Without the Spirit of Fire?

[aiea]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

This may sound weird, but I can see Feanor as the Melkor of Noldor. Melkor brings chaos to the Song of Ainur, he leads some of the down the wrong path...Same with Feanor: he's the one who causes the Noldor to be banned from Valinor, he leads them in a, in a way, rebellion against the Valar (Melkor rebelled against Eru). .

I just start to read this forum. So i apologize if some of what i shall write is OT.
and second i am italian and i write in english i as can
I agree with what Galadriel55 wrote but ,probably, for different reason.
Melkor is ,in not understandable way for us, just doing Iluvatar will.
This is well explained with the creation of snow.
And if you like reduce Tolkien religiosity is all about choice and it is a difference between an idea and its realisation .
Melkor wish to become a creator God and "in se"(english: on own self??) this idea is not evil or good it is an aspiration that is in all the created creature to understand themselves.
You try to do what is good for your understanding.
Ainurs took Elves to their country... This was done for good but it was not an absolute good idea ...may be better was to help then in their country. The Ainur were just big brother,but took Elves as son and that was a big mistake because they wer just Iluvatar 'son.
This is as the Eden.
An equilibrium that after s time become static and has to be changed.
You believe that Hobbit were living a good life ?
No they have start to forget about their past, They believe their place the centre of the world. This changed because an Hobbit did some that was wrong for normal Hobbits go around the world and put heir nose in Wizards and King question. So Melkor :Feanor:Bilbo
Frodo at the end make the wrong decision (take the ring for himself) the same mistakes that has done Gollum the 9
the 7 .
Also the 3 in some way if subject to the one are just choices. we have to give them some sense.
Silmarillon are light creation...they are not jewels they are the meaning of what light is. Feanor is another Lucifero a bringer of light that fail when wish to keep this light on him on his world and not wish share it with the world.
But to do this is not easy task. If you not see the mistakes of Ainur you fai to see the complexity of the picture that Tolkien gave us...

[Mithalwen]

Welcome Aiea. You make some interesting points (and as ever I am in awe of those doing so in a second language - I lived in France for 2 years and studied it for my degree but I didn't have the confidence to post on a French Tolkien site).

Some Tolkien critics claim that LOTR is a simple "good v evil" story but it is far more complex than that. The triumph of good is in many ways the result of individuals being disobedient. Faramir and Eowyn go against orders and change the outcome for the better. Arguably the success of the Quest is dependent on Boromir's failed attempt to take the ring. The difference is perhaps in the subsequent choices rather than the fact of rebellion- the difference between a peaceful protester and a terrorist.

Of course drama requires crisis and conflict - It may have been pleasant living under the rule of Ingwe in Valinor but I doubt it would make an interesting book. It is the stories of the catalysts that are interesting the Bilbos not the Fredegars. And I think in "Arda marred" it is true that leading a quiet life and hoping nothing will change is not an option. If the Elves and Ents can't succeed at that Hobbits certainly won't. To get back to the topic, Feanor was perhaps a necessary catalyst - if he hand't existed someone else would have filled that role - maybe less extreme

[Galadriel55]

Welcome, Aiea! Your English is great, and I second Mithalwen's words about foruming in a second language.

It's true that the hobbits thought they were the center of the world, but they did not know any better. Only few hobbits saw/learned the full meaning of "Big-" and "Fair-" Folk (ie Men and Elves). When major changeinvaded the Shire in the face of Saruman, they accepted it and dealt with it. (Unlike Elves who want no change at all.)

So hobbits are kind of a cross between a static nation and something more impulsive.

Maybe they aren't impusive because they don't want to gain anything new? For exaple, we know tht the Haradrim and the Easterlings fought in the War partially because Sauron promised them...something. If Sauron gave the same proposition to the Hobbits, maybe not to fight, but to lets say, farm for him in exchange for money, more lands, knowledge, etc., I believe that most would refuse. This behaviour could be seen when the Nazgul kept offering gold to those who could hand Frodo in to him, and we know that Maggot refused. He just doesn't want or need the gold.

[aiea]

Apropos how the hobbits fall to Saruman ?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by aiea

Apropos how the hobbits fall to Saruman ?

Most of them didn't, but that's what I was talking about, yes.