Turgon Across the Age
- Thread starter Marielle
- Start date
Ange1e4e5
Well-Known Member
No one else supports it.
Meanwhile regarding Turgon’s fate, I just don’t feel right with Turgon just staying in his tower and dying. Sounds cowardly and anti-climatic.
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the way he dies in the Lost Tales either (from what I remember of it -- it's been a while since I read it). His death there is passive and, well, undignified and kinda pathetic. To me it feels too much like LotR Denethor for a person who hasn't had his sanity broken down by Sauron's telepathy.
Since it's the Lost Tales, I feel OK about suggesting a moderate change, more-or-less just because I don't like it. In this case, I suggest that he dies with his sword in his hand, standing before the door of the tower, defending it as the symbolic heart of his city. That would be more dignified. It's still futile, and in keeping with his refusal to join the evacuation and his despair over the fall of his beloved city, without being so passive.
Since it's the Lost Tales, I feel OK about suggesting a moderate change, more-or-less just because I don't like it. In this case, I suggest that he dies with his sword in his hand, standing before the door of the tower, defending it as the symbolic heart of his city. That would be more dignified. It's still futile, and in keeping with his refusal to join the evacuation and his despair over the fall of his beloved city, without being so passive.
Last edited:
Having a tower taken out from under you is not a sign of cowardice. It's what happens when you're overwhelmed by a foe you cannot stand against. But yes, we can re-imagine Turgon's death in a way that differs from "The Fall of Gondolin" version, if we like.
There are two different levels of 'fallen' to talk about here. Turgon is an exile, it's true. But the exiled Noldor are NOT fallen in the same way that Men are fallen when they enter the scene from the East. There is something fundamentally changed about the nature of Men (related to old age/death) that was not the case prior to their flirtation with worshiping Morgoth (or whatever they did in the unseen 'there is a darkness behind us'). Men, as an entire people, are fallen in a way that the Elves are just...not.
The exiled Noldor are guilty of kinslaying (many of them) and rebellion (all of them). Slain they can be, and slain they will be. But while this is certainly a break with what came before, it is not a fundamental change in the nature of Elves. They remain essentially unfallen, though guilty. Our only fallen elves will be the captive elves who will become the Orcs...and we show them at the mercy of Sauron's necromancy and bowing down to worship Melkor and such.
Keep in mind that in Middle-earth, Melkor's marring of Arda is present from the beginning. So, even unfallen creatures can be corrupted. That is a significant difference from Christian mythology, where the angels (and the devil) do not play an active role in creation (ie, no Music of the Ainur). Thus, the world falls after creation, not before. All of history is the same fallen world, which is of course the same idea as Arda Marred - but how it gets that way is a bit different.
Ulmo's plan for Turgon is more specific and detailed than his plan for Finrod. So, in the construction of Nargothrond and Gondolin, it will be clear to the audience that there is something extra special and destined about the Hidden City of Gondolin that sets it apart from Finrod's Nargothrond. And, certainly, there will be anticipation of Turgon eventually doing something. When he marches an army of 10,000 to join the Union of Maedhros for the 5th battle, that will encourage many characters (and the audience) to think that that is what will turn the tide. That he is the arriving cavalry to save the day. That...doesn't happen. Also, when he starts sending ships into the West, the audience is then primed to hope for success there, that someone will reach the Valar and change their mind.... It doesn't work (yet), but that failure is necessary to understand why Tuor and Earendil would even try. And when Turgon refuses to abandon Gondolin per Ulmo's message, he will be seen as making a grave mistake (another let down). But unlike most characters who are too proud/set in their ways to heed the writing on the wall, he's going to be very courteous and welcoming to Tuor, understanding that his being sent by Ulmo was seriously fated. In other words, it's not that Turgon doesn't believe Ulmo's warning...he just chooses not to respond by abandoning the city. This is like the Chief Rabbit of the original warren in Watership Down - he hears Fiver's warning, and considers that even if it is true, it would be more dangerous and deadly to send the whole warren off on a march through open country to find a new home. He explains all of this to Hazel and Bigwig, and it's very practical. He's also wrong, but that's because he doesn't consider that total annihilation is the likely risk of staying.
