The History of Galadriel and Celeborn

[elbenprincess]

Even though the three rings had positive effects, they were still working against nature. They were preventing time from flowing the way it should do. Tolkien even calls the creation of the rings a second fall for the Elves. By making the One Rings they succeeded in making Sauron stronger. Perhaps if Sauron did not have the One Ring then Numenor would have dealt with him themselves and not been destroyed.

How would Numenor not have been destroyed if Sauron did not have the ring, wasn´t Numenor "destroyed" by Eru, after the Numenorians tried to attack the Valar? Sauron was taken capitive by the Numenorians but after some time convinced the king to go to Aman.

For the ringbearers preventing time from flowing and that being a bad thing, it is hinted that Yavanna supportet Galadriels wish that she could hold time

"This I bring to you from Yavanna. Use it as you may, and for a while you shall make the land of your dwelling the fairest place in Middle-earth.

One could think that the Valar have no problem if Galadriel manipulates nature to some degree. I know in some letter Tolkien said it was evil to manipulate nature, but maybe he makes differences in HOW and why it is used, they didn´t used the rings to make them superiour to others and as I understand, that was one of the motives of the smiths in Eregion.

Tolkien even calls the creation of the rings a second fall for the Elves.

Because to motive was bad, for original makers wanted to create a second Valinor and be masters to everyone else. I doubt Galadriel wanted a second Valinor, she would know very well that she is never able to do so IMHO, she just wanted to make herself a nice home, that is comprehensible since she is not able to go to her proper home.

I think it is very brave that they took the risk of being controlled by Sauron if he would find the one ring, I never thought of it, I always thought that they would just take off their rings and then sail to Valinor, but it seems it wouldn´t have been that easy.

I have to say, in brief, that Galin's opinion (and conclusions from many citations) is pretty much where I am on the question. I think the late Unstained Supergaladriel was the aging Tolkien's foray into Mary Sue-ism.

Why is the later, unstained Galadriel Mary Sue-ish? Like rebell Galadriel she was banned, she didn´t took part in the rebellion, but she left at the same time as Feanor, so she came under the curse of Mandos, despite of her non-activity in the rebellion.

but for the misfortune that before she set out the revolt of Fëanor broke out, and she became involved in the desperate measures of Manwe, and the ban on all emigration.
-353, 4 August 1973

If she would have stayed back and waited for the permission to go and even would have gotten the task by the Valar, that I would call Mary Sue-ism.

One character trait of rebell Galadriel is this:

From her earliest years she had a marvellous gift of insight into the minds of others, but judged them with mercy and understanding, and she withheld her goodwill from none save only Fëanor.

That sounds more like a Mary Sue than everything else, and in that version she was still "wicked"

IMHO the only Mary Sue in Tolkiens World is Luthien. I have nothing against her, she has a great story, I just miss character depth in her, she´s just too pure, too perfect and too innocent for my taste and therefore boring.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I don't think you understand what a "Mary Sue" is. It's not the same as Little Miss Sweetness and Light.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by elbenprincess

IMHO the only Mary Sue in Tolkien's World is Luthien. I have nothing against her, she has a great story, I just miss character depth in her, she´s just too pure, too perfect and too innocent for my taste and therefore boring.

A while back, I had an opportunity to play in a Middle Earth role playing game set in the late Third Age. I habitually play female characters, and like to create a character that echoes the spirit of the game environment. My primary models were Galadriel, Arwen and Goldberry. Who else?

Not that a beginning character had enough skill points to build a Queen / Princess / Demi goddess, but I tried to build someone who could grow in that direction. To do less didn't seem to honor the spirit of the world.

Pure? Perfect? Innocent? Mary Sue? As a player character, having a good deal of script immunity in her pocket? Sure.

Boring? If one stays at home by the fire, singing and being beautiful, protected by mighty warriors, sure. Joining a fellowship and rubbing all that purity and idealism against wargs in the dark, not so boring. Spending all those skill points on beauty, song and social skills is all well and good, but one ends up without the same sword and archery skills as the guys. I learned why the guys want to keep women in their place at home rather than taking them out on quest. It's hard enough to triumph over Great Evil without constantly looking over one's shoulder to make sure Mary Sue isn't in over her head again.

