Relative Powers

[Lalwendë]

I can see the Four Horsemen of Canonicity approaching over the horizon...

I think what this illustrates is just how difficult it is to make any kind of objective judgement on 'power' or 'strength'. Putting aside what we would define as powerful ourselves, from what we interpret to be 'powerful' in Arda, we sometimes have no clear primary source to draw on. Tolkien's books are layered and complex, way beyond the complexity of just having lots of characters and places and storylines; they are complex because he has given an illusion of reality through having the translator conceit and rewriting versions of his work.

Maybe the arguing is all part of what he hoped might happen? Have we thought of that?

[littlemanpoet]

The translator conceit is one that Tolkien put into the work in order to create a feigned reality. That he succeeded is proved by how similar our discussing behavior is to that of theologians and historians. At the risk of seeming heresy, as the theologians who discuss the Christian Bible acknowledge one Author, so must we. Thus the translator conceit is a level of complexity, in fact a kind of game, that doesn't necessarily obtain for the purposes of this thread.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

The translator conceit is one that Tolkien put into the work in order to create a feigned reality. That he succeeded is proved by how similar our discussing behavior is to that of theologians and historians. At the risk of seeming heresy, as the theologians who discuss the Christian Bible acknowledge one Author, so must we. Thus the translator conceit is a level of complexity, in fact a kind of game, that doesn't necessarily obtain for the purposes of this thread.

So are you saying we should discount any qualitative statements Tolkien makes, or that we should take them all into account - even when they contradict each other?

And I'd say that the TC cannot be left out of any analysis of the Legendarium. Its far more than merely a 'kind of game' - unless you conside sub creation as a whole a kind of 'game'.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I can see the Four Horsemen of Canonicity approaching over the horizon...

Saucepan neatly sidesteps one gaping can of worms and promptly falls into another ...

As regards the Feanor debate, I would repeat a question that I posed (and comment that I made) earlier:

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Does "power" include self-control? If so, Feanor should definately be lower. Turin too, probably.

Feanor's talents in many fields are undoubted. It is clear that he was an immensely powerful chap. But it also cannot be denied that he was incredibly lacking when it came to self-restraint. There are many examples of the adverse consequences, for himself and his kin, of his feiry hot headedness. The question is whether this simply represents a misuse of his undoubted power, or whether it in itself diminishes his power.

I am not talking here in terms of his morality and the negative consequences of this for others. Although a number of his deeds were of dubious morality, that in itself is not a reason to move him down the "power list", as it does not seem that we are holding the moral failings of Morgoth and Sauron against them. What I am considering is how his failings negatively impacted upon himself and his family. His Oath blighted his life and the lives of his sons. His rash pursuit of Morgoth led to his premature demise. These were consequences of his very nature, not simply the manifestations of his power. So can it not be said that, taken as a whole, his "power level" is diminished by his impetuous and hot-headed nature?

There are others, Luthien and Galadriel included, who, while lacking in his raw power, chose their courses of action more carefully, and in a more measured way. In many ways, perhaps, they were wiser. Should this not be considered as an aspect of "power"?

[Thalion]

There are others, Luthien and Galadriel included, who, while lacking in his raw power, chose their courses of action more carefully, and in a more measured way.

I think by going down this route you will be "knocking down a peg" a lot of Elves...first and foremost practically ever Noldor, or at least all those who followed Feanor...even Galadriel we are given at times to believe left Valinor because of her loath for Feanor and a desire to make sure he failed in his quest in Middle Earth (although thats simply this person's interpretation...I have a feeling, that it will still much contention)...and Fingolfin "rashly" charged to the gates of Angband...Fingon allowed his troops to move forward against the hosts of Angband too soon when Gwindor charged first...Thingol 'forces' Beren to go to Angband to get a Silmarill for his daughters hand...all of these cases (and more) can be considered rash decisions or more biased towards personal feeling or without much thought put into them...

[Formendacil]

Another point regarding the "rash" business....

LMP started this thread with a "who could whup whom?" sort of idea in mind. And while he's since taken more into account than mere physical strength/power, one should probably still keep in mind that "greatest" as being measured on this list, is ultimately "who could whup whom".

