Gil-Galad's Tragedy

[King of the North]

I, like those above, agree that one of the main strengths of Tolkien's works is that he does not feel the need to explain everything, and always leaves at least some of the answers for the reader to find. That is the perhaps most stimulating aspect of Tolkien's writing for me, and the major factor in me becoming a huge fan of his work. It always seems to me that authors who explain everything in minute
detail, so that no deducing is left to the reader, have little confidence in his or her reader's intelligence. That is always why I rather dislike all literature catered to my age group (teenagers). Accordingly when authors stick to the way of providing details like that of Tolkien, it compels me much more to read their material. However, now to the real point. I rather like that most of Gil-Galad's backstory is leftout of the books, as with that cloud of mystery there also comes more interest in the character. This obviously fits into Tolkien's approach on character information. However, I believe the reason he is not discussed more is that he is relatively insignificant in the story it would be prohibitive for him to spend a great deal of time on him. To describe in depth a character who dies in a battle some time before LotR would definitely slow down the narrative, and provide us with information not necessary for understanding/enjoying LotR/ Therefore I think it was a good choice to leave Gil-galad left un-discussed.