for debate, but Fingolfin is looking at the guy who murdered his father, and he's quite heady with the obvious advantage sunlight gives to Elves over all evil creatures. He might very well think a one-on-one duel could work right now...in the heat of the moment. And the later challenge could be pure despair. We can create a juxtaposition of the two scenes. We are still working on the script outline of the Season 3 Finale and the Hosts have not yet reviewed it, but as things stand now, Fingolfin most certainly does not set out to travel towards Angband for the purposes of issuing a personal challenge to Morgoth. He does not intend to do much more than find Angband (and figure out what happened between Fëanor and these strange monsters) when the Sun rises, causing Angband's forces to scatter and flee like cockroaches or turn to stone. Only at that point does he decide to issue challenges/declare war.

As a note, option B is more reckless/foolhardy. Thus, I would not view this suggestion as a 'whitewashing' of a character.
I have addressed a lot of this in my response to Nick and I don't want to bring up long settled parts of the Silmfilm.
[QUOTE
I think that the pattern you are seeing is a hesitance to portray the characters as significantly worse or less nuanced than they are portrayed in the published text. But yes, character arcs are worth discussing, because so much of this story is implicit rather than actually spelled out. Naturally, there will be a lot of interpretations/preferences/head-canon ideas of how we all see this playing out. It is quite possible that you have a dimmer view of the Noldor than most posters here, and would thus see the rest of us as wearing rose-colored glasses.

[Edit: Cross-posted with Nick.][/QUOTE]
The bit in blue is vital and the way I try to flesh out the stories, is to look at what Tolkien wrote about them elsewhere and compare his use of language.

In his last writings, though he sometimes confused Turgon with Fingolfin, he wrote this about Turgon:

Turgon was one of the most determined and unrepentant supporters of Feanor's rebellion.

Too proud and too stubborn and he dies in his tower still refusing to back down.

I have stressed the Noldor had a Fall (though obviously not as bad as Men), because what they do is REALLY bad. They reject the authority of Manwe, King of Arda. People dislike the purification of Galadriel's character, but according to Christopher, the reason Tolkien was so keen to change Galadriel's history is because the rebellion was so bad. Tolkien began to feel it wasn't right for Galadriel to be a leader in the rebellion and still be held in such high regard in ME.

It arose from 'philosophical' (rather than a 'historical') considerations, concerning the precise nature of Galadriel's disobedience in Valinor on the one hand and her status and power in Middle Earth on the other.

In conclusion I feel we should be steering closer to Thingol, Turin and Morwen when expanding and fleshing out the story. I do have a dimmer view of the Noldor or at least the exiles than most here. I don't think it's a coincidence that apart from Galadriel, Glorfindel (brought back to life) and possibly (I am unsure, but think not) Finrod, every other exiled member of Noldor royalty is being cleansed in the Halls of Mandos, by the end of the First Age
 
Tony Stark is an arrogant jerk...who does the right thing and saves the day. That's part of what makes him lovable, that he is a good guy, that he's right, and that when he's wrong, he'll do everything in his power to make it right. We are setting up a tragedy, not a hero's happy(-ish) ending. Loki is also well liked, and part of the reason why is that his backstory is seen as tragic. Oh, if only he wasn't lied to, if only he didn't feel betrayed, if only his brother weren't such an arrogant jerk, if only he hadn't fallen into the hands of bad people.... Yeah, but he's still a villain. At the end of the day, his *most* redeeming quality is that he loves his brother, and the fact that he's starving for some scrap of recognition from his father makes some of his actions understandable, if not forgivable. But he is no hero; he very happily stabs his brother every chance he gets, usually literally.

If someone with Tony Stark's personality acted like Loki, he would be seriously vilified and much less likable. He would be a villain, true, but a more hated one, I think. I think that's why the closest MCU has to Tony Stark (personality-wise) is Dr. Strange. You can have Loki's vicious deeds or Tony Stark's self-absorbed arrogance...but not both.

It's the mix of where we go with the story arc and where we go with the character arc that matters as to whether these people will be viewed sympathetically or not.