The thing about prophecy is that it has to be pinned to something immediate. We're not actually going to speak too many prophecies (the one concerning Huan comes to mind). Sauron can't just wander into Morgoth's throne room and say, "Only the greatest wolf ever whelped will be able to defeat Huan" out of the blue. Huan has to have done something to come to Angband's attention. So, by having Huan be responsible for driving the werewolf army into the Fens of Serech during the 2nd Battle, we have given ourselves the necessary setup for Huan's legend to be established and for such a prophecy to have a place in the story.
Similarly...Eärendil isn't born yet, and won't be for a really, really long time. He is an 8 year old boy when Gondolin falls. We need the audience to really anticipate his arrival, though, so that requires a lot of fate/prophecy/visions pointing in his direction, *without* dropping his name. We should play that to the hilt, I think. But, again...it has to be pinned on *something*. The idea of 'someday someone special will be born and save the day' is too vague and nebulous. So....that leaves either Turgon or Idril to build the prophecies on. Idril is the child who survived the crossing of the Helcaraxë...so she's already a bit of a miracle child. We could certainly do more with her as the 'destined' one to save her people. But the majority of the hints and portents and especially the plans will be focused on Turgon himself. The very first reference to Eärendil will not be Turgon related, though - Círdan will see Eärendil's ship in his vision that convinces him to stay in Middle-earth in Season 2.
There are two different levels of 'fallen' to talk about here. Turgon is an exile, it's true. But the exiled Noldor are NOT fallen in the same way that Men are fallen when they enter the scene from the East. There is something fundamentally changed about the nature of Men (related to old age/death) that was not the case prior to their flirtation with worshiping Morgoth (or whatever they did in the unseen 'there is a darkness behind us'). Men, as an entire people, are fallen in a way that the Elves are just...not.
The exiled Noldor are guilty of kinslaying (many of them) and rebellion (all of them). Slain they can be, and slain they will be. But while this is certainly a break with what came before, it is not a fundamental change in the nature of Elves. They remain essentially unfallen, though guilty. Our only fallen elves will be the captive elves who will become the Orcs...and we show them at the mercy of Sauron's necromancy and bowing down to worship Melkor and such.
Keep in mind that in Middle-earth, Melkor's marring of Arda is present from the beginning. So, even unfallen creatures can be corrupted. That is a significant difference from Christian mythology, where the angels (and the devil) do not play an active role in creation (ie, no Music of the Ainur). Thus, the world falls after creation, not before. All of history is the same fallen world, which is of course the same idea as Arda Marred - but how it gets that way is a bit different.
Ulmo's plan for Turgon is more specific and detailed than his plan for Finrod. So, in the construction of Nargothrond and Gondolin, it will be clear to the audience that there is something extra special and destined about the Hidden City of Gondolin that sets it apart from Finrod's Nargothrond. And, certainly, there will be anticipation of Turgon eventually doing something. When he marches an army of 10,000 to join the Union of Maedhros for the 5th battle, that will encourage many characters (and the audience) to think that that is what will turn the tide. That he is the arriving cavalry to save the day. That...doesn't happen. Also, when he starts sending ships into the West, the audience is then primed to hope for success there, that someone will reach the Valar and change their mind.... It doesn't work (yet), but that failure is necessary to understand why Tuor and Earendil would even try. And when Turgon refuses to abandon Gondolin per Ulmo's message, he will be seen as making a grave mistake (another let down). But unlike most characters who are too proud/set in their ways to heed the writing on the wall, he's going to be very courteous and welcoming to Tuor, understanding that his being sent by Ulmo was seriously fated. In other words, it's not that Turgon doesn't believe Ulmo's warning...he just chooses not to respond by abandoning the city. This is like the Chief Rabbit of the original warren in Watership Down - he hears Fiver's warning, and considers that even if it is true, it would be more dangerous and deadly to send the whole warren off on a march through open country to find a new home. He explains all of this to Hazel and Bigwig, and it's very practical. He's also wrong, but that's because he doesn't consider that total annihilation is the likely risk of staying.
The thing about prophecy is that it has to be pinned to something immediate. We're not actually going to speak too many prophecies (the one concerning Huan comes to mind). Sauron can't just wander into Morgoth's throne room and say, "Only the greatest wolf ever whelped will be able to defeat Huan" out of the blue. Huan has to have done something to come to Angband's attention. So, by having Huan be responsible for driving the werewolf army into the Fens of Serech during the 2nd Battle, we have given ourselves the necessary setup for Huan's legend to be established and for such a prophecy to have a place in the story.
