Feanor's true motivations
 

What if he didn't order the ship-burning out of hate, but out of love, in an effort to keep Fingolfin from following him, and force him to return back to safety? After all, despite everything, Fingolfin was still Finwe's son, and thus one of the final reminders Feanor had of his father.

Makes one wonder.....

Is there anything you can think of to support your idea, other than that you like it? ;)

I do not think that's the case as everything else that Feanor says and does paints his character differently.

Also, why do you keep trying to make everybody goodies? Feanor - and the rest of them - are much more interesting as grey characters.

Like I said, Fingolfin is one of the few reminders Feanor has of his father.

Everybody? Do you see me portraying Morgoth and company as do-gooders? How about Pharazon? The Gaurwaith? Uldor and co.?

Yeah, thought so.

That didn't make Feanor love Fingolfin very much before. In general Feanor doesn't look very favourably on both of his half-brothers. And if you think he was trying to spare Fingolfin, it implies an understanding that what he's doing is wrong and the words he proclaimed should not be followed. I don't think Feanor quite meets that point.

Correction: you're trying to make the characters you like entirely good, making up alternative scenarios and explanations for their misdeeds. Why do you keep trying to excuse them?

For me, the beauty of many of these characters is that they have misdeeds. They have imperfections. And their imperfections make sense - they are driven by very realistic and relatable motivations and character traits.

Because I like them. Don't you sometimes dream that evil characters you like (Feanor, Maeglin, and Maedhros, in my case) could be reformed?

Reformed, or re-written? Because I would not have them rewritten for any reason.

He wouldn't have been able to burn the ships without slaughtering the Teleri.

Burning the ships out of "love" seems to be a non-starter, therefore.

Redeemed.

But redeeming is not redoing. Redemption happens after the act, not instead of it.

"They swore an oath which none shall break, and none should take, by the name even of Ilúvatar, calling the Everlasting Dark upon them if they kept it not... ...vowing to pursue with vengeance and hatred to the ends of the World Vala, Demon, Elf or Man as yet unborn or any creature, great or small, good or evil, that time should bring forth unto the end of days, whoso should hold or take or keep a Silmaril from their possession." -- Quenta Silmarillion

The Oath of Fëanor was, in Tolkien's world view, irrevocable and irredeemable, borne out of pride and hatred. It destroyed everyone it touched and was the cause of three separate Kinslayings among the Elves, each perpetrated by Fëanor or his sons. Nothing that occurred, including slaughtering the Teleri, burning their ships, or abandoning Fingolfin's people to cross the Helcaraxë was done out of love or filial concern. To imply otherwise is nonsensical fan-fiction.

Well, none of them had a chance to redeem themselves. Do I need to remind you that all of them were promptly killed after the act? They weren't even asked if they would atone by other means.

Very few people are asked if they would like to atone. Atonement is done by your own will, and it could have happened at any point, really. One doesn't have to wait until the moment of death. So they all had a chance to redeem themselves, they just didn't care to.

Saying that the character did not do what he did, or did it for reasons other than the stated ones or the ones that go with his character, is not atonement. It's looking for excuses and re-writing the character's story. If you want to say, what if Feanor was a kinder man, with more love for family and more concern for other people? - then yes, if you change the character you change the motivations. But then the burning wouldn't have happened because this kinder Feanor would not have asked for a kinslaying and would not have called all the Noldor after him.