Quote:
Originally Posted by Urwen
The Fall of Gondolin was written by survivors of Gondolin and later by Bilbo. Are you saying that the survivors of Gondolin weren't biased?
That goes especially for the teller of the original, Littleheart, son of Bronweg. Bronweg was close to Tuor, who killed Maeglin. Bronweg was one of biased ones (against Lomion) as a result, and he told the biased version to his son. Like the part where Meglin had Orc's blood in his veins. Bronweg and many other Golodhrim hated him, and so had an aptitude to write such a story where all the blame would fall squarely on his shoulders.
|
So are you saying that we should discard the story we have altogether and make up whatever we want instead, because instead of seeing it as Tolkien telling us a story the way it is, you'd rather decide it's garbled history because it was told by some character or other? Remember, it's a
made up history told by Tolkien. The creator. He creates it the way he truly wants it to be. Now he himself had multiple versions for various stories but that's not where you're taking your alternative histories line. You decide to scrap the word of the author as unreliable and make up what you want to make up. But here's the thing: if for the sake of this exercise we decide that Tolkien wrote The Silmarillion wrong (which itself is a loaded assumption, but whatever), why would your interpretation be the correct one?
Another fragment from the "true" Silmarillion: Lalaith was a devil child. She would bite everyone who touched her and made snarling noises. Her name was actually Snarly, not Laughter. She was possessed by Morgoth and did horrible things to people around her. She didn't die in the plague, she was killed by her own household who couldn't stand it any longer. But because historians knew her best through what her family and those close to them said, they got a biased account of the girl; moreover, they didn't want to throw the shade of murder on the House of Hurin. So instead we got the story of a laughing princess. How do you like this alternative history? It has as much foundation as your alternative interpretations of Maeglin.
If you start doubting the text, everything is put under question. You don't know anything anymore, and anything goes. Why not accept that this is a made up text, and as such is true as the author writes it?