Similarly...Eärendil isn't born yet, and won't be for a really, really long time. He is an 8 year old boy when Gondolin falls. We need the audience to really anticipate his arrival, though, so that requires a lot of fate/prophecy/visions pointing in his direction, *without* dropping his name. We should play that to the hilt, I think. But, again...it has to be pinned on *something*. The idea of 'someday someone special will be born and save the day' is too vague and nebulous. So....that leaves either Turgon or Idril to build the prophecies on. Idril is the child who survived the crossing of the Helcaraxë...so she's already a bit of a miracle child. We could certainly do more with her as the 'destined' one to save her people. But the majority of the hints and portents and especially the plans will be focused on Turgon himself. The very first reference to Eärendil will not be Turgon related, though - Círdan will see Eärendil's ship in his vision that convinces him to stay in Middle-earth in Season 2.
Last edited:
Ange1e4e5
Well-Known Member
Have him stay beneath the tower and fight off any Orc that tries to pursue the survivors? And the reason he stays behind is because he feels like he has to pay for his hubris?
*puts on Moderator hat*
I had an epiphany today while reading a friend's facebook feed. He had posted a meme, gotten some comments on it, and chose to delete it rather than encourage the conversation to continue. His final comment was, "You win, trolls; I am a loser."
I feel that meme-culture has an extremely negative side effect. While expressing ideas in very concise soundbites and often being pithy and amusing, they tend to be biting rather than simply insightful or humorous. That underhanded dig is part of what makes them effective, but it's also part of what makes any conversation centering around the topic brought up in the meme contentious. People become very defensive, because they feel they've been attacked. In other words, oftentimes memes are inflammatory, and do not serve as a good starting point for a fruitful discussion. I have no doubt that this friend would have gotten more positive feedback on his post if he'd expressed the same ideas in his own words, because he is a naturally encouraging person, and would not have stooped to the underhanded dig that the meme did. Also, his fb friend's list is not composed of trolls - these people are his friends and family and naturally care about him and want what is best for him.
That led me to think about some of the conversations we've had here, and why I have found some of them frustrating lately. I don't dislike differences of opinion; rather the opposite - on a project like this, we *need* people to come up with new and novel ideas, to get the creative juices flowing and to allow people to bounce ideas off one another. We need to be able to take someone else's idea and run with it, and...to feel comfortable doing so. And the Execs need to hear ideas that I don't like, because despite my preferences, that might be the perfect idea for a scene. Sure, some decisions have already been made, and revisiting them wouldn't make a lot of sense or be helpful. But a lot is still wide open, and I don't want this to feel like a closed environment. Even if no one else seems to like an idea or go for it doesn't mean the idea is wrong or stupid. It's just an idea, a suggestion - it may work in our story, it may not, but until we get to that season, that episode...it's not any more correct than others' ideas.
Also, while there is plenty of value in discussing theoretical concepts and ideas, we do need to eventually bring the conversation around to the practical level of suggestions and decision-making. The Hosts do this in every broadcast. They consider (and reject) lots of ideas before settling on the one that they think works best. They are willing to go back on prior decisions if the need arises later, but mostly this project has forward momentum. I feel that it's important to distinguish between our role and theirs. They are the Executive Producers, the decision-makers. We're the creative team, the consultants, bringing our ideas to the table. In a real life scenario, the Execs would likely be much harsher and more stringent about enforcing their own views focused on a money-making standard. The fact that we have enthusiasts of the source material as our Exec Team is an added bonus, and they've been very open to our input, often going along with suggestions made by the podcast listeners (as long as they saw nothing wrong with it). This kindness and courteousness is maybe to be expected in a for-fun podcast situation, but it's certainly not the norm in academic settings, and I doubt it's common in the film industry, either. Academic debate can be extremely heated and personal, which is the type of behavior the Execs don't engage in.