I understand that you were hoping that we were going to build on Fingolfin's flaws so that he became more flawed over time, cellardur, whereas we had always intended to begin with flaws and then build him up into more of a hero, so that his final despair and tragic end would be epicly heroic (in the original meaning of the word, as in people would compose epic poems about his deeds). We were always going to go for 'heroic' when it came to him, and political back-biting is not particularly noble. So, we didn't go for that version. We have taken bits and pieces from the "Shibboleth of Fëanor" and other later writings, but we are not adopting it wholesale. We're starting from the point of the published Silmarillion and then going from there.

One thing to keep in mind is that we are portraying the Valar's invitation of the Elves to come to Valinor in the first place as potentially a mistake. Sure, they had the best of intentions, but was that truly the elvish destiny...? In other words, the rebellion of the Noldor is not wholly incorrect in the way we are telling the story. Yes, the way Fëanor went about it means that the Doom of Mandos was correct - the Noldor are in the wrong. But...they didn't have to be. There is a valid point in all of there, and Ulmo's backup plan of having ships on both sides of the ocean was a needed. Just...not like this!



Our disagreement is seen when you bring up the Sons of Feanor. For me it's easy to portray the Sons of Feanor as villains, they are for the most part. It's a lot harder to show the faults of the characters we like such as Galadriel (to a lesser extent), Fingolfin, Fingon etc.

Personally, I like the Fëanoreans a heck of a lot more than I like Galadriel. :p

The villain of the piece is Morgoth. I don't consider the Fëanoreans to be villains, though of course they do horrible things. I would say that Curufin does become a villain, but he's not quite there yet. Fëanor is...a deeply flawed hero who drags everyone else down with him, but he's not actually a villain. It's more like, in trying to oppose Morgoth, Fëanor winds up falling into all of his traps. He's a failed hero. (I also compared him to Jim Jones in today's session, so, you know...I'm not really fighting the villain designation, either.)

I see Fingon and Maedhros as different types of people, both with obvious flaws, but also both ultimately working towards positive goals and trying to get it right. It is easy to just yell 'murderer!' and shun someone if that is literally the only person you've ever known who killed another person. It's a lot harder to maintain that sense of judgement if nearly everyone you know is guilty of the same crime. [Unfortunately, there are real-world analogues like Rwanda.] So, yes, I think the story shows a lot of indication that, despite the Kinslaying, most of the Princes of the Noldor are considered to be decent people moving forward. A character like Círdan, who was obviously closer to the Teleri than many of the other Sindar, still manages to work with the Noldor throughout the First Age, seemingly without prejudice. This doesn't mean that these characters are as good as him, but they are very much on his side.

One could do worse than characterize Fingon and Maedhros as perelleth does in her short story "In Vino Veritas." It takes place while Fingon is High King of the Noldor, so much later in the First Age, but (obviously) before Fingon's death and before the later Kinslayings. It's obvious Maedhros is on a downward trajectory, and Fingon is doing his best to deal with him despite the Oath. If you want political maneuverings, I'm okay with this level of that. As a heads up, there are some minor grammatical issues (I doubt English is her first language), but the interplay between the characters is very well drawn. The story is told from Maedhros' first person point of view.

In Vino Veritas: http://www.storiesofarda.com/chapterview.asp?sid=4818&cid=19477



I really don't see any substantial differentiation between the goodness and light of Glorfindel and Finrod. They have nearly identical self-sacrificial deaths, and we're told of their reincarnations right away. Sure, Glorfindel is special and awesome. But so is Finrod, and easily just as special and just as awesome. So...? I can understand if someone prefers Glorfindel to Finrod, or if it were pointed out that Finrod was a ruler and Glorfindel served a ruler. They're not the same person, but I don't think they are on substantially different levels, either.

I do recognize that, in the storytelling style of the published Silmarillion, something being brought up by the narrator does not mean that the event occurs at that time. So when we hear that Maglor composed the Noldolante in the midst of telling the story of the Kinslaying, that does not mean that Maglor was composing the music while still in Araman. Rather, at some point during the First Age, he did compose the Noldolante.

