Elves and Ringwraiths

[Nerwen]

cellurdur, let me explain something, re: ranking. No-one would doubt that some characters are meant to be more powerful than others, or better-looking, or taller, or whatever. What I, G55 and others take issue with is your belief that all the major characters can be precisely, objectively and definitively graded on this basis.

You have, as requested- thank you!- demonstrated your own system for doing this, which seems to involve taking various statements and descriptions written by Tolkien over the years, and making them add up by means of what I'd have to call "selective literalism". If that satisfies you, well and good. However, in my opinion your conclusions are by no means the only possible ones, even on your own terms, nor does disagreeing with them, or even disputing the validity of what you are doing, mean "advocating a chaos".

That is all.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

cellurdur, let me explain something, re: ranking. No-one would doubt that some characters are meant to be more powerful than others, or better-looking, or taller, or whatever. What I, G55 and others take issue with is your belief that all the major characters can be precisely, objectively and definitively graded on this basis.

Where do I say that all major characters can be precisely and objectively graded on any particular basis? You are pulling a strawman argument. I said certain things can be ranked and Tolkien is often very clear with no contradiction when he wants this to be the case. Arguing against Luthien being the fairest, Feanor the greatest craftsman or Earendil the greatest mariner. I don't feel the need or argue that we can rate say whether Faramir was fairer than Boromir, or Denethor had more Numenorean qualities than Faramir.

You have, as requested- thank you!- demonstrated your own system for doing this, which seems to involve taking various statements and descriptions written by Tolkien over the years, and making them add up by means of what I'd have to call "selective literalism". If that satisfies you, well and good. However, in my opinion your conclusions are by no means the only possible ones, even on your own terms, nor does disagreeing with them, or even disputing the validity of what you are doing, mean "advocating a chaos".

That is all.

Once again you are misrepresenting my argument. I don't just go around with a pen marking every time Fingon is called strong and then declare him to be the strongest. I don't particular care of think we have anyway of knowing if Fingon had a stronger will than Finrod.

What I do look at is when a character is called the best at something repeatedly with no contradictions. In such a case I accept what Tolkien is telling me and don't try reject it, because I want my favourite character to have more prominence.

Luthien is called the fairest, with no competition, no contradiction throughout different stories, different drafts etc. Earendil is called the mightiest mariner throughout the story once more with no contradictions. These statements are important to the story and are points Tolkien stresses. I wonder if the resistance to such statements is to elevate personal favourites to a higher role than Tolkien wrote.