Without the Spirit of Fire?
 

I apologize if this is a stupid question, but:

Do you think Arda would have been better or worse if Feanor had not existed? (I hardly think "indifferent" is an option.)

Aman would have been better, because the elves never would have left, and there might not have been the Kinslaying. However, if Feanor had never been born, then Serinde would not have died, Finwe would not have remarried, and Fingolfin and Finarfin would not have been born. Hence, no noble houses of the Noldor except for Finwe and his children (I'm assuming that a less fiery child than Feanor would not have killed Serinde, and they would have had other children.)
Without Feanor, Morgoth would not have been as effective in his sowing of divisions in the elves. Also, if the elves did not go to Beleriand, then men would have fallen to Morgoth. So you would have bliss in Aman for a while, but hell everywhere else. Eventually, Melkor would have gotten strong enough to challenge Aman. Who can say what would have happened?
It's kind of hard to say. Each small action that occurs causes the world to change. Have you ever heard of the butterfly theory, that if a butterfly flutters its wings over China it could cause a hurricane in Brazil? Another theory is that each of these actions causes a new world to be created, so there are trillions upon trillions of parallel universes out there. It's like a tree, always growing and branching. We can look back along our branch, but we cannot look at another branch. If you believe in clairvoyants, they can look at future branches, but they do not know which will occur. This is what Galadriel meant about the things in the Mirror not necessarily happening. So, it's hard to say. We can only guess.

I'm going to make a definitive statement from right here in this comfortable position of straddling the fence.

I'd say, both better and worse. Whether the good outweighed the bad or vice versa would depend on the perspective.

Feanor did accomplish some things that were good in and of themselves.

The adaptation of the Tengwar, the creation of the Silmarils, and the palantiri, to name just a few.

However, he also did some things that were just downright naughty.

The Oath of Feanor and the Rebellion of the Noldor, the Kinslaying, abandoning most of the Noldor in crossing the Sea, (and some sarcastic souls might say that his having children was an unmitigated catastrophe).

An interesting thing is that if one examines the aftermath (or wreckage) of Feanor's actions, several things ultimately had an impact quite opposite from the original intent.

The creation of the Silmarils, which was not an act evil of itself, resulted in all the disasters that overtook the Noldor later. And on a much more minor scale (which is almost pitiful to note) the palantiri were turned to evil by Sauron and resulted in the overthrow of the minds of Saurman and Denethor.

But on the other hand, the Revolt of the Noldor brought the High Elves back to Middle-Earth which resulted in the edification and enlightenment of humanity, who were ultimately destined to replace the Elves in Middle-Earth. This would not have happened to the same degree if the Noldor had not returned. (No disrespect to the Sindar, but...)

So, in the end, I believe that the exact opposite of Niggle's statement at the end of Tree and Leaf applies to Feanor, it is hard to say if things in Arda would have been better or worse without him, but they would certainly have been different.

If he had died before he had kids, would he have gotten a Darwin Award? :) :p

His own rascally ways would have disqualified him. He might have gotten the consolation prize: three strands from the hair of Galadriel. :D

What is Middle-Earth without Fingolfin and Finarfin and their children? There would probably also be no Numenor and Half-elves, if you'll climb up their family trees. And Morgoth's evil will still manifest, and sooner or later there would have to be someone standing up against him aside from the Valar themselves. I don't think Feanor would ever match Fingolfin's courage in his wrath.

tar-ancalime, it's not a stupid question at all...
 

Reminds me of someone's comment on WWI what-ifs. ;) Willow.

Anywhen, how could you tell better or worse? Is Arda worse because Eru allowed Melkor - and his evil - into it? I don't know.

But Arda will be changed, if that bleep is suddenly chronologically dissolved. Oh, yes, it will.

hmmm...
 

Thanks for all the responses. I find Feanor to be an absolutely fascinating character. I guess what I was thinking of, in addition to all of the butterfly-effect type things (Serinde not dying, Finwe not remarrying, Finglofin and Finarfin not being born), is that Feanor seems to me to be a very special character: he is everything Elvish, magnified. He is more creative, more skilled, more intelligent, and prouder (more flawed) than anyone else. He's not only one of the Firstborn, he is the Firstborn (in an archetypal sort of way). I do think that he stands for all of the Noldor, at least, if not for all of the Elves. So I wonder: what is the purpose of having a character like him? His presence changes the world, certainly, but in what way? In a larger sense, what is the ultimate impact of the Elves on the world? I guess I'm just ruminating--any thoughts?

Rumination
 

Just for the sake of rumination, I'll argue that Feanor does not represent the Noldor in an archetypical way. I certainly don't think that he represents all the Elves, but for simplification I'll confine my discussion to the Noldor.