So, when we are told about Finrod's reincarnation in the published Silmarillion, there isn't exactly a timeline. It just says "They buried the body of Felagund upon the hill-top of his own isle, and it was clean again; and the green grave of Finrod Finarfin's son, fairest of all the princes of the Elves, remained inviolate, until the land was changed and broken, and foundered under destroying seas. But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar."

That passage does have an edited out 'and Amarië'...but yes, it is possible to read that and think that Finrod was not reincarnated until after the War of Wrath. The isle, of course, was cleansed prior to that, and Finrod is identified as the best prince, not just of the Noldor, but of all the Elves. Similarly superlative language is used in the Lay of Leithian as well; when Lúthien finds Beren mourning beside Felagund's dead body, she says, "Alas! That here upon the ground/ the noblest of the noble race/ in vain thy anguish doth embrace! Alas! in tears that we should meet/ who once found meeting passing sweet!" Of course, Tolkien loves superlative descriptions, so it's sometimes hard to make all of his statements like this work simultaneously. We run into that with the 'oldest' question for Treebeard, Círdan, and Tom Bombadil. It really just means really old. So, it's okay to call Finrod really ridiculously noble and fair, though not necessarily concede that he would be the most noble or most fair.

The version in the Lay also does not specify precisely when Finrod is reincarnated, though it does suggest that it might have happened before the War of Wrath:
"The isle in Sirion they left behind;
but there on hill-top might there find
a green grave, and a stone set,
and there there lie the white bones yet
of Felagund, of Finrod's son -
unless that land is changed and gone,
or foundered in unfathomed seas,
while Felagund laughs beneath the trees
in Valinor, and comes no more
to this grey world of tears and war."

This isn't a set timeline, I understand that. But it is rather notable that in both the poem and the prose, the main point the author wants to make (besides the long lasting hallowed grave) is that Finrod is not in Mandos, but free to walk in Valinor. If this is contrasted with Beleg's dying words to Túrin in the other Lay, it is seen that Beleg mentions halls of waiting.

Finrod's stint in Purgatory the Halls of Mandos seems rather brief; I don't see anything to suggest that he was kept waiting there long.
 
Tony Stark is an arrogant jerk...who does the right thing and saves the day. That's part of what makes him lovable, that he is a good guy, that he's right, and that when he's wrong, he'll do everything in his power to make it right. We are setting up a tragedy, not a hero's happy(-ish) ending. Loki is also well liked, and part of the reason why is that his backstory is seen as tragic. Oh, if only he wasn't lied to, if only he didn't feel betrayed, if only his brother weren't such an arrogant jerk, if only he hadn't fallen into the hands of bad people.... Yeah, but he's still a villain. At the end of the day, his *most* redeeming quality is that he loves his brother, and the fact that he's starving for some scrap of recognition from his father makes some of his actions understandable, if not forgivable. But he is no hero; he very happily stabs his brother every chance he gets, usually literally.

If someone with Tony Stark's personality acted like Loki, he would be seriously vilified and much less likable. He would be a villain, true, but a more hated one, I think. I think that's why the closest MCU has to Tony Stark (personality-wise) is Dr. Strange. You can have Loki's vicious deeds or Tony Stark's self-absorbed arrogance...but not both.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Fingolfin act like Loki. Fingolfin like Tony Stark is going to try and save the day, he is going to be a loving father, devoted to his people and the most valiant elvish warrior. When it comes to fighting Morgoth, he will be always at the front. When it comes to choosing a realm to rule, he will choose the one closest to Morgoth.
It's the mix of where we go with the story arc and where we go with the character arc that matters as to whether these people will be viewed sympathetically or not.