Fëanor, in my opinion, could probably "whup" either Lúthien or Galadriel- either physically, or in terms of persuasiveness and force of will. Or, at least, he'd probably be the best at it of the three. I don't think that he could actually persuade or dominate either Lúthien or Galadriel- but neither could either of them do the same to him.

[Thalion]

Especially if one considers that much (or most) of the original history to have come from prose or song, then translated (and translated again and again etc.), one can easily get mixed messages as to who is "greatest".

The problem with this argument is that in reality, the stories WERE NOT PASSED DOWN...Tolkien, for as much as he claimed to have "discovered" elements of his tales and to have been working on how they came to be in existence today when the history was supposed to take place years and years ago, created every story that we have from his own mind... he may have made revisions, but one can hardly consider that as the same as passing down stories from generations to generations...and again...Tolkien, as a philologist, choose his words carefully...since he was ulitmately the one writing the "final" stories as we would see them (or as he was working on them to become final) he wasn't restrained to believe whatever a past "story teller" communicated to him...

...as much as Tolkien wanted a mythology that incorporated elements of many of the tales we have today in various cultures, we must remember that his works didn't actually form the trunk from which all these various branches with similar elements came from...therefore, the work of this one man is what we are to consider...

[narfforc]

Everything cannot be won by brute strength and willpower alone, how powerful is beauty and love. This may go off track a bit, but listen to Johnny Cash sing A Thing Called Love, I know it is only a song but the sentiment is there. Who decrees with what and how someone can 'whup' another, Luthien may have had Feanor eating out of her hand, if the sight of her could enflame lust in one of the most powerful beings in Arda, then I am afraid Feanor could have been vunerable to. We know that Feanor suffered from Greed, Jealousy and Pride, surely this is proof of some weakness of his mind.

[drigel]

The translator conceit is one that Tolkien put into the work in order to create a feigned reality..... in fact a kind of game, that doesn't necessarily obtain for the purposes of this thread.

If we are quantifying the qualities of the players, then the realization of the reality has to be a given. If the reality is feigned, then so is the list.

One could see one of the descendents of Feanor or one of their people ....producing the statement that Feanor was the 'greatest' of the Eldar, while one of the Elves of Rivendell produced the statement that Luthien was the 'greatest'

here is the rub that is presented, in terms of TC. Especially if one considers that much (or most) of the original history to have come from prose or song, then translated (and translated again and again etc.), one can easily get mixed messages as to who is "greatest". Or, ranking the "greatness". If I am a poet or a songsmith being commisioned by the House of Fingon, or the Court of Cirdan, the Family of Gil-Galad, you better believe I am going to ensure my sire is getting his/her's money's worth. Praise will gush forth in abundance. Subjectivity will be a casualty of convenience.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

So are you saying we should discount any qualitative statements Tolkien makes, or that we should take them all into account - even when they contradict each other?

And I'd say that the TC cannot be left out of any analysis of the Legendarium. Its far more than merely a 'kind of game' - unless you conside sub creation as a whole a kind of 'game'.

Of what use is it in this "relative powers" game?

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Of what use is it in this "relative powers" game?

When people start using quotes from the works to justify who goes where in the hierarchy we have to analyse those quotes to see who says those things, what they say, why they say it & what they leave out.

Overall The Sil has an anti-Feanorian bias (being, one could speculate, due to the fact that Bilbo, the principal compiler of the Red Book, used sources of information, both living & written, that he found in Rivendell). So, the Feanoreans look bad in the Legends.

Take Celegorm & Curufin's attack on Beren & Luthien - who wrote that is important because the writer attributes various motives to C&C which may or may not have been true.

Or take Feanor. Was Feanor's story written as 'journalism' or as 'tragedy'? If SpM is correct that a characters moral/psychological strengths & weaknesses play a part in how we judge their innate 'power' (& thus where they belong in the hierarchy) then we have to ask 'Who's writing the report? Are they dependable - have they recieved full psychoanalytical training? Or we're they producing a work of moral didacticism, which may have little relation to actual events?'

One final point - if the Elves (as stated in Ainulindale) are bound by the Music as by Fate, then can we consider any of their actions to be 'courageous'? Wouldn't they only be able to follow the 'program'? Also, wouldn't it take greater courage for Men (who have no idea of their post-mortem state - or indeed whether they have any) to lay down their lives than for Elves (who know exactly what will happen to them) to do so?