The differences between Elves and Men

[arathorn]

Originally Posted by Galin

Not unlike the issue of Eldarin height, although I already know what I'm going to get if I make the seemingly impossible claim that maybe not every 'late' description Tolkien wrote about Eldarin height was meant to be fused into one concept. Ahem.

HAHAHAHA!!!! that was good but is still hard to understand why do you prefer to create divergences.

[arathorn]

I think one of the hardest things ever in Tolkien's work is about who is and who is not an Eldar. And why are the avari weaker than the Edar if they also Telerin in origin. And I also think the Nandor elves seemed to be less powerful than the Sindar but some would say they are exactly the same.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by arathorn

I think one of the hardest things ever in Tolkien's work is about who is and who is not an Eldar.

Not if you take what Tolkien himself published as the answer, and put the problematic rest at the doorstep. Aha! A confident answer based upon my own ideas about canonical status!



Anyway the correct answer is: Eldar at first referred to all Elves, but then came to refer to those Elves who passed Over Sea during the Great March, plus the Sindar only!

The Silmarillion concept is 'wrong'. Debate is pointless. You will be assimilated, and so on. This post is something like ironic. But doesn't it just figure that I really think that 'should' be the answer, even still.

Oh well

[arathorn]

Originally Posted by Galin

Not if you take what Tolkien himself published as the answer, and put the problematic rest at the doorstep. Aha! A confident answer based upon my own ideas about canonical status!



Anyway the correct answer is: Eldar at first referred to all Elves, but then came to refer to those Elves who passed Over Sea during the Great March, plus the Sindar only!

The Silmarillion concept is 'wrong'. Debate is pointless. You will be assimilated, and so on. This post is something like ironic. But doesn't it just figure that I really think that 'should' be the answer, even still.

Oh well

I always though in the same way you do.
So the Nandor aren't considered Eldar... That explains a lot.

[arathorn]

Exactly Galin for you to be write there must be to many possibilities:
1- Interpret the sentence in another possible way, so changing his mind.
2- It's only a "change" if it was written after 1968 and we don't know when it was.(another reason for not to trust the Authors)

[Galin]

Originally Posted by arathorn

I always though in the same way you do.
So the Nandor aren't considered Eldar... That explains a lot.

We agree? Well it had to happen sometime

Yes The Lord of the Rings not only decribes the Eldar [as basically 'West-elves'] in Appendix F, the translation section, but in the language section describes the Silvan tongues as not-Eldarin [although not Eldarin doesn't necessarily mean Avarin].

And I know there are those who will correctly tell me that Tolkien was rushed in the early 1950s, with the Appendices and so on, but heck he did revise the thing in the 1960s too.

And even if so, I say that even JRRT has to deal with what he publishes about the Subcreated World, despite that sometimes the way he dealt with it was to revise it!

Now, about 'High Elves'... :runs:

[arathorn]

[QUOTE=Galin;691067]We agree? Well it had to happen sometime

I think the only things we don't agree is about the Eldar height and maybe one aspect of their physical appearance since you may think they are slimmer than men.

[Galin]

But you might only disagree with what you think I may mean about slimness...

... so I'm not sure I agree that we necessarily disagree about that

Although granted you said maybe.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by arathorn

HAHAHAHA!!!! that was good but is still hard to understand why do you prefer to create divergences.

I thought you might enjoy that

Anyway I wouldn't say I prefer to create divergences, but rather if I read two draft texts which even seemingly [or arguably] conflict, while I might be able to imagine a way in which they can be read as consistent, I feel I am also bound to at least consider that Tolkien might have been revising, changing his mind and creating a variant idea... or simply writing something new, perhaps having forgotten what he wrote possibly years before.

But for another example: when I have two descriptions published by the author that seem to be problematic, unless I have reason to think an arguable internal conflict is purposeful, then I am often the first to try to imagine how they can be said to be consistent, or consistent enough, or find some sort of 'internal-ish' explanation.

Divergent versions need not indeed always be treated solely as a question of settling the priority of composition; and my father as "author" or "inventor" cannot always in these matters be distinguished from the "recorder" of ancient traditions handed down in diverse forms among different peoples through long ages (when Frodo met Galadriel in Lorien, more than sixty centuries had passed since she went east over the Blue Mountains from the ruin of Beleriand). "Of this two things are said, though which is true only those Wise could say who now are gone."

A nice enough way to look at things, but I also think some might take this 'too far' [subjective as that is], or employ it too loosely perhaps, essentially creating internal inconsistencies out of external revisions, and thus essentially 'undermining' the art of subcreation.

But that's a matter for another thread perhaps