I understand that you were hoping that we were going to build on Fingolfin's flaws so that he became more flawed over time, cellardur, whereas we had always intended to begin with flaws and then build him up into more of a hero, so that his final despair and tragic end would be epicly heroic (in the original meaning of the word, as in people would compose epic poems about his deeds). We were always going to go for 'heroic' when it came to him, and political back-biting is not particularly noble. So, we didn't go for that version. We have taken bits and pieces from the "Shibboleth of Fëanor" and other later writings, but we are not adopting it wholesale. We're starting from the point of the published Silmarillion and then going from there.
I don't want Fingolfin to become more flawed over time. I actually want him to progress, to become wiser, but maintain his pride. When anyone suggest sending messengers to Valinor, he should be firmly against it. I have brought up the likes of Morwen and Turin. Morwen is a tragic and lovable character, but she has the same obstinacy and pride as Fingolfin. Unfortunately like Turin, he will fall into despair at the end.
One thing to keep in mind is that we are portraying the Valar's invitation of the Elves to come to Valinor in the first place as potentially a mistake. Sure, they had the best of intentions, but was that truly the elvish destiny...? In other words, the rebellion of the Noldor is not wholly incorrect in the way we are telling the story. Yes, the way Fëanor went about it means that the Doom of Mandos was correct - the Noldor are in the wrong. But...they didn't have to be. There is a valid point in all of there, and Ulmo's backup plan of having ships on both sides of the ocean was a needed. Just...not like this!
Whether the Valar should have brought the Elves into Aman, does not change Manwe being the king of Arda. I like the concept of Olwe being the ferry man. That being said it damns the Noldor even more. It shows the Valar had plans to allow them to visit ME, if only they had been patient. A rebellion against the Valar is a very serious offence, since Eru put Manwe in charge.
Personally, I like the Fëanoreans a heck of a lot more than I like Galadriel. :p

The villain of the piece is Morgoth. I don't consider the Fëanoreans to be villains, though of course they do horrible things. I would say that Curufin does become a villain, but he's not quite there yet. Fëanor is...a deeply flawed hero who drags everyone else down with him, but he's not actually a villain. It's more like, in trying to oppose Morgoth, Fëanor winds up falling into all of his traps. He's a failed hero. (I also compared him to Jim Jones in today's session, so, you know...I'm not really fighting the villain designation, either.)
I am not saying any of the Feanorians are villains at this stage, but by 3rd kinslaying, even though they have redeemable moments they are all villains. They will be attacking and killing relatively unarmed refugees. I should have phrased myself better, it's easier to show the faults of a character when you know they will become a villain at the end.
I see Fingon and Maedhros as different types of people, both with obvious flaws, but also both ultimately working towards positive goals and trying to get it right. It is easy to just yell 'murderer!' and shun someone if that is literally the only person you've ever known who killed another person. It's a lot harder to maintain that sense of judgement if nearly everyone you know is guilty of the same crime. [Unfortunately, there are real-world analogues like Rwanda.] So, yes, I think the story shows a lot of indication that, despite the Kinslaying, most of the Princes of the Noldor are considered to be decent people moving forward. A character like Círdan, who was obviously closer to the Teleri than many of the other Sindar, still manages to work with the Noldor throughout the First Age, seemingly without prejudice. This doesn't mean that these characters are as good as him, but they are very much on his side.
Being a decent person does not mean you don't have faults. I brought up the example of Thingol. Cirdan serves and greatly loves Thingol, I think he is one of those who searches the longest for him. This does not mean Thingol is perfect. I used the example Boromir and Turin for that reason.

When I say I desire the Noldor princes to be more flawed, think Turin, Boromir and Morwen not Morgoth or even Eol.
One could do worse than characterize Fingon and Maedhros as perelleth does in her short story "In Vino Veritas." It takes place while Fingon is High King of the Noldor, so much later in the First Age, but (obviously) before Fingon's death and before the later Kinslayings. It's obvious Maedhros is on a downward trajectory, and Fingon is doing his best to deal with him despite the Oath. If you want political maneuverings, I'm okay with this level of that. As a heads up, there are some minor grammatical issues (I doubt English is her first language), but the interplay between the characters is very well drawn. The story is told from Maedhros' first person point of view.

