The History of Galadriel and Celeborn

[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.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

while Galadriel would be politican

No, that's what happens if she takes the Ring.

[gondowe]

Hello, I discovered this section yesterday, because I was only "absorbed" with the new Silmarillion section, but this thread is for me related, and i want to contribute to it.
As the New Silmarillion posters know i have constructed A Complete Silmarillion in Spanish, in my way. And of course the history of Galadriel and Celeborn was "reconstructed". As Findegil I also am a combiner but in other way. In general I am agreed with Galin (with some differences) but for example:

Originally posted by Galin
With a notable cough I 'interpret' Galadriel's line in The Lord of the Rings ['... and I have dwelt with him years uncounted; for ere the fall of Nargothrond or Gondolin I passed over the mountains, and together through ages of the world we have fought the long defeat.'] to mean she passed over mountains into Beleriand to ultimately meet Celeborn, a Sindarin Elf and kinsman of Thingol, in Doriath.
....

After that is seems we have Galadriel in Thingol's realm, learning from Melian and having a life with Celeborn there until the Sack of Doriath, based on the brief line [Unfinished Tales] that Celeborn 'escaped the sack of Doriath'.

Well, due to the versions of TLOTR and TRGEO (that I think must be a law, because they were published by their author), I tried to make solution thinking and editorially writing in my recontructed account of the Second Age, that ere the fall of Nargothrond, in a non told year, Galadriel passed over the Mountains and "discovered" Lindorinand but she returned to Doriath again.
Then after the sack of Doriath we could think, but only think, that Elwing and the people of Doriath perhaps were guided by Galadriel and Celeborn.

Greetings

[Ivriniel]

It's a very complex history, and the materials about what the prof said at his death bed were definitely for a headache.

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...2&postcount=49

Some of the] materials about Galadriel were amongst the last JRRT worked on. Chris also notes in UT that his dad wrote some stuff about Galadriel a month before his death. Seems to me that meant that Tolkien had some new thoughts about Galadriel that were missed by older materials. For example, the stuff he wrote a month before his death was the materials quarantining her from responsibility of Feanor's lead on the kinslaying, her and Celeborn (Teleporno) fighting valiantly with the Teleri (though Celeborn's lineage, elsewhere places him as a descendent of Elmo, bro to Elwe and Olwe, and this lineage links Dior, by marriage, to Elmo's brood, and so to Elwing, meaning Celebrian and Celeborn were related to Aragron (Elros) and also Arwen (Elrond). So, Gala and Celeb snatch a Telerin boat, and wander off to Middle Earth, roped in to the Ban thing, by implication, but arrived ahead of her "...unfriends forever..." Feanor (I had to say, I always chuckle when I re-read that stuff about Galadriel snubbing relative Feanor, and so the two were "unfriends forever".

Lineage matters shunted sideways, Chris notes that Galadriel's stuff is amongst the latest emendations to other materials and in fact, post dates LotR. There is the implication that Amroth is Galadriel's son (as you noted), for example, which post dates LotR.

... like [again in my opinion] Galadriel as co-founder and co-ruler of Eregion. And thus [if so] there was/would be no need for her to be ousted from power at this point.

On this point about Galariel's and Celeborn's migration out of Beleriand, end of FA:

Galadriel and Celeborn had in their company a Noldorin craftsman named Celebrimbor. [He is here said to have been one of the survivors of Gondolin, who had been among Turgon's greatest artificers; but the text is emended to the later story that made him a descendant of Feanor, as is mentioned in Appendix B to The Lord of the Rings …and more fully detailed in the Silmarillion (pp. 176, 276" (p. 235, Unfinished Tales, 1980, Allen & Unwen , Hardback Ed)

That quote more goes to why version I of the Elessar, Enerdhil and all that don't square well with later emendations.

Chris notes that Galadriel and Celeborn were not mentioned in founding of Ost-In-Edhil but--the (late) essay on Galadriel and Celeborn states

Although it is not stated that Galadriel was present when Annatar arrived (1200), "He perceived at once that Galadriel would be his chief adversary and obstacle, and he endeavoured therefore to placate her, bearing her score with outward patience and courtesy" (p. 237) and Sauron "…worked in secret, unknown to Galadriel and Celeborn and to seize power in Eregion" (p. 237) "So great became his hold on the Mirdain that at length he persuaded them to revolt against Galadriel and Celeborn and to seize power in Eregion" (p. 237) between 1350 and 1400 "Galadriel thereupon left eregion and passed through Khazad-dum to Lorinand, taking with her Amroth and Celebrian" (p. 237)

This places Galadriel and Celebron in the fray and how the revolt against them was orchestrated.

Bad boi Annatar comes in and stirs the pot around 1200 then

But in the meantime the power of Galadriel and Celeborn had grown, and Galadriel, assisted in this by her friendship with the Dwarves of Moria, had come into contact with the Nandorin realm of Lorinand on the other side of the Misty Mountains (p. 236)

So, the founding of Laurelindorenan and all that appears to have happened some time after 1200 and before 1695 SA (Because it was Gil Galad that gives her Mallorn seeds, gifted to him from Numenor [The seeds wouldn't grow in Lindon], this also implies a second-age-ish concept for the founding of Lorien, after Lorinand). I note that materials about Amroth and Nimrodel place Amroth as ruler of Lorien until -- much later -- (I have a headache ) around 3434, SA! Man--that's like really off tap Tolkien--we are talking a discrepancy of about 1000 years!!!!

Also, Christopher Tolkien thinks The Elessar was probably written at about the same time as Concerning Galadriel and Celeborn,

... but what came first, this chicken or this egg? And if The Elessar came first, how do we know the circumstances that were imagined behind Galadriel residing in Greenwood when Olorin visited? Christopher Tolkien states that possibly the reference to Galadriel living in Greenwood is related to the refrence in the first edition, in the tale of years of the Second Age, Appendix B:

[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]

But WCH, we have examples illustrating that Tolkien was very much concerned with consistency, and in the general sphere of world building and story telling, he has to be obviously.

I would say that what Tolkien's work with "Primary World" texts helped teach him was that his tales didn't have to be perfectly consistent, and that a measure of inconsistency could actually help his cause. This led to The Drowning of Anadune, the Mannish Silmarillion, the two internal versions of the Elessar tale...

... but not to early versions of the Fall of Numenor, or three versions of the Elessar stone's history (the one in QS being a rejected draft). These are but draft versions that don't really count as purposed Secondary World inconsistencies, and in a sense, are not inconsitencies at all, no more than Trotter the Hobbit is inconsistent with Strider the Dunadan.

But once again, the measure is Tolkien's. Too much pepper (or salt, or what have you) spoils the soup. You can't just toss ingredients in willy nilly because there is inconsistency in the Primary World, generally speaking.

[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.