The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - Why are the Vanyar higher than the Noldor?

**lindil** · 03-04-2003, 07:20 AM

Please do not get the idea that I read the Silmarillion and Co. with a "thank God those Noldor are getting their just rewards" attitude. I do not. I am as sympathetic to their plight as the next reader. Noldor [or partially] are my 2 favorite characters in M-E to read about [Finrod and Galadriel]. So I am not in any way anti-Noldor.

But for the purposes of answering the Vanyar vs. Noldor question, I have to try and be objective and not emotional.

Why does the Silmarillion [and source texts in HoM-EX I might add] explicitly state that the Vanyar were the highest of the High-Elves.

That is the question we are [were] addressing. So we are dealing with a fact of the Legendarium [conceived in large part by Noldor, I might add!] that is inescapable. 2 facts actually.

1> the Noldor through their rebellion suffered a grave spiritual 'Fall'.

comparable to Men's fall in the Tale of Adanel and the Numenorean's Fall in the Akallabeth. These are the three events in the Legendarium explicitly labeled as a 'Fall'.

One may say that theirs was the lesser fall of the three, and I am inclined to agree, the other punishments were far more severe.

Loss of Imortality or at least extreme longevity and loss of Numenore. All permanent. With the Noldor's fall virtually all except Feanor and his sons may well get to see the outside of Mandos [ and who can really say about Maedhros, Maglor and the Amras. Amrod, being killed by his father probably got out the soonest.]
2> the Vanyar being the height of Elvendom.
-=-=-=-=-
But nonetheless, Maedhros [ the Downs poster], Lord of Dor Lomin and others who belive the Noldor were justified or in some way right to rebel, you are starting off from a point the texts simply do not support.

Yes you can point to the enrichment of the Edain, but the Valar had their own means of so doing as Numenor shows.

Also to address the strange conception that the Vanyar betrayed the Noldor by not joining with them.

So the Vanyar should have attacked the Teleri also?

Come on! If anything one could argue that the Vanyar should have helped the Teleri.

Of course he whole thing was almost certainly over long before messages could have gotten to them and they could muster their spears [ which they may well not have had yet!]. So it is a moot point, but saying the other kindreds should have rebelled against the Valar as well, is to my mind utterly bizarre and upside down.

Again I do not hate the Noldor, I can see the good things in Feanor and acknowledge that the texts clearly say that he was formed as the greatest [mightiest?] of all of the Children of Iluvatar. But Melkor was also so formed as greatest of the Valar and does anyone here seriously deny his fall?

[ March 04, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

03-04-2003, 07:20 AM	#29
lindil Seeker of the Straight Path Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: a hidden fastness in Big Valley nor cal Posts: 1,680	Please do not get the idea that I read the Silmarillion and Co. with a "thank God those Noldor are getting their just rewards" attitude. I do not. I am as sympathetic to their plight as the next reader. Noldor [or partially] are my 2 favorite characters in M-E to read about [Finrod and Galadriel]. So I am not in any way anti-Noldor. But for the purposes of answering the Vanyar vs. Noldor question, I have to try and be objective and not emotional. Why does the Silmarillion [and source texts in HoM-EX I might add] explicitly state that the Vanyar were the highest of the High-Elves. That is the question we are [were] addressing. So we are dealing with a fact of the Legendarium [conceived in large part by Noldor, I might add!] that is inescapable. 2 facts actually. 1> the Noldor through their rebellion suffered a grave spiritual 'Fall'. comparable to Men's fall in the Tale of Adanel and the Numenorean's Fall in the Akallabeth. These are the three events in the Legendarium explicitly labeled as a 'Fall'. One may say that theirs was the lesser fall of the three, and I am inclined to agree, the other punishments were far more severe. Loss of Imortality or at least extreme longevity and loss of Numenore. All permanent. With the Noldor's fall virtually all except Feanor and his sons may well get to see the outside of Mandos [ and who can really say about Maedhros, Maglor and the Amras. Amrod, being killed by his father probably got out the soonest.] 2> the Vanyar being the height of Elvendom. -=-=-=-=- But nonetheless, Maedhros [ the Downs poster], Lord of Dor Lomin and others who belive the Noldor were justified or in some way right to rebel, you are starting off from a point the texts simply do not support. Yes you can point to the enrichment of the Edain, but the Valar had their own means of so doing as Numenor shows. Also to address the strange conception that the Vanyar betrayed the Noldor by not joining with them. So the Vanyar should have attacked the Teleri also? Come on! If anything one could argue that the Vanyar should have helped the Teleri. Of course he whole thing was almost certainly over long before messages could have gotten to them and they could muster their spears [ which they may well not have had yet!]. So it is a moot point, but saying the other kindreds should have rebelled against the Valar as well, is to my mind utterly bizarre and upside down. Again I do not hate the Noldor, I can see the good things in Feanor and acknowledge that the texts clearly say that he was formed as the greatest [mightiest?] of all of the Children of Iluvatar. But Melkor was also so formed as greatest of the Valar and does anyone here seriously deny his fall? [ March 04, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ] __________________ The dwindling Men of the West would often sit up late into the night exchanging lore & wisdom such as they still possessed that they should not fall back into the mean estate of those who never knew or indeed rebelled against the Light.