In Vino Veritas: http://www.storiesofarda.com/chapterview.asp?sid=4818&cid=19477
I will read it. No matter how far Maedhros falls, I would like to maintain their amazing love and friendship. Ultimately they will die as friends working to defeat Morgoth.
I really don't see any substantial differentiation between the goodness and light of Glorfindel and Finrod. They have nearly identical self-sacrificial deaths, and we're told of their reincarnations right away. Sure, Glorfindel is special and awesome. But so is Finrod, and easily just as special and just as awesome. So...? I can understand if someone prefers Glorfindel to Finrod, or if it were pointed out that Finrod was a ruler and Glorfindel served a ruler. They're not the same person, but I don't think they are on substantially different levels, either.

I do recognize that, in the storytelling style of the published Silmarillion, something being brought up by the narrator does not mean that the event occurs at that time. So when we hear that Maglor composed the Noldolante in the midst of telling the story of the Kinslaying, that does not mean that Maglor was composing the music while still in Araman. Rather, at some point during the First Age, he did compose the Noldolante.

So, when we are told about Finrod's reincarnation in the published Silmarillion, there isn't exactly a timeline. It just says "They buried the body of Felagund upon the hill-top of his own isle, and it was clean again; and the green grave of Finrod Finarfin's son, fairest of all the princes of the Elves, remained inviolate, until the land was changed and broken, and foundered under destroying seas. But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar."

That passage does have an edited out 'and Amarië'...but yes, it is possible to read that and think that Finrod was not reincarnated until after the War of Wrath. The isle, of course, was cleansed prior to that, and Finrod is identified as the best prince, not just of the Noldor, but of all the Elves. Similarly superlative language is used in the Lay of Leithian as well; when Lúthien finds Beren mourning beside Felagund's dead body, she says, "Alas! That here upon the ground/ the noblest of the noble race/ in vain thy anguish doth embrace! Alas! in tears that we should meet/ who once found meeting passing sweet!" Of course, Tolkien loves superlative descriptions, so it's sometimes hard to make all of his statements like this work simultaneously. We run into that with the 'oldest' question for Treebeard, Círdan, and Tom Bombadil. It really just means really old. So, it's okay to call Finrod really ridiculously noble and fair, though not necessarily concede that he would be the most noble or most fair.

The version in the Lay also does not specify precisely when Finrod is reincarnated, though it does suggest that it might have happened before the War of Wrath:
"The isle in Sirion they left behind;
but there on hill-top might there find
a green grave, and a stone set,
and there there lie the white bones yet
of Felagund, of Finrod's son -
unless that land is changed and gone,
or foundered in unfathomed seas,
while Felagund laughs beneath the trees
in Valinor, and comes no more
to this grey world of tears and war."

This isn't a set timeline, I understand that. But it is rather notable that in both the poem and the prose, the main point the author wants to make (besides the long lasting hallowed grave) is that Finrod is not in Mandos, but free to walk in Valinor. If this is contrasted with Beleg's dying words to Túrin in the other Lay, it is seen that Beleg mentions halls of waiting.

Finrod's stint in Purgatory the Halls of Mandos seems rather brief; I don't see anything to suggest that he was kept waiting there long.
Finrod is a fantastic and lovable Elf. He is the youngest, but the majority of the Noldor will choose to live under his direct reign. He is popular with virtually everyone, he gets along with Thingol and still goes hunting with the Feanorians. He is Finrod the beloved.

Glorfindel is particularly special, because he was against the Noldor rebellion. He didn't desire to rule lands and be a king, he wished to stay loyal to the Valar and only left, because of his relationship to Turgon. This is the key difference between the two. The rebellion was terrible and both Finrod and Glorfindel need to repent, but Glorfindel's guilt was leaving only out of love and desire to serve. Finrod on the other hand had more self-serving and prideful reasons to leave.
 
Is it alright if I add a few of my thoughts?



I think that the Noldor are painted in shades of grey.

Few of the named Noldor are entire faultless - even Finarfin, the only Noldorin prince without the fault of pride, participated initially in the Rebellion.

On the other hand, none of the named Noldor lack redeeming features or positive moments. It's fair to think of Feanor and his sons as villains, and I think they are in the Kinslaying stories. But even they each have positive features and/or moments as well. Even in the Third Kinslaying, Maedhros and Maglor still had consciences, and tried to break the Oath. Eol is the only named Elf I can think of who has no redeeming features (at least, none that are mentioned - that doesn't mean he can't be depicted with some).

