The Book of Lost Tales Part I: A Readthrough

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Tolkien's reuse of the name "Teleri" (the second reuse we've encountered, after "Vairë") can make the whole discussion of the different branches of the Eldar even more confusing than they start as.

Tolkien did get into the habit of reusing names he liked, like renaming Bladorthin to Gandalf. While the whole Eldar's origin story remains the same, you are not wrong when you say it makes it more confusing. The transition between the Silmarillion and BoLT is often quite difficult, as the name are all different, very few the same.
I have no issues with the reuse, as remembering the change is not too difficult, but there are some other changes and things that confuse me, one of which being the changing of names without telling the reader. There were a few of these, and they really set off the pace, leaving you scratching your head as to what is happening. I will admit, I did close my book gently, but firmly, in frustration of these 'silent changes'.

Originally Posted by Formencadil

"The wastes of the time" ought to be the title of a fantasy novel. Rúmil uses the term, saying "very mighty are the things you ask, and their true answer delves beyond the uttermost confines of the wastes of time." As a noun, "waste(s)" is fairly rare--possibly because it connotes an empty, vast expanse of land or sea. Still, the use of "wastes" to describe the expanse of time is a typically Tolkienian use of the term, one that makes me think of the connection between space and time--and its kind of weird to think about, because "space/time" is the sort of science-fiction/theoretical physics sort of concept I don't usually associate with a linguist during World War I--but, there you have it, it's still a valid connection to make anyway, because we know Tolkien was a reader of sci-fi (at least a decade later).

I never thought of that as a sci-fi sort of thing. I interpreted it a very different way. I read it as though Rumil was telling us that the true answers were lost long ago, and that it was impossible to try at retrieve them, unless you could relive the past and be there to hear it for yourself. The use of 'wastes' brought me to believe that Rumil was speaking quite negatively, lamenting the loss of valuable information. I never considered that it could've been the 'space' part of space/time. I can see the connection between 'wastes of time' and sci-fi after reading wastes like that, but it seems too obscure to be true. It's more likely that it was meant for Rumil to sound negative that nobody can tell Eriol anything, rather than it being lost forever, probably in the infinite.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

I never thought of that as a sci-fi sort of thing. I interpreted it a very different way. I read it as though Rumil was telling us that the true answers were lost long ago, and that it was impossible to try at retrieve them, unless you could relive the past and be there to hear it for yourself. The use of 'wastes' brought me to believe that Rumil was speaking quite negatively, lamenting the loss of valuable information. I never considered that it could've been the 'space' part of space/time. I can see the connection between 'wastes of time' and sci-fi after reading wastes like that, but it seems to obscure to be true. It's more likely that it was meant for Rumil to sound negative that nobody can tell Eriol anything, rather than it being lost forever, probably in the infinite.

I'm not trying to argue that Tolkien is doing anything particularly scientifictional. Mostly, I wanted to remark on the coolness of a phrase that caught my eye as I was reading. And then, before I wrote anything, I figured I'd think the phrase through--and double-check the definitions of "wastes"--and the fact that it's normally applied to space rather than time struck me as an appropriate encapsulation of Tolkien's way of doing things: it's a very archaic-sounding phrase, and indeed it is an older, less-freqent use of the word to refer to dimensions of space, but it's still a twentieth-century image that it creates, substituting time for space.

Not that I'm saying Tolkien was necessarily thinking about all this--he may have just been having Rúmil make a subtle joke about "wasting time."

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I'm not trying to argue that Tolkien is doing anything particularly scientifictional. Mostly, I wanted to remark on the coolness of a phrase that caught my eye as I was reading. And then, before I wrote anything, I figured I'd think the phrase through--and double-check the definitions of "wastes"--and the fact that it's normally applied to space rather than time struck me as an appropriate encapsulation of Tolkien's way of doing things: it's a very archaic-sounding phrase, and indeed it is an older, less-freqent use of the word to refer to dimensions of space, but it's still a twentieth-century image that it creates, substituting time for space.

Not that I'm saying Tolkien was necessarily thinking about all this--he may have just been having Rúmil make a subtle joke about "wasting time."

In a forum where we're known for over-analyzing things, I'm pretty sure we're over analyzing it. I bet it just would've been a sentence that sounded pretty cool and Tolkien thought, 'Hey, this sentence sounds just right. I like the way the words fit. No point in ever editing it.'

[Mithalwen]

I am not sure Tolkien would have thought we were overanalysing. He was a philologist and I don't suppose many authors were more knowledgeable about their raw material. He was both an artist and an architect of language . His word use isn't just for aesthetic effect, the mechanics have to work. You can see how much he cared by cases such as "the ptoblem of -ros".

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I am not sure Tolkien would have thought we were overanalysing. He was a philologist and I don't suppose many authors were more knowledgeable about their raw material. He was both an artist and an architect of language . His word use isn't just for aesthetic effect, the mechanics have to work. You can see how much he cared by cases such as "the ptoblem of -ros".