This is one reason I am glad our forums here have a "Rules of Conduct" (pinned in the Main Forum):
https://forums.signumuniversity.org/index.php?threads/rules-of-conduct.2582/
We are meant to be a community. The wider forums are for all members of the Signum and Mythgard community who want a space to 'hang out' outside of the classes and podcasts. We might not have all met in person (though many of us have), but we have met online, through the podcasts, through the classes, or the Twitch channel, or via LOTRO, etc. The Silm Film group is unique, in that not everyone here is affiliated with other projects in Mythgard/Signum. Sure, some of us live in different countries and will likely never get the chance to meet in person, but we do have the opportunity to get to know one another here. And I think that maybe we should be more intentional about fostering that sense of community in how we interact. This isn't an academic debate, and we don't always have to reach consensus. We're working on this project FOR THE FUN OF IT. That means that while we're invited to be as passionate as we like, we are not encouraged to ruin others' fun or tear anyone down in the process. Sometimes stepping away from the boards for a day is all that is needed to refocus and come at the discussions here with fresh eyes. Other times, it will take additional effort to see the other person's perspective through a new lens, giving them credit for having a valid viewpoint/concern/consideration. But the discussions aren't fun if we resort to badgering or make a point of tearing down others' ideas. So, please, make sure that when expressing ideas here, you are always careful to respect other posters. When re-stating someone else's views, be very careful not to resort to hyperbole and exaggeration and taking the idea to its natural conclusion. Try to suggest an alternative that you would prefer rather than to simply negate someone else's idea.
*takes off Moderator hat*
I realize that I am primarily a poster here, not simply a moderator. I am part of these discussions, not outside of them. But I have noticed a shift in tone in recent months that I find discouraging, and I hope that all posters could try to take the effort to pay attention to that and work to encourage others' participation. Thanks for all of your efforts towards building this community and working together on this project - may you all continue to find enjoyment in it!
I had an epiphany today while reading a friend's facebook feed. He had posted a meme, gotten some comments on it, and chose to delete it rather than encourage the conversation to continue. His final comment was, "You win, trolls; I am a loser."
I feel that meme-culture has an extremely negative side effect. While expressing ideas in very concise soundbites and often being pithy and amusing, they tend to be biting rather than simply insightful or humorous. That underhanded dig is part of what makes them effective, but it's also part of what makes any conversation centering around the topic brought up in the meme contentious. People become very defensive, because they feel they've been attacked. In other words, oftentimes memes are inflammatory, and do not serve as a good starting point for a fruitful discussion. I have no doubt that this friend would have gotten more positive feedback on his post if he'd expressed the same ideas in his own words, because he is a naturally encouraging person, and would not have stooped to the underhanded dig that the meme did. Also, his fb friend's list is not composed of trolls - these people are his friends and family and naturally care about him and want what is best for him.
That led me to think about some of the conversations we've had here, and why I have found some of them frustrating lately. I don't dislike differences of opinion; rather the opposite - on a project like this, we *need* people to come up with new and novel ideas, to get the creative juices flowing and to allow people to bounce ideas off one another. We need to be able to take someone else's idea and run with it, and...to feel comfortable doing so. And the Execs need to hear ideas that I don't like, because despite my preferences, that might be the perfect idea for a scene. Sure, some decisions have already been made, and revisiting them wouldn't make a lot of sense or be helpful. But a lot is still wide open, and I don't want this to feel like a closed environment. Even if no one else seems to like an idea or go for it doesn't mean the idea is wrong or stupid. It's just an idea, a suggestion - it may work in our story, it may not, but until we get to that season, that episode...it's not any more correct than others' ideas.
Also, while there is plenty of value in discussing theoretical concepts and ideas, we do need to eventually bring the conversation around to the practical level of suggestions and decision-making. The Hosts do this in every broadcast. They consider (and reject) lots of ideas before settling on the one that they think works best. They are willing to go back on prior decisions if the need arises later, but mostly this project has forward momentum. I feel that it's important to distinguish between our role and theirs. They are the Executive Producers, the decision-makers. We're the creative team, the consultants, bringing our ideas to the table. In a real life scenario, the Execs would likely be much harsher and more stringent about enforcing their own views focused on a money-making standard. The fact that we have enthusiasts of the source material as our Exec Team is an added bonus, and they've been very open to our input, often going along with suggestions made by the podcast listeners (as long as they saw nothing wrong with it). This kindness and courteousness is maybe to be expected in a for-fun podcast situation, but it's certainly not the norm in academic settings, and I doubt it's common in the film industry, either. Academic debate can be extremely heated and personal, which is the type of behavior the Execs don't engage in.
This is one reason I am glad our forums here have a "Rules of Conduct" (pinned in the Main Forum):
https://forums.signumuniversity.org/index.php?threads/rules-of-conduct.2582/
We are meant to be a community. The wider forums are for all members of the Signum and Mythgard community who want a space to 'hang out' outside of the classes and podcasts. We might not have all met in person (though many of us have), but we have met online, through the podcasts, through the classes, or the Twitch channel, or via LOTRO, etc. The Silm Film group is unique, in that not everyone here is affiliated with other projects in Mythgard/Signum. Sure, some of us live in different countries and will likely never get the chance to meet in person, but we do have the opportunity to get to know one another here. And I think that maybe we should be more intentional about fostering that sense of community in how we interact. This isn't an academic debate, and we don't always have to reach consensus. We're working on this project FOR THE FUN OF IT. That means that while we're invited to be as passionate as we like, we are not encouraged to ruin others' fun or tear anyone down in the process. Sometimes stepping away from the boards for a day is all that is needed to refocus and come at the discussions here with fresh eyes. Other times, it will take additional effort to see the other person's perspective through a new lens, giving them credit for having a valid viewpoint/concern/consideration. But the discussions aren't fun if we resort to badgering or make a point of tearing down others' ideas. So, please, make sure that when expressing ideas here, you are always careful to respect other posters. When re-stating someone else's views, be very careful not to resort to hyperbole and exaggeration and taking the idea to its natural conclusion. Try to suggest an alternative that you would prefer rather than to simply negate someone else's idea.
*takes off Moderator hat*
I realize that I am primarily a poster here, not simply a moderator. I am part of these discussions, not outside of them. But I have noticed a shift in tone in recent months that I find discouraging, and I hope that all posters could try to take the effort to pay attention to that and work to encourage others' participation. Thanks for all of your efforts towards building this community and working together on this project - may you all continue to find enjoyment in it!
I was going to ignore it again, but since you started talking about moderation and respect I want to add that lately, at least once every week, when I disagree with the Hosts about something or disagree somebody on this forum, I am accused of either dishonesty, outright lying, deliberately misquoting somebody, or "willfully misunderstanding". I don't even know what that means, but it feels like an accusation of dishonesty. It is not one person but several people on this project ganging up on me, week after week. I don't know if the above post is also directed personally at me, but two others on this forum have already accused me of these things this week.
I am VERY sick and tired of receiving these attacks and very seriously considering leaving this project at the end of Season 3 because of the way I am increasingly treated simply for disagreeing with other forumites. It has come to feel that simply disagreeing is unacceptable here. I have tried politely to ignore the accusations or very nicely ask people to be respectful, but this week was the last straw.
I have a different perspective from most of you. That does not mean that my perspective is inherently wrong, nor that I am dishonest if I say something that is different from what you were thinking. I am not being hyperbolic or dishonest just because I interpret a book differently from you. I am not deliberatly misquoting you if I have trouble understanding something vague or sarcastic or hyperbolic that you said. I am not a dishonest or immoral person, nor a bully. I make mistakes like every other mortal, but I am NOT dishonest.
So just stop accusing me of all these things.
I am VERY sick and tired of receiving these attacks and very seriously considering leaving this project at the end of Season 3 because of the way I am increasingly treated simply for disagreeing with other forumites. It has come to feel that simply disagreeing is unacceptable here. I have tried politely to ignore the accusations or very nicely ask people to be respectful, but this week was the last straw.
I have a different perspective from most of you. That does not mean that my perspective is inherently wrong, nor that I am dishonest if I say something that is different from what you were thinking. I am not being hyperbolic or dishonest just because I interpret a book differently from you. I am not deliberatly misquoting you if I have trouble understanding something vague or sarcastic or hyperbolic that you said. I am not a dishonest or immoral person, nor a bully. I make mistakes like every other mortal, but I am NOT dishonest.
So just stop accusing me of all these things.
Last edited:
"Simply disagreeing" is not a crime, of course. There are ways to disagree tactfully and respectfully, and ways of disagreeing that are closer to personal attacks. This post (by me) addresses tone, *not* whether or not people are in agreement with one another. It is, for instance, possible to express disagreement with the Hosts while not insinuating that they have completely misunderstood the source material. It is also possible to strenuously support an alternative version of (x,y,z) without using hyperbole while rejecting another person's suggestion.