I think repentance, redemption, and forgiveness are also significant: some characters change for the better. Finarfin, Finrod, and Glorfindel are flawed and guilty, but almost entirely good. They must have repented of the Rebellion, since they were granted forgiveness, and allowed back into Valinor. Galadriel was offered pardon and permission to settle Eressea... she refused, but it was offered to her. Ultimately, I think nearly all the Exiles, including most of the leaders, must have been reincarnated by the middle of the Second Age - I wouldn't expect any to be held in Mandos longer than Morgoth was held, except those who were doomed never to return, and those who chose to stay dead.
 
Is it alright if I add a few of my thoughts?



I think that the Noldor are painted in shades of grey.

Few of the named Noldor are entire faultless - even Finarfin, the only Noldorin prince without the fault of pride, participated initially in the Rebellion.

On the other hand, none of the named Noldor lack redeeming features or positive moments. It's fair to think of Feanor and his sons as villains, and I think they are in the Kinslaying stories. But even they each have positive features and/or moments as well. Even in the Third Kinslaying, Maedhros and Maglor still had consciences, and tried to break the Oath. Eol is the only named Elf I can think of who has no redeeming features (at least, none that are mentioned - that doesn't mean he can't be depicted with some).

I think repentance, redemption, and forgiveness are also significant: some characters change for the better. Finarfin, Finrod, and Glorfindel are flawed and guilty, but almost entirely good. They must have repented of the Rebellion, since they were granted forgiveness, and allowed back into Valinor. Galadriel was offered pardon and permission to settle Eressea... she refused, but it was offered to her. Ultimately, I think nearly all the Exiles, including most of the leaders, must have been reincarnated by the middle of the Second Age - I wouldn't expect any to be held in Mandos longer than Morgoth was held, except those who were doomed never to return, and those who chose to stay dead.
I wouldn't put Glorfindel with Finrod. His sole reason for going was to help his family, he was dismayed by the decision and tried to urge them to turn back. He was an outstanding Elf from the beginning and remained so.

Yes Finarfin did initially leave, but that was not a rebellion against the Valar yet. The Valar allowed the Noldor to leave, but told them it was unwise and they would get no help.

Against the folly of Fëanor shall be set my counsel only. Go not forth! For the hour is evil, and your road leads to sorrow that ye do not foresee. No aid will the Valar lend you in this quest; but neither will they hinder you; for this ye shall know: as ye came hither freely, freely shall ye depart. But thou Fëanor Finwë's son, by thine oath art exiled.

It's after the kinslaying where they are banished and actively rebelling agains the Valar.

I will add this 'nothing was evil in the beginning.' Nearly all the characters have redeeming qualities. Eol managed to make Aredhel content for a period and she saw something in him. He was able to win the friendship of the dwarves, which only Curufin managed. Curufin like his Feanor, seemed to be have a great love for his father. I personally would have preferred for Curufin to be the one to recklessly charge the Balrogs. For all his faults, he dearly loves Celegorm and his father.
 
Yes Finarfin did initially leave, but that was not a rebellion against the Valar yet. The Valar allowed the Noldor to leave, but told them it was unwise and they would get no help.

Against the folly of Fëanor shall be set my counsel only. Go not forth! For the hour is evil, and your road leads to sorrow that ye do not foresee. No aid will the Valar lend you in this quest; but neither will they hinder you; for this ye shall know: as ye came hither freely, freely shall ye depart. But thou Fëanor Finwë's son, by thine oath art exiled.

It's after the kinslaying where they are banished and actively rebelling agains the Valar.
Hm. That isn't a bad point.... Still, they were leaving in the context of following Feanor, who had ranted at length about how the Valar are the enemies and Valinor is a cage, blah blah blah. That isn't technically rebellion, right, but it feels like it's at least somewhat in the spirit of rebellion. Finarfin was no fan of Feanor, but he was pardoned, not acquitted.

My point was mostly that even the best people make mistakes. Eru even rebuked Manwe for bringing Elves to Valinor, and warned him not to do that to Mortals. I think only Eru is truly infallible...
 
