Why not Ecthelion?

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

At the end of the day Tolkien never finished his work and after painstakingly going through his notes, Christoper was able to give us a coherent story. This is the only story we are going to get and it's the only story that fits with other published works.

No, we have already gotten lots of stories. There is no sense in which the published Silmarillion is 'the only story we are going to get'. It was the first one, and it was the only one that was published as a compiled narrative without textual notes or commentary, but those are the only things that set it apart from the texts given in HoMe (which, it's worth noting, Christopher Tolkien also saw fit to publish).

It is also not the only story that fits with other published works. Some of the HoMe texts agree with The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Others, to varying degrees, don't. The published Silmarillion is not somehow the unique version of the story that is allowed by the published works.

The issue at hand is they disagree with the authority of Christopher Tolkien, because I don't see people arguing that Aragorn should really have been a Hobbit named Trotter or any of the countless other ideas that Tolkien dropped.

There's no 'should' about it. There are only facts about what was written in different texts at different times.

Most people are more interested in the published version of The Lord of the Rings than in the early drafts, so most discussions about that work are naturally going to be about the published version. On the other hand, many people are more interested in the various HoMe texts than in the published Silmarillion, so it's natural that they will want to discuss them and won't necessarily be that interested in what the published version has to say about the topics they are discussing.

What, after all, does 'authority' mean in this context? Does it mean that the published version is the only one that people should be allowed to discuss? Obviously not. Does it mean that people discussing the HoMe texts must stop their discussion when someone provides an answer from the published version? Again, that would seem ridiculous. Does it mean that people ought to be more interested in the published version than in the other texts? No, because you can't dictate people's interests like that. Does it mean that the published Silmarillion is the 'right' or 'true' version? It can't, because this is a fictional world we're talking about and there is no 'truth' about it. One is forced to conclude that 'authority' is just not a meaningful concept in this context.

Sorry if I'm steering this thread into canonicity territory; but I really think that fundamentally, people are arguing past each other here due to their interests lying in different places.

[Morthoron]

The reason is simple: Glorfindel had to leave Valinor and the Halls of Mandos because Ecthelion was incessantly teasing him. After all, Ecthelion had killed multiple balrogs, while Glorfindel had merely tripped and fell of a cliff.

Pfffttt! Where's the epic heroism of that?

[Yregwyn]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The reason is simple: Glorfindel had to leave Valinor and the Halls of Mandos because Ecthelion was incessantly teasing him. After all, Ecthelion had killed multiple balrogs, while Glorfindel had merely tripped and fell of a cliff.

Pfffttt! Where's the epic heroism of that?

I know right! Like i said earlier in a post Glor and Etch are setting around and Ecth is teasing him "hey at least i meant to fall in the water". LOL If its not fun its not worth it right?

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

No, we have already gotten lots of stories. There is no sense in which the published Silmarillion is 'the only story we are going to get'. It was the first one, and it was the only one that was published as a compiled narrative without textual notes or commentary, but those are the only things that set it apart from the texts given in HoMe (which, it's worth noting, Christopher Tolkien also saw fit to publish).

It is also not the only story that fits with other published works. Some of the HoMe texts agree with The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Others, to varying degrees, don't. The published Silmarillion is not somehow the unique version of the story that is allowed by the published works.

Christopher Tolkien has admitted he made mistakes in the Silmarillion and I accept his corrections. I accept what Christopher Tolkien has put together and when he confirms that a matter was his father's final words.

There's no 'should' about it. There are only facts about what was written in different texts at different times.

Most people are more interested in the published version of The Lord of the Rings than in the early drafts, so most discussions about that work are naturally going to be about the published version. On the other hand, many people are more interested in the various HoMe texts than in the published Silmarillion, so it's natural that they will want to discuss them and won't necessarily be that interested in what the published version has to say about the topics they are discussing.

What, after all, does 'authority' mean in this context? Does it mean that the published version is the only one that people should be allowed to discuss? Obviously not. Does it mean that people discussing the HoMe texts must stop their discussion when someone provides an answer from the published version? Again, that would seem ridiculous. Does it mean that people ought to be more interested in the published version than in the other texts? No, because you can't dictate people's interests like that. Does it mean that the published Silmarillion is the 'right' or 'true' version? It can't, because this is a fictional world we're talking about and there is no 'truth' about it. One is forced to conclude that 'authority' is just not a meaningful concept in this context.

Sorry if I'm steering this thread into canonicity territory; but I really think that fundamentally, people are arguing past each other here due to their interests lying in different places.

Discussing Tolkien's early ideas or notions is fine, but I disagree when people try and argue that those text are equally valid when discussing the final story. I very much enjoy hearing how Huan and Sauron originated the conflict we see today between cats and dogs, but I don't agree with using that to discuss the legendarium as we know it.

The host of Balrogs just does not fit with the story as we have it now. There is just no way that Tuor would be killing Balrogs five at a time. This is probably a ky reason why Tolkien cut the number.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The host of Balrogs just does not fit with the story as we have it now. There is just no way that Tuor would be killing Balrogs five at a time. This is probably a ky reason why Tolkien cut the number.

If in the First Age there where many Balrogs, how many might be slain even before the rebellion of the Noldor, for example.

'It came to pass that at last the gates of Utumno were broken (...) he sent forth on a sudden a host of Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained, and they assailed the standard of Manwe, as it were a tide of flame. But they were withered in the wind of his wrath and slain with the lightning of his sword; and Melkor stood at last alone.'

JRRT, Annals of Aman, early 1950s

Not only is this dated after Tolkien wrote the Moria encounter with Gandalf [in support of my statement above], but my point here is, Tolkien could [as in might, if desired] still have kept very many Balrogs existing in the First Age, but not had Tuor kill five.

I'm not saying that's what JRRT ultimately desired, but still.