Another thing...Why did the elves not fight?

[Etharius]

Don't worry about the slack. I can take a lot of it.

Very interesting and useful replies there people, thanks. I should have perhaps mentioned in my opening post that i have read LotR and 80% of the appendicies (understood 70%). But yes, i have also seen the movie and I have always remained fully concious that the Elves did NOT go to battle at Helms Deep.

One more thing that interests me however is when Essex mentioned "Kinslaying". What did she mean? It sounds nasty.

[The Saucepan Man]

One more thing that interests me however is when Essex mentioned "Kinslaying". What did she mean?

I would recommend that you read the Silmarillion, Etharius. I don't want to spoil the story for you. But if you really can't wait, try doing a search for "Kinslaying" on this forum.

The points concerning the Elves' involvement in the War of the Ring, and indeed their struggle with first Morgoth and later Sauron throughout the histroy of Middle-earth, are well-made.

But I would tend to agree with Essex when he says:

I believe they were HIGHLY stuck up, and had a 'holier than thou' attitude.

They may not have been superior to Men in the eyes of Eru (or even in fact), but I do think that the Elves had a tendency to regard themselves as such, particularly in the First Age. The Elf lords patronised Men by giving them under-lordships within Elven lands. They also seemed to regard Men as mere cannon (canon? ) fodder to be sacrificed in their wars against Morgoth's forces. Turgon, for example, was quite happy to leave the people of Hurin and Huor to almost certain death (or capture) to cover the retreat of his people at the Nirnaeth Arnoediad (even though most of his people would have lived at least ten times as long as those who sacrificed themselves for them). And some clearly despised Men. While his views are no doubt the exception rather than the rule, I am sure that Saeros was not alone in regarding them as little more than wild beasts.

I am by no means an Elf-hater. I would most certainly acknowledge their great and valiant deeds, their wisdom and their creativity. Their First Age attitude to Man notwithstanding, they clearly had a beneficial influence on the development of the Edain (or those that remained after helping out the Elves in their little spat with Morgoth ). But I do think that we must recognise, on a general level, that Elves did display the character flaw that Essex highlights.

[Lord of Angmar]

But I do think that we must recognise, on a general level, that Elves did display the character flaw that Essex highlights.(The Saucepan Man)

I assume that by "on a general level" you mean that while it is a common trait among Elves, it cannot be ascribed to each and everyone of the Firstborn. I can think of many prominent Elves of the First Age who displayed this character flaw, (Thingol, many of the Sons of Feanor, Saeros, etc.), but I can think of an equal or greater number who displayed no such trait (Luthien, Felagund, Beleg and Gwindor, to name a few). And though I do agree that there was a good deal of patronage of the Edain by the Elves of Beleriand, I also think that Men being appointed as 'underlords' was in many cases as much a sign of respect and friendship as it was a means of patronization.

As well as their sin of pride, this doesn't give them an excuse to be a pretty nasty bunch of beings for a lenghty period of their history (ie kinslaying, etc).(Essex)

I agree with HerenIstarion that as far as races of Middle-earth go, the Elves are just as 'good' as any other. If I were to write an argument similar to the sentiments you have expressed above for each of the other major races, it would go something as follows:

-Dwarves: Lustful, greedy, proud and arrogant, hiding in their mountains hoarding their wealth, without even enough respect for the other inhabitants of Middle-earth to share their language.

-Men: Easily corruptible, prone to usurpation and treachery. From Ulfang to Ar-Pharazon, Men have countless times proven that they do not deserve to inherit the earth.

The only denizens of Middle-earth who are, as a race, guilty of no (recorded) 'sinful' wrongdoing are the Bombadilians (including Goldberry).

[The Saucepan Man]

I assume that by "on a general level" you mean that while it is a common trait among Elves, it cannot be ascribed to each and everyone of the Firstborn.

I would actually go further and say that it was (in the First Age at least) an inherent part of Elvish nature to consider themselves superior to Iluvatar's other children. Often this manifested itself in a negative way, but I think that, in many individuals (those that you mention, for example), it manifested itself instead in a positive way. Although I would still maintain that it is patronising for the Elves to grant to Men a part of the land which they had claimed for themselves but over which they in fact had no greater right save by dint of having got there first. And, while I do agree that Elves such as Luthien and Beleg came to regard individual Men as their equals, it does not necessarily follow that they regarded the entire race of Man on the same basis.

During the Second Age and certainly by the Third Age, it seems to me that Elves were coming round to a much fuller understanding that that which made them different from Men did not necessarily make them superior, no doubt prompted by an acknowledgement that their time was fading.

[Lord of Angmar]

During the Second Age and certainly by the Third Age, it seems to me that Elves were coming round to a much fuller understanding that that which made them different from Men did not necessarily make them superior, no doubt prompted by an acknowledgement that their time was fading.

I agree entirely with this general trend.

Although I would still maintain that it is patronising for the Elves to grant to Men a part of the land which they had claimed for themselves but over which they in fact had no greater right save by dint of having got there first. And, while I do agree that Elves such as Luthien and Beleg came to regard individual Men as their equals, it does not necessarily follow that they regarded the entire race of Man on the same basis.

I still wouldn't call this necessarily patronising. After all, nobody really has any 'right' to land save by the order in which they appeared there and, sadly, by the military strength of the land 'owners' or desirers. I agree about your point about Elves such as Beleg and Luthien, in theory, though I do not see any proof readily available to support (or, I suppose, to controvert) it. Does that make our theses 'uncanonical?'

By the way, I seem to have fallen victim to the quote mark addiction as well.

[Vanya]

I woldn'say Elves had more faults than other races. Except for Feanor and his sons, who commited horrible crimes, and caused so much suffer, other Elves through history showed great courage, spirit and were too wisu too be stuck-up. It's peple themselves that are guilty if Elves treated them badly. How many times they folowed Morgoth, and betrayd Elves? Except for Three Houses, most of them were enemys to Eldar. Eldars esteemed those families very much - didn't Finrod died to save Beren? As for the others, if I remember correctly, it is said that after NA (or was it LA) the hearts of Eldar and Man astranged? In both cases, it was the treachury of man ( Ulfang at NA and Isildur refusing to destroy the ring at LA).
So, if Elves had it enough with man, you can't blame them. And even then, they helped their own doom, by helping Frodo.

[Etharius]

sorry Essex, i assumed you were female.