I wouldn't put Glorfindel with Finrod. His sole reason for going was to help his family, he was dismayed by the decision and tried to urge them to turn back. He was an outstanding Elf from the beginning and remained so.

Yes Finarfin did initially leave, but that was not a rebellion against the Valar yet. The Valar allowed the Noldor to leave, but told them it was unwise and they would get no help.

Against the folly of Fëanor shall be set my counsel only. Go not forth! For the hour is evil, and your road leads to sorrow that ye do not foresee. No aid will the Valar lend you in this quest; but neither will they hinder you; for this ye shall know: as ye came hither freely, freely shall ye depart. But thou Fëanor Finwë's son, by thine oath art exiled.

It's after the kinslaying where they are banished and actively rebelling agains the Valar.

I will add this 'nothing was evil in the beginning.' Nearly all the characters have redeeming qualities. Eol managed to make Aredhel content for a period and she saw something in him. He was able to win the friendship of the dwarves, which only Curufin managed. Curufin like his Feanor, seemed to be have a great love for his father. I personally would have preferred for Curufin to be the one to recklessly charge the Balrogs. For all his faults, he dearly loves Celegorm and his father.
It’s a bit out of Curufin’s character to have a reckless charge; Curufin is known as “the crafty” and a Leeroy Jenkins-type charge isn’t crafty at all on its own without another type of plan to pair it with.

Also, wondering about Aegnor and Andreth: how should we present it to an audience? Who is responsible for not accepting the other’s love? When is the law disallowing marriage during wartime enacted? Does Aegnor look like a coward for not wanting to marry Andreth, not knowing where his soul would end up?
 
My feeling is that it's not a law, but a strong preference. Some few Elves go ahead and have children during wartime anyway, but I think it's probably seen as reckless or irresponsible, or maybe even abusive. You could have given your children a good, safe life... and you didn't, because you were impatient or horny.
 
It’s a bit out of Curufin’s character to have a reckless charge; Curufin is known as “the crafty” and a Leeroy Jenkins-type charge isn’t crafty at all on its own without another type of plan to pair it with.
That's why it would be so unusual and break from his normal character. My thoughts were there would be only two moments where he loses his control and that would be the death of his father and the death of Celebrimbor.
Also, wondering about Aegnor and Andreth: how should we present it to an audience? Who is responsible for not accepting the other’s love? When is the law disallowing marriage during wartime enacted? Does Aegnor look like a coward for not wanting to marry Andreth, not knowing where his soul would end up?
AS Faelivrin said, I always thought it was just a strong preference a bit like in many middle class families it is customary to wait until you get your first job before having children. I don't even think it would have a strong stigma against it, just be viewed as irresponsible and a big risk.

I think what adds to this is Aegnor should be have premonitions of his death. So not only is it against his customs, but he especially knows he will die relatively soon.
 
I really like the premonitions of death suggestion. Aegnor definitely expected the Siege wouldn't last for very long and Finrod, at least, believed Aegnor would die very soon.

Just a clarification: Celebrimbor died in 1697 of the Second Age, in the Fall of Eregion. Curufin died centuries before his son, in the Second Kinslaying.
 
I really like the premonitions of death suggestion. Aegnor definitely expected the Siege wouldn't last for very long and Finrod, at least, believed Aegnor would die very soon.

Just a clarification: Celebrimbor died in 1697 of the Second Age, in the Fall of Eregion. Curufin died centuries before his son, in the Second Kinslaying.
Yes thanks I meant Celegorm. I thought, it would be nice if he never loses control, always has a crafty smile, but when those two die he completely loses it and reckless charges. Celegorm will of course be killed by Dior in Doriath.
 
Oh... you mean that Curufin should lose his temper when Celegorm dies in Doriath?
Yes it could work well with Celegorm, being the one to always lose his temper and jump up in anger/lose his coo, whilst Curufin always remains calm and smirks no matter how bad a situation they are in. Only when his father and brother die, would he lose and go into a berserk rage similar to Feanor.
 
Back
Top