Quote:
Originally Posted by Galadriel55
Here's something that I value in this story that no other stans-alone story* in the legendarium has: the power of tragedy. Not the gentle sadness, and more than just foreboding on the reader's part. It's not even a slap in the face, it's a bucket of cold water.
|
I feel like you're contradicting yourself here slightly: you say that no other stand-alone story has the power of tragedy, a flat-out statement. Then you make it a matter of degree: "more than just foreboding. It's not even a slap in the face, it's a bucket of cold water."
Of course, it's possible that I'm reading it this way because I think you're wrong about the flat-out statement. I don't think the Narn is the
only stand-alone tragedy but I do agree that it has it in spades, that it's the most tragic. But the only tragedy?
Aldarion and Erendis is flashing in my mind like the Las Vegas strip, and I think it's hard to argue either that it isn't tragic or that it isn't stand-alone.
For that matter, it's a fuzzy question where you draw the line between "part of the Silmarillion" and "stand-alone stories." Is "The Fall of Gondolin" a stand-alone story? I would argue that if the Narn is, the Fall must be--the main difference being that the Narn was a lot closer to being finished, while the Fall only exists completely in its Book of Lost Tales version--because of its early ending, "Of Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin" reads more like a happy ending ("Woo! Tuor makes it!") than the tragedy of Turgon, Maeglin, and the Fall of Gondolin that it is supposed to lead into.