I do not recall anyone accusing you of lying, so I'd have to go back and re-read some threads to see what you are referring to here. As for "Is this post directed at me personally?" the answer is that NO, it is directed at multiple posters who have been willing to post in an aggressive tone, which lessens the enjoyment of all here. It was posted in this thread, because 1) it's current, 2) there are examples of what I'm referring to here, and 3) there are positive examples of community here as well. It seemed the place to say something. I feel that inflammatory posting styles are inimical to getting productive work done on this project, and that such environments make it more difficult for people to share ideas openly.
As always, everyone is welcome to participate as their personal lives, interest, and free time permits. I certainly understand that people will come and go on this project over time, but it is not my desire for anyone to feel that they have been shut out of participation here. That includes the people who have been silent recently, possibly because the fun of posting here has lessened somewhat of late. My post is meant to urge a greater sense of courtesy and hospitality, to foster discussion rather than shut it down. For now, it remains a polite request.
I do not recall anyone accusing you of lying, so I'd have to go back and re-read some threads to see what you are referring to here. As for "Is this post directed at me personally?" the answer is that NO, it is directed at multiple posters who have been willing to post in an aggressive tone, which lessens the enjoyment of all here. It was posted in this thread, because 1) it's current, 2) there are examples of what I'm referring to here, and 3) there are positive examples of community here as well. It seemed the place to say something. I feel that inflammatory posting styles are inimical to getting productive work done on this project, and that such environments make it more difficult for people to share ideas openly.
As always, everyone is welcome to participate as their personal lives, interest, and free time permits. I certainly understand that people will come and go on this project over time, but it is not my desire for anyone to feel that they have been shut out of participation here. That includes the people who have been silent recently, possibly because the fun of posting here has lessened somewhat of late. My post is meant to urge a greater sense of courtesy and hospitality, to foster discussion rather than shut it down. For now, it remains a polite request.
"Willful misunderstanding" means to take the worst possible interpretation of someone's statement, not giving any benefit of the doubt nor expressing any trust in what that person might have meant. It typically results in the construction of strawman arguments while disregarding what a person actually said. It comes across as dismissive, rather than an honest attempt to engage with someone's argument.
Certainly, such a thing could happen by accident. Someone could simply misunderstand, and allow their own concern to color their response. But in general, such a tactic escalates the stakes tremendously and involves some implicit distrust of the person one is arguing against. It also raises everyone else's hackles and brings out extreme defensiveness. Antagonistic and combative posting styles are much more likely to earn such an accusation than a politely worded request for further explanation and elaboration.
One way to avoid such accusations is to ask for clarification before jumping to conclusions. To ask if someone really meant that....x, y, z? By asking first, did you really mean...? it gives someone a chance to clarify, elaborate or explain. By skipping that clarification step, the argument proceeds based on the initial misunderstanding, taking it and running with it.
There has been a lot of talking past one another on the boards. Stopping to ask for clarification can avoid some of that headache, and foster a greater sense of trust between the people engaged in the discussion.
As an example, I participated in a messageboard focused on Tolkien prior to Peter Jackson's movies being released (THE news in the summer of '99 was "Have you heard they're making a movie of Lord of the Rings?"). On this site, one particular poster had an extreme dislike of Peter Jackson (based on his previous projects) and thus ZERO trust that PJ would make any good decisions in his adaptation of Lord of the Rings. This person frequently claimed that PJ would have F-16s bombing Mount Doom in the finale of Return of the King because there was no news saying he wouldn't. Granted, there were other posters who loved Peter Jackson, and would defend every piece of news that emerged, saying that it would all be for the best, no matter what. I'm not suggesting there was any right attitude towards evaluating PJ's adaptation, particularly before any of us had seen the films. But I will say that the accusation about the F-16s was groundless and unfair. So, when I hear "willful misunderstanding," I think of F-16s divebombing Mount Doom in a Calvin and Hobbes style. And then I recall that no one has remotely suggested anything like that.
Certainly, such a thing could happen by accident. Someone could simply misunderstand, and allow their own concern to color their response. But in general, such a tactic escalates the stakes tremendously and involves some implicit distrust of the person one is arguing against. It also raises everyone else's hackles and brings out extreme defensiveness. Antagonistic and combative posting styles are much more likely to earn such an accusation than a politely worded request for further explanation and elaboration.