I think Feanor may represent all the flaws and misused potential of the Noldor. He was a creative genius, a commanding leader, and generally one of the all round greatest of the Elves. However, most of the willful (and by that I mean the results of actions which he intended) acts of his life led to destruction and death. He let his abilities go to his head and ultimately his strengths became his weaknesses. I agree that this qualifies him as a archetypical figure, but I don't believe that he is representative of everything that the Noldor did.

Take Finrod for example. He was a close relative of Feanor, he was a king, and he too was one of the greater (but not greatest) of the Elves, and his behavior stands in stark contrast to much of what Feanor did.

Finrod worked for the betterment of his people. Feanor abandoned about 2/3 of his people out in the middle of nowhere, and then at the point of death commanded his remaining followers to fight on in a war that he knew they could not win.

Feanor was proud beyond the point of megalomania. Finrod humbled himself to the point of being willing to abdicate his throne, and then ultimately die for the sake of a mere mortal. It is hard to imagine Feanor doing anything even remotely similar to that.

While this is hardly an in depth treatment of the issue, I think that it does begin to show that there was a whole range of action by the Noldor that is not represented by Feanor.

There are likely many counter-arguments to be made here, and there are probably tons more material to discuss, but this is a starting point. ;)

Who wants to take a stab at it? :)

This may sound weird, but I can see Feanor as the Melkor of Noldor. Melkor brings chaos to the Song of Ainur, he leads some of the down the wrong path...Same with Feanor: he's the one who causes the Noldor to be banned from Valinor, he leads them in a, in a way, rebellion against the Valar (Melkor rebelled against Eru). Both rebellions caused evil and both were otherwise pointless, unless you consider the butterfly effect. AND he is the brightest, most skilled, etc Noldor, just like Melkor was the most powerful ainu. There are probably other similarities between them, I' just too tired right now to really think it through.

Edit: they're also the most arrogant and not very wise - even though there are moments when they are cunning; yet still not wise.

Middle Earth would have been a lesser place. Feanor wasn't a boring elf like the King of the Vanyar who's so dull I can't remember his name. Feanor ruffled some feathers, stuck it to the man. (Manwe and Melkor) Sure he probably wasn't the darling of the halls of Taniquetil but that's the type of things songs are made of. What was it Eru said, something like if you try and go against me you'll only make my creation better. That's exactly what Feanor did.

He was responsible for the most beautiful objects ever created by elf or man and the Quenta Silmarillion (which is a cracking read no matter what anyone says) so he did make the Great Lands even greater in my humble opinion and Middle Earth would be a much greyer place without him.

That is so true, Elmo!
 

Feanor did add quite a bit of brightness into Ea in general, not only to ME. Everyone has their own opinions, of course, but I agree with you that the Sil is an excellent book. He added contrast. Yes, he did cause a lot of evil, but that taught everyone else and now they can appreciate and love the good things better. Before Feanor, there wasn't really much to compare your life with. Feanor made the most beautiful creation ever, but he also brought the greatest sadness. By doing that, however, he indeed proved Eru's words "if you try and go against me you'll only make my creation better"
You never see some Mamma's darling boy as a great person/character, even if they do accomplish big achievements. Feanor did great things, even though they were not approved by many. After all, great does not necessarily mean good. It's this kind of people that are remembered - the people whodo something special, unsusual, unique (either good or bad things).

PS: I think the Mamma's darling boy Vanyar king's name is Ingwe.

Edit: deeds of such magnitude as Feanor's ones are great no matter what

Give me a boring, uninteresting king who isn't going to get me killed any day. ;)

I just noticed that Feanor was never really exceptionally brave (but not a coward either). Simply reckless. Who else would call Melkor "jail-crow of Mandos" and slam the door in his face? Feanor treated Melkor as his inferior not-on-purpose! To compare this: Hurin defied Morgoth proudly, and Feanor treated him to a get-out-of-my-place-or-else sort of thing.

But with his recklesness/greediness/stubbourness/whatever Feanor moved history. He basically started everything and let others carry it on. You can argue that Eru started and Valar continued, but they got people like Ingwe from their actions. Feanor's actions brought history into motion, not just counting days sitting in Manwe's lap.:p Feaor ade people do things, created a reason for them to. What's the greatest thing that the Elves did that the Valar 'caused them' to do? The Great Journey. The continuation of Feanor's actions reach into the 3rd/4th age. When talking about roles in a story, Feanor's is more important than Eru's.:eek:

I would agree also that Frodo's role in the story is greater then Tolkien's :p

Let me qote one movie, where Baron Munchhausen says:

With all respect to Feanor, he was unable to see things earnestly and lightly at the same time - at least one elvish feature he lacked. He took himself too seriously - the same happened to Melkor, Sauron, Ar-Farazon, Saruman and Denethor. :smokin:

I just start to read this forum. So i apologize if some of what i shall write is OT.
and second i am italian and i write in english i as can ;)
I agree with what Galadriel55 wrote but ,probably, for different reason.
Melkor is ,in not understandable way for us, just doing Iluvatar will.
This is well explained with the creation of snow.
And if you like reduce Tolkien religiosity is all about choice and it is a difference between an idea and its realisation .
Melkor wish to become a creator God and "in se"(english: on own self??) this idea is not evil or good it is an aspiration that is in all the created creature to understand themselves.
You try to do what is good for your understanding.
Ainurs took Elves to their country... This was done for good but it was not an absolute good idea ...may be better was to help then in their country. The Ainur were just big brother,but took Elves as son and that was a big mistake because they wer just Iluvatar 'son.
This is as the Eden.
An equilibrium that after s time become static and has to be changed.
You believe that Hobbit were living a good life ?
No they have start to forget about their past, They believe their place the centre of the world. This changed because an Hobbit did some that was wrong for normal Hobbits go around the world and put heir nose in Wizards and King question. So Melkor :Feanor:Bilbo
Frodo at the end make the wrong decision (take the ring for himself) the same mistakes that has done Gollum the 9
the 7 .
Also the 3 in some way if subject to the one are just choices. we have to give them some sense.
Silmarillon are light creation...they are not jewels they are the meaning of what light is. Feanor is another Lucifero a bringer of light that fail when wish to keep this light on him on his world and not wish share it with the world.
But to do this is not easy task. If you not see the mistakes of Ainur you fai to see the complexity of the picture that Tolkien gave us...

Welcome Aiea. You make some interesting points (and as ever I am in awe of those doing so in a second language - I lived in France for 2 years and studied it for my degree but I didn't have the confidence to post on a French Tolkien site).

Some Tolkien critics claim that LOTR is a simple "good v evil" story but it is far more complex than that. The triumph of good is in many ways the result of individuals being disobedient. Faramir and Eowyn go against orders and change the outcome for the better. Arguably the success of the Quest is dependent on Boromir's failed attempt to take the ring. The difference is perhaps in the subsequent choices rather than the fact of rebellion- the difference between a peaceful protester and a terrorist.

Of course drama requires crisis and conflict - It may have been pleasant living under the rule of Ingwe in Valinor but I doubt it would make an interesting book. It is the stories of the catalysts that are interesting the Bilbos not the Fredegars. And I think in "Arda marred" it is true that leading a quiet life and hoping nothing will change is not an option. If the Elves and Ents can't succeed at that Hobbits certainly won't. To get back to the topic, Feanor was perhaps a necessary catalyst - if he hand't existed someone else would have filled that role - maybe less extreme

Welcome, Aiea! Your English is great, and I second Mithalwen's words about foruming in a second language.

It's true that the hobbits thought they were the center of the world, but they did not know any better. Only few hobbits saw/learned the full meaning of "Big-" and "Fair-" Folk (ie Men and Elves). When major changeinvaded the Shire in the face of Saruman, they accepted it and dealt with it. (Unlike Elves who want no change at all.)

So hobbits are kind of a cross between a static nation and something more impulsive.

Maybe they aren't impusive because they don't want to gain anything new? For exaple, we know tht the Haradrim and the Easterlings fought in the War partially because Sauron promised them...something. If Sauron gave the same proposition to the Hobbits, maybe not to fight, but to lets say, farm for him in exchange for money, more lands, knowledge, etc., I believe that most would refuse. This behaviour could be seen when the Nazgul kept offering gold to those who could hand Frodo in to him, and we know that Maggot refused. He just doesn't want or need the gold.

Apropos how the hobbits fall to Saruman ?

Most of them didn't, but that's what I was talking about, yes.

Haha! It would have been better, but far less interesting! It certainly wouldn't have attracted a mass of drooling fans and melting puddles of fangirls that put the book up on a pedestal and worshipped it like it was Jesus+Buddha+Mohammad resurrected ;) Also, it wouldn't have created millions of kids who started to procrastinate their schoolwork and sneak off to the loo to read their tattered copy of 'The Lord of the Rings'.

So, in a sense, for US it definitely would have been better :p Not that I'm complaining.

Actually a good question on alternate history in a fictional world.
It certainly would have been a less interesting, if probably a happier,
world.

As a noted author once observed:
http://youtu.be/qfKpUTZHP2k