That may be so, but Tolkien probably wouldn't have thought about every single word he used, probably just a few, or the important ones. Word choice is incredibly important when writing a song, or poem, or a heroic monologue, but not so much with generally less important things, like Treebeard walking slowly.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

That may be so, but Tolkien probably wouldn't have thought about every single word he used, probably just a few, or the important ones. Word choice is incredibly important when writing a song, or poem, or a heroic monologue, but not so much with generally less important things, like Treebeard walking slowly.

It strikes me as just a trifle ironic to find an argument on a thread about the HoME suggesting that Tolkien didn't niggle over words; the HoME, especially once you get to the LotR volumes, is full of evidence that Tolkien niggled over details like words.

Now, I want to be quite clear, lest I come across as trying to defend my own over-thinking with regards to this thread thus far: I do not think, with regards to "the wastes of time," that Tolkien agonized a long time over this choice of words, nor do I think that by choosing it he was indicating all the connotations that I, as the reader, found them to open up. There is a very real difference between a (usually limited) meaning directly intended by the author and (all sorts of) the musings that can be extracted from it by a reader.

That said, Tolkien was a known niggler over details. What is more, details like word choice and and the choice of word order are things that define an author. After long practice, they flow from the pen almost without thought, but that "almost" is important--there IS thought and the vocabulary and style they convey are the fingerprint of the author.

I don't think there's any doubt here that Tolkien's style is something we can't discuss as his fans--indeed, as the fans of his writing, we ought to be able to discuss his writing! To do this, we can't just talk about his style or his vocabulary as broad things; you can only talk about them broadly if you've already looked at the individual choices.

And I think this is especially true when we're discussing The Book of Lost Tales, because Tolkien's prose is a major difference between it and the later legendarium. Discussing it here allows us to show how he was a versatile writer, since allows us to add another style to the ones we know from The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, and elsewhere. It allows us, possibly, to draw conclusions about his development, because even if the BoLT is a different genre and intended to convey different things than the Silmarillion would, he is speaking of many of the same things in both of them, and his word choice reveals different nuances as he developed as a writer.

In sum, words are the DNA of a text. You have to put them under a microscope to get anything out of them, and in doing so you CAN magnify them out of proportion--but that does not mean it is not worth doing if you wish to study the subject.

[Tar-Jêx]

While reading page 150 of The Fall of Arthur, and it was also probably in HoME, I saw that Tolkien was indeed writing a time travel story, where the protagonist would end up drowning with Númenor, or something along the lines of that.

This is the first time I have read, quoted directly from Tolkien, that he was writing a time travel story.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

1. Rúmil's speech seems to be littered with a bit more Elfin than what is reported of the others (who are all supposed to be speaking Elfin anyway...): "when tirípti lirilla here comes a bird, an imp of Melko" and he speaks of Mar Vanya Tyaliéva rather than the Cottage of Lost Play. It gives him a distinct character but its an inconsistent application of the translator conceit, I think.

But the only words not translated in Rúmil’s speech (except for the expletive tirípti lirilla) are names of people and places, which one should not expect to be translated, even when a translated version of the name might make sense in English. The same practice of not translating personal names and place names is the normal practice in written tales set in non-English environments. A story set in France would refer to the city of l’Havre, not to a city called The Harbour, to the Jardin des Plantes, not to the Garden of Plants, to François and Pierre rather than to Frank and Peter. Tolkien is here following normal practice used by translators.

2. "Gods" could (should?) probably join the discussion of "fairies" and "Gnomes" regarding words used in the BoLT and not much in the later works.

The word Gods is used less than here in later works by Tolkien, but still used, whereas fairy is used only once in The Hobbit and gnome not at all. Douglas Charles Kane in his Arda Reconsidered, page 251, writes:

With a few small exceptions, Christopher [Tolkien] eliminates all reference to the Valar as “gods,” although that terminology remained common in the later versions of both the Quenta and the Annals.

3. … it's still a valid connection to make anyway, because we know Tolkien was a reader of sci-fi (at least a decade later).

Agreed. There is also a letter from Tolkien to Richard Lupoff which admits to Tolkien having read earlier Martian Books by Edgar Rice Burroughs but declares a distaste for Burroughs’ Tarzan character. See http://books.google.ca/books?id=B0lo...page&q&f=false .

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

The transition between the Silmarillion and BoLT is often quite difficult, as the name are all different, very few the same.

Hardly so. Most of the major characters have exactly the same names as in versions written later: Ilúvatar, Manwë, Varda, Ulmo, Yavanna, Oromë, Mandos, Tulkas, Fëanor, Barahir, Beren, Lúthien, Beleg, Tuor, Huor, Turgon, Idril, Glorfindel, and Elwing, for example. A few characters have smaller changes of name: Melco later becomes Melcor, Ungweliantë later becomes Ungoliant, Tinwë Linto later becomes Thingol, Dairon later becomes Daeron, Meglin later becomes Maeglