Quote:
|
Originally Posted by the phantom
There's no need to go further than that, Sauce. I think raw power is what we're looking for, not virtues.
|
As I said, I am not talking about morality or virtue here, but innate qualities and failings.
Although the list may have started out as "who could whup whom",
lmp when pressed accepted that we are looking here at qualities other than "raw power", in terms of physical strength. And, if that is the case, I do not see why an innate mental weakness such as Feanor's rash nature should not be taken into account in the same way that we would take an innate physical weakness into account.
It depends, I suppose, on exactly what we mean by "power". But, if we are looking at a character in the round and considering spiritual and mental, as well as physical, strength, then surely Feanor's mental weakness, his rash and hot-headed nature, must be taken into account. It hampered his ability best to achieve what he wanted to achieve and was therefore something that weakened his overall "power" in the broadest sense.
The fact that Morgoth "targetted" him is a fair point, but there must have been some mental weakness there for him to have fallen for it in such a big way. Indeed, that was no doubt one of the main reasons why Morgoth identified him as a means to further his plans. Morgoth was, in effect, playing to Feanor's weaknesses.
And while it is true that a similar failings may be seen in a number of other characters, particularly other Noldor, in no one was it as pronounced, or indeed as influential, as in Feanor. And to the extent that other characters show similar mental weaknesses, then these should be taken into consideration when assessing, in broad terms,
their "power". Turin is, I think, a good example here.
And one final point. Even if we are just looking at "who could whup whom", Feanor's mental wekaness still plays a role. It is something that a clever foe, perhaps one such as Galadriel, would have been able to use against him.