Celebrian's Misfortunes

[Bêthberry]

Ruoutorin, rather than debate your rhetorical style, I refer you to Fordim Hedgethistle's thread, Canonicity: The Book or The Reader? where the issue of authorial intentionality was discussed ad finitum, concerning which texts are canonical and which are not and how relevant that term is in discussing Tolkien in particular.

Why would Tolkien choose to be vague when describing the wife of an elven noble and not when describing a piece of jewellry? Because the two have different meanings, different significations for his culture. Because by the mores of his day, such a direct statement would tarnish the woman, as would not apply to the stones. He wished us to understand a personal anguish for the ruling family of Rivendell without at all subjecting Celebrian to the usual derision of his time. Because allusion was the established linguistic code of his time for women of quality or nobility.

Why would he not just come straight out and say what he means instead of alluding to it?

Because what he means is the allusiveness, obviously.