But having someone who could Sing with a bit of Power came in handy on occasion.

Yes, Tolkien tended to place his imaginary womenfolk up on pedestals. I for one was not content with that. At least Eowyn and Luthien got to have a few adventures, as did my character.

The male characters in the game were protective. When it was their place to travel underground to slay the vile monster, it was Aerlinn's place to stand guard at the door to the cavern. This was very chivalrous of them. Very noble, at least until the vile monster decided to run away and it became Aerlinn's job to hold the door to prevent escape. Fortunately, she didn't have to hold her ground long.

Mary Sue? Somewhat. But Tolkien's ladies were part of the vision. Their presence was and remains a part of the whole. When one reads modern urban romance fantasy, where the lead character is apt to be an oversexed female vampire, werewolf, angel or demon, Tokien's idea of fantasy womankind seems really dated.

But this makes me no less fond of them.

[elbenprincess]

Yes, Tolkien tended to place his imaginary womenfolk up on pedestals. I for one was not content with that. At least Eowyn and Luthien got to have a few adventures, as did my character.

My problem with Luthien is that she all did it for love, not for freedom for example or personal fulfilment. That is Mary -Sue-ish, for me at least. Galadriel never was that way. I see Galadriel as a more independent person as Luthien, even if Luthien decided to accept mortal fate and would never see her family, but again, "only" to be with Beren. Galadriel left her family (temporary) to fight evil and rule a realm of her own, if she gets the chance. Luthein seems soft and sweet, Galadriel determinant.

In modern world Luthien would be a mother and housewife (which is not bad, I don´t want to be disrespectful), while Galadriel would be politican ;-)

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by elbenprincess

My problem with Luthien is that she all did it for love, not for freedom for example or personal fulfilment. That is Mary -Sue-ish, for me at least. Galadriel never was that way. I see Galadriel as a more independent person as Luthien, even if Luthien decided to accept mortal fate and would never see her family, but again, "only" to be with Beren. Galadriel left her family (temporary) to fight evil and rule a realm of her own, if she gets the chance. Luthein seems soft and sweet, Galadriel determinant.

In modern world Luthien would be a mother and housewife (which is not bad, I don´t want to be disrespectful), while Galadriel would be politican ;-)

Luthien marched into Hell itself and dared put Morgoth to sleep. Luthien and Beren managed to do what all the Noldor could not, she took a Silmaril from Morgoth.

I don't see the problem in doing something for love. Earendil sailed to Valinor for love of elves and men. This is precisely why they are the greatest and most beloved Children of Illuvatar.

[elbenprincess]

Earendil sailed to Valinor for love of elves and men. This is precisely why they are the greatest and most beloved Children of Illuvatar.

Many elves before him tried the same, they only hadn´t the luck having the Silmaril with them. IMHO that was the reason he was successful, he tried several times before but wasn´t able to go to Aman, till he had the Silmaril. I don´t know if it makes him the greatest of the children, he is never called it, he was fated to reach Aman and so help the people of ME, but you are right that he is the most beloved, Galadriel refered to him as their most beloved star.

Luthien marched into Hell itself and dared put Morgoth to sleep. Luthien and Beren managed to do what all the Noldor could not, she took a Silmaril from Morgoth.

I do not deny it, but it was due to a selfish desire (even if this is absoutely comprehensible) , namely so that they could be together, I doubt they had in mind the salvation of all ME. To be honest I find Frodo more heroic, sure he doesn´t used that cool magic and his tale is not that dramatic, but he did it to save ALL people, he was selfless.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

You're still a bit off the mark. A "Mary Sue" is not a goody-two-shoes, but a character the author has become excessively fond of and consequently makes too omnicompetent and perfect. They tend to be characterised not by not taking part in "action," but by being preposterously good at it. I think, for example, in later Discworld books Pratchett made Sam Vimes a bit of a Mary Sue. (See also, Yoda in the prequels.)

[elbenprincess]

They tend to be characterised not by not taking part in "action," but by being preposterously good at it.