One way to avoid such accusations is to ask for clarification before jumping to conclusions. To ask if someone really meant that....x, y, z? By asking first, did you really mean...? it gives someone a chance to clarify, elaborate or explain. By skipping that clarification step, the argument proceeds based on the initial misunderstanding, taking it and running with it.
There has been a lot of talking past one another on the boards. Stopping to ask for clarification can avoid some of that headache, and foster a greater sense of trust between the people engaged in the discussion.
As an example, I participated in a messageboard focused on Tolkien prior to Peter Jackson's movies being released (THE news in the summer of '99 was "Have you heard they're making a movie of Lord of the Rings?"). On this site, one particular poster had an extreme dislike of Peter Jackson (based on his previous projects) and thus ZERO trust that PJ would make any good decisions in his adaptation of Lord of the Rings. This person frequently claimed that PJ would have F-16s bombing Mount Doom in the finale of Return of the King because there was no news saying he wouldn't. Granted, there were other posters who loved Peter Jackson, and would defend every piece of news that emerged, saying that it would all be for the best, no matter what. I'm not suggesting there was any right attitude towards evaluating PJ's adaptation, particularly before any of us had seen the films. But I will say that the accusation about the F-16s was groundless and unfair. So, when I hear "willful misunderstanding," I think of F-16s divebombing Mount Doom in a Calvin and Hobbes style. And then I recall that no one has remotely suggested anything like that.
Turgon deciding to remain and hold his tower does not have to be cowardly, but a sign of his pride and unwillingness to let go of his city. His tower is the ultimate symbol of the city he has grown to love. Just as he won't abandon Gondolin, he won't abandon his tower and goes down with both. I imagine Turgon is in his tower defending it.
I have to disagree with this. The Fall of Men is a great one and it caused Eru to change their fundamental nature as you say, but the Noldor are very much fallen as well.
The main body of the tale, the Silmarillion proper, is about the fall of the most gifted kindred of the Elves, their exile from Valinor (a kind of Paradise, the home of the Gods) in the furthest West, their re-entry into Middle-earth, the land of their birth but long under the rule of the Enemy, and their strife with him, the power of Evil still visibly incarnate. (Letter 131)
Their actions and the consequent kin-slayings are unnatural for typical Elvish.
I can bring up many other quotes, but the Noldor exiles to a greater or lesser extent have ALL been corrupted and more inclined to evil than other elves.
I agree with the first bit, but in common Christian Theology, the Fall of Man had cosmological consequences and caused the material world to fall as well. So in both Tolkien and Christian theology the Earth is marred and will have to be made anew.
I like the idea of some Noldor believing Turgon is the saviour, but the audience should see he is falling short. Corey mentioned Anakin and I would not mind that route. When Turgon refuses to take part in attacks against Morgoth, abandons Hurin, orders Eol killed or refuses to leave Gondoloin; we should start to doubt him.
amysrevenge
Well-Known Member
At each of those bad choices, a part of the audience should be shouting "But you were the chosen one!" at their TVs. #prequels
*Admin/moderator hat on*
My role as admin is actually primarily to clean out spam, but since I've posted a set of Rules of conduct, I guess I have to do my best to help people follow them. It's actually a collective job, though.
So anyway, I've been asked to take a look at a couple of threads as admin, including this one, and check if things are moving along accordning to our Rules of conduct. People should treat each other well. I would ask everyone to check out the Rules of conduct, they are actually helpful.
Now these things that you mention here Faelivrin are examples of what we do not want and what the Rules of conduct are meant to limit. In fact, we don't want that sort of thing at all. I don't want to become some kind of policeman here so I prefer not to hunt the forums looking for "bad behavior" or whatever, but I would like people to send me a message or in some way notify me when they feel the Rules of conduct have been violated.
Another thing I can't do is criticize people generally. So, when you say that you've been accused and people have ganged up on you, Faelivrin, I for one take that very seriously, as I'm sure everyone does - they should - but I can't really do anything as admin unless I see concrete examples. Please alert me if this happens.
In this case, I would like everyone to read through what you've written in this thread and reflect on whether you could have expressed yourself differently. Check out the Rules of conduct again, even if you think you now them by heart. MithLuin has also written a great post expanding on the rules. I suggest that we all read it. If someone notices that he or she could have expressed themselves differently and even wants to apologize, well that's worth, if not a medal, then a big hand.
Also, let this guy be our role model:
Last edited: