[Man-of-the-Wold]

In response to Tar-Elenion

Your arguments with me seem to fall into two categories, on which of course we are not far apart, with regard to issues of little genuine importance. So, please don’t be offended if I seem argumentative.

First would be the proper treatment of the various books, and Second would be how I treat Galadriel.

You seem to think that I put her on a pedestal. Yes, perhaps, in terms of her greatest, which I find perfectly correct in view of the totality of Tolkien’s work, as I’ll explain below, but to say I characterize her as saintly reveals a careless review of my words.

With some possible exceptions, Tolkien portrays hardly anyone as all good or worthy, and if he does in the case of Gandalf or Aragorn, potentially, it is with sound reason in terms of the choices they have made in their lives.

No, I see Galadriel as a complex character, whose flaws, virtues and mistakes are simplistic neither in nature nor in origin, but have the depth that one might associate with a real person or an important literary character. Likewise, even the Valar are shown as flawed, in my opinion, in this and other respects. But first the books, whether as canon or canard:

The Books.

We seem to both agree that The Lord of the Rings is the ultimate benchmark, beyond reproach, except for technical problems mostly found in certain word usages or the appendices’ dates and listings, for which correction is easily accepted based on The Unfinished Tales or Letters . . ..

The Hobbit you downplay because of its child-oriented narration. Well, it is actually a very rich story, I feel, even if not up to the perfection of Rings. I can think of no significant fact that cannot be seen in some way as consistent with Rings, semantics aside, and I see no problem with even very silly-acting High Elves, which the narrator says is often thought of them, but is not true. In a way, if derived from Bilbo, as opposed to Frodo, it offers some contrast of perception about Middle-Earth and its history. I only wish more dimension of vantage point was there. I think of how Faulkner wrote stories that touched on the same events as told from different persons and contexts.

As for the The Silmarillion, I sense that you have a desire to disregard it, which seems somewhat common among “Barrow-downers.” But still, it’s a finished work of stories, and not just writings about writings. The criticism seems like whining in the “could’uv”, “would’uv” and “should’uv” vein. Yes! … it could have been better done, including by Christopher Tolkien with his own hindsight; it would have been done differently by JRR Tolkien (but when? . . . does anyone outside of Middle-Earth really live so long?!), and of course, many things in it should have been otherwise. And, I cannot recall any particular point from The Silmarillion that significantly contradicts something clearly said in Rings.

So, I accept as Christopher Tolkien describes in the Forward to The Book of Lost Tales, Part I:

“By the publication of ‘The Silmarillion’ the ‘longitudinal’ was cut ‘tranversely’, and a kind of finality imposed.” (emphasis added).

I also think that it is a fine and beautiful book, despite it’s problems, and thankfully free of endless annotation.

As for the Letters, The Unfinished Tales and The History of Middle-Earth, the best that can be done with them is to round out the lore and understanding, by maximizing as much as possible that is consistent with the above works. And, of course, to marvel at the other ideas and constructions that JRR Tolkien had.

For me it seems somewhat pointless to argue about “intentions”. JRR Tolkien had numerous intentions, which changed and changed again, evolved, and mixed ideas from various manuscripts. Where he was on a particular concept when he died, even if known, is of little help, because it would have changed again, before finally being ever published. There is often no way to reach firm conclusions that cannot be argued to death about what someone would have meant to do.

Nevertheless, except for various renditions of the Galadriel & Celeborn history, I find The Unfinished Tales to be much like The Silmarillion, despite the annotation.

I appreciate your point about The Road Goes Ever On being on a par with the sacredness of Rings, and I’ll have to find a copy, maybe at a used bookstore. But my sense is that it really doesn’t have that much to say about Middle-Earth, other than a few ‘Letters-like’ comments, such as the one concerning Galadriel.

Will the Real Galadriel Please Stand Up?

So, given that Road is sacred, then there must have been a ban, which I accept now as being as explicit as communications between Valar and Elves get. But the following quote, seems to suggest that you do not see Galadriel simply getting the equivalent one day of a telegram or Email that says “Stay Away and Clean out Your Locker”:

“There was no assurance she would be pardoned. 'Galadriel you are summoned to Valinor to face the Judgement of the Valar for your actions in the Rebellion of the Noldor', 'I will not go to be judged, for I have done no wrong', 'Then you are banned from the West', 'I have no wish to go there anyways'.”

So, I don’t think anyone would see a problem in her having an opportunity to go and be pardoned, but that perhaps the only major stumbling block would be having to humble herself. She would have been wrong and prideful to so avoid contrition. But just the same, she had good reasons for not wanting to leave Middle-Earth for good, and even putting aside her flaws, she was not really guilty of anything that should make her necessarily answerable or beholden to the Valar. Tolkien is ever careful not to equate them with actually being “gods”.

What I’m saying is that neither side is perfect. Whatever the pretext, the Valar may not have been entirely in the right to ban her, however obstinate she may have been. When I talked before about a “misunderstanding” I was thinking more in emotional terms, rather than informational confusion. It’s fair to say that the Valar and Galadriel continued to love each other, but fear and hurt got in the way.

Whatever the case, she was banned, but more meaningfully, it was not her fate that she return then. For her own sake, most of all, I would submit.

Obviously, Galadriel was an important project for Tolkien, which he wanted to develop as shown in the diverse tales with which he experimented. Unfortunately, he never finalized the best conception for himself, but I think there is more than enough in both finished and unfinished works to get a sense of the proper depth and significance of her role among the Noldor and throughout the first Three Ages of the Sun.

On this, you took me to task, but I feel that one is compelled to assume a rather “nuanced” perspective on the “ban” cited in Road, and my sense is that C. Tolkien is all but saying as much in The Unfinished Tales, when he stresses different accounts regarding in particular why she didn’t go back, in “The History of Galadriel and Celeborn” (which is curiously much more “unfinished” then the other tales), but this intuition on my part is something you either share or don’t.

What exactly the correct nuance should be or would have been is not necessarily important. But I raise the following:

“These two kinsfolk [Fëanor and Galadriel], the greatest of the Eldar of Valinor, were unfriends for ever.” * * * She [Galadriel] was proud, strong, and selfwilled [sic], as were all the descendants of Finwë save Finarfin; and like her brother Finrod, of all her kin the nearest to her heart, she had dreams of far lands and dominions that might be her own to order as should without tutelage. Yet deeper still there dwelt in her the noble and generous spirit of the Vanyar, and a reverence for the Valar that she could not forget. From her earliest years she had a marvelous gift of insight into the minds of others, . . .”.
—The Unfinished Tales, IV

Elsewhere in another “account” she is likewise equated in stature to Fëanor. That other portions of these accounts deviate (sometimes greatly) from published works, does not mean that one can’t rely on the above characterization of Galadriel as amenable to Tolkien’s general conception of here dating back to when he wrote Rings. Factually, there’s no contradiction with The Silmarillion in which she is a key rebellion leader and confidant of none other than Melian. Indeed, she is described above as someone both great and flawed; the comparison to Fëanor may work on several levels.

I don’t understand your argument that she would have been in some way a “young” rebel who is not greatly respected in the eyes of the Valar. She was not physically much younger than any of Indis’ other grandchildren, even if she was the youngest one. Elves despite their long lives seem to have and raise families within relatively short time frames; Elladan/Elrohir precede Arwen by 111 years. But in our terms, Galadriel had probably been alive for the equivalent of at least several millennia at the start of the First Age.

She was probably no less mature than Fingon, Finrod or Turgon, although she was of different gender, of course. But nowhere is there any hint of the näivetë ascribed to Aredhel. And again, she could have been even older than Fëanor was when he made the Silmarils.

I am also surprised by your dismay at my description of her as nearly Sauron’s equal and the greatest of the Children of Ilúvatar. Surely, you recognize the following line from Appendix B of Rings:

“Three times Lórien had been assailed by Dol Guldor, but besides the valour of the elven people of that land, the power that dwelt there was too great for any to overcome, unless Sauron had come there himself.”

And at the close of the Third Age, or anytime during it, who among Elves or Men in Middle-Earth would have been even her equal? Probably only Elrond, Círdan and Celeborn. Perhaps, it’s that gender thing again.

Moving on, in The Silmarillion it says in the context of Eönwë's answer to the pleas by the two remaining Sons of Fëanor:

“The light of the Silmarils should go now into the West, whence it came in the beginning; and to Valinor must Maedhros and Maglor return, and there abide the judgment of the Valar by whose decree alone would Eönwë yield the jewels from his charge.”

I’m not really concerned about when that was penned by Tolkien; he wasn’t a computer, but I think it points to a consistently given impression of the Valar as forgiving and open-minded at the close of the First Age, and not wrathful and retributive towards the Noldorin exiles. I do not interpret it as saying that these Sons of Fëanor were to be dragged off to Valinor in chains, if they didn’t go willingly. Rather, they were morally obligated to seek judgment, and could not have gotten the last two Silmarils otherwise. Probably these would never have been surrendered, as Maedhros knew. That these two brothers should have such a chance, after committing three (count’em) Kinslayings, and that their followers are allowed back, suggest the Valar were inclined to pardon. Moreover, Finrod and probably others were even released from the Halls of Mandos.

All of this makes it perfectly logical to assume that Galadriel had reasonable opportunity to return, apologize and be forgiven, but was unwilling to give the Valar the satisfaction to have prevented imposition of the "ban." In this, I reiterate, both sides could be at fault. Despite being among the Wise, Galadriel had something to learn. But the Valar seem to hold her leadership role against her, unfairly perhaps in fear of some future unrest in Eldamar again (because she is not insignificant!). Otherwise, it makes little sense in light of her crimes. The Noldor were free to be have been led out of Aman, and Galadriel was certainly not even an accomplice in any of the Kinslayings.

That through her encounter with Frodo and her constant struggles against Sauron, I felt that she had figuratively “earned” the right to go back with the Ringbearers. You retorted that she “had” to earn it. I would agree that in her own heart and for her own sake she needed to feel deserving and fulfilled enough to return. It was as much of a self-imposed “test” that she passed.

Technically, this may have been what the Valar were looking for, in order to lift the ban, which is what you may be driving at, assuming the Valar had it all worked out in such a mechanical way. Alternatively it seems just as likely, and more meaningful that the Valar also moved beyond their prior assessment and treatment of Galadriel, and understood better themselves the fullness of what that Child of Ilúvatar was all about.

Finally, I’ll emphasize again, that I was not sanitizing Galadriel, much less comparing her with the Virgin Mary. Nevertheless, I do see obvious symbolism between the ‘Mirror’ scene with Frodo and the Sacrament of (adult) Baptism, but on a deeper level: I view Frodo (as I hinted) as being the one in the role of the Minister or Priest. By freely offering her the One Ring he really throws here for loop. She then utterly refuses the path of pride and power even to do good. In a sense, she “rejects Satan.” As a result her (and her kin’s) sins are washed away. Even flaws can be forgiven.

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: Man-of-the-Wold ]

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: Man-of-the-Wold ]