If that is not Luthien, I don´t know who is Her action was putting Morgoth to sleep and in that she was very good.

but a character the author has become excessively fond of and consequently makes too omnicompetent and perfect

Well Tolkiens wife was an inspiration for Luthien, so I would say that Tolkien was very fond of her and very perfect Luthien was also.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by elbenprincess

In modern world Luthien would be a mother and housewife (which is not bad, I don´t want to be disrespectful), while Galadriel would be politican ;-)

I'd like to think Luthien could find some sort of place in the music industry.

[Arvegil145]

To start off...I don't understand this drive to put The Lord of the Rings as the pinnacle of J.R.R. Tolkien's works; and an unchanging zealous commitment to it.

Why not make a few (relatively) minor changes to the LOTR to conform with Tolkien's latest ideas - to put this frankly - ...you are basically starting to look like fundamental christians/muslims/etc.

I think that this notion of The Lord of the Rings and to a lesser extent The Hobbit (and, of course, The Road Goes Ever On) as the "ultimate truth" which none should contest has many flaws - and an almost fanatical disregard for the revision of LOTR and The Hobbit (and RGEO).

The published books (during Tolkien's lifetime) - The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, The Road Goes Ever On, etc. should NOT be set in stone.

To finish my post, I think that Tolkien's LATEST ideas (contradictions aside) should have a higher priority to the published material.

Respectfully, Arvegil145

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

To start off...I don't understand this drive to put The Lord of the Rings as the pinnacle of J.R.R. Tolkien's works; and an unchanging zealous commitment to it.

Why not make a few (relatively) minor changes to the LOTR to conform with Tolkien's latest ideas - to put this frankly - ...you are basically starting to look like fundamental christians/muslims/etc.

I think that this notion of The Lord of the Rings and to a lesser extent The Hobbit (and, of course, The Road Goes Ever On) as the "ultimate truth" which none should contest has many flaws - and an almost fanatical disregard for the revision of LOTR and The Hobbit (and RGEO).

The published books (during Tolkien's lifetime) - The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, The Road Goes Ever On, etc. should NOT be set in stone.

[...]

I think it's fair to argue that "published material", or concluded pieces of art, should indeed be treated differently from mere drafts of "ideas" or concepts.

Originally Posted by Arvegil

To finish my post, I think that Tolkien's LATEST ideas (contradictions aside) should have a higher priority to the published material.

I don't understand why there's such a need to unify all those different pieces and concepts into one consistent body, or canon. This undertaking is doomed to failure since it's impossible to simply put contradictions aside, as you put it, and cherry-pick the bits and pieces that fit into your idea of Middle-Earth. This method necessarily ignores the different premises and implications of those fundamentally diverse type of texts. I think it's a big mistake to declare that everything that Tolkien wrote (regarding Middle-Earth) should be treated equally, whether it's a completed and published novel or a note for himself.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

+1. Tolkien himself wouldn't have been happy with pigeon-holing and petty "consistency" - or even a definition of "canon." He was after all a man who spent his professional life with inconsistent and often contradictory medieval material, and its fuzziness and ambiguity was to him part of the charm and texture of ancientry.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

To start off...I don't understand this drive to put The Lord of the Rings as the pinnacle of J.R.R. Tolkien's works; and an unchanging zealous commitment to it. Why not make a few (relatively) minor changes to the LOTR to conform with Tolkien's latest ideas - to put this frankly - ...you are basically starting to look like fundamental christians/muslims/etc.

Well, this seems a bit hyperbolic to me.

I think that this notion of The Lord of the Rings and to a lesser extent The Hobbit (and, of course, The Road Goes Ever On) as the "ultimate truth" which none should contest has many flaws - and an almost fanatical disregard for the revision of LOTR and The Hobbit (and RGEO).

Not sure I understand this last part: who is disregarding the revisions of these books (and RGEO was not revised by Tolkien that I'm aware of)? And what are the many flaws you refer to?

The published books (during Tolkien's lifetime) - The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, The Road Goes Ever On, etc. should NOT be set in stone. To finish my post, I think that Tolkien's LATEST ideas (contradictions aside) should have a higher priority to the published material.

In my opinion Tolkien himself did not think so, as evidenced by The Problem of ROS and the late Glorfindel texts (for examples). Moreover, in my opinion Tolkien illustrates that when he does make an error, or gives in to his own penchant for revision, he does not treat already published text like private written material.

Of course not! He rather tries to maintain the inner consistency of reality for the reader, part of the "spell", and to my mind an important part of crafting stories, as noted in On Fairy Stories, and in measure, in The Notion Club Papers as well. Gollum wasn't "really" ready to give his Ring to Bilbo, but yet the first edition merely reflects one, purposely not wholly accurate version of how Bilbo got the One. People accept this, and that's fine. Very inventive and sits well enough within the context of the new story.

But how often, and about what, is the author himself willing to do this sort of thing? In my opinion it's up to him, not us, in any case.


The adumbrated tale that I reject is no small detail of inconsistency, and to my mind by far outshines the inconsistency of ros being a Beorian word where it had been Sindarin in The Lord of the Rings -- how many readers would even have noticed that, but Tolkien still felt bound to reject his later idea.

The adumbrated text is also so unfinished that it needed to be paraphrased in Unfinished Tales, and I think notably, nowhere does Tolkien even mention the difficulty so obvious to Christopher Tolkien, that it contradicts a major, already published historical fact about a character that had become important to his father.

For all we know this text remained unfinished because Tolkien himself realized it wouldn't do. And we certainly cannot tell if he would have revised what he had set out in RGEO for "once and future readers", or if he had even realized the inconsistency at the time of writing it. If and when he published the revision however, then we could say otherwise.

I don't think this is a "fanatical" view at all but represents something rather basic about Secondary World-building and telling stories, even in consideration of an author sometimes forgetting what he had written.

If Tolkien forgets Feanor had seven sons and writes about five in the last year of his life, I'm perfectly happy to accept five. For all I know he didn't forget, for all I know he did... but if he had already published a reference to the seven sons of Feanor, and then he later publishes a new version with five, now the "man behind the curtain" might be revealed.

The reader will naturally go: hmmm. Error, or something else? As an author you don't want to break the spell unless you want to.

'These late writings are notable for the many wholly new elements that entered the 'legendarium'; and also for the number of departures from earlier work on the Matter of the Elder Days. It may be suggested that whereas my father set great store by consistency at all points with The Lord of the Rings and the Appendices, so little concerning the First Age had appeared in print that he was under far less constraint. I am inclined to think, however, that the primary explanation of these differences lies rather in his writing largely from memory. The histories of the First Age would always remain in a somewhat fluid state so long as they were not fixed in published work; and he certainly did not have all the relevant manuscripts clearly arranged and set out before him. But it remains in any case an open question, whether (to give a single example) in the essay Of Dwarves and Men he had definitely rejected the greatly elaborated account of the houses of the Edain that had entered the Quenta Silmarillion in about 1958, or whether it had passed from his mind.'

Christopher Tolkien, Foreword, The Peoples of Middle-Earth

And besides Galadriel marrying her first cousin acccording to the adumbrated tale, and her husband suddenly becoming a Telerin prince of Aman (contradicts RGEO and LOTR first edition), in my opinion she cannot simply be lifted from the Rebellion like this. Tolkien had not only gone into detail about her part in the Rebellion, but gave her a special ban because of it.

RGEO is text the author finished and knowingly published for his readers, taking into account certain statements from The Lord of the Rings. Does Tolkien's world contain inconsistencies within the author-published corpus? Yes. These even he cannot cast lightly aside however, and I think we can see this in his answer (The Letters of JRR Tolkien) about Asfaloth wearing bridle and bit, for example (concerning which he did revise, by publication, to help his case).

On the other hand, no one even knows whether or not Tolkien simply wrote the adumbrated tale "just to write it". I would accept that JRRT had now imagined an "unstained" Galadriel and perhaps wanted her to be more easily associated with the Virgin Mary, an idea arguably helped by a chat with Lord Halsbury...

... not that I think this is a better story, I don't, but Tolkien may have thought so at the time. He also may have thought, both before or after writing the tale, that his new idea could never be published in any case. Writers sometimes write just to see where it takes them on the day.

In any case the only reason we know about all this draft text is through Christopher Tolkien letting us in to view his father's private material, but I doubt he did so to undermine the inner consistency of reality of Tolkien's world, even if the Master sometimes did so himself...

... by publishing certain changes when Ace Books provided him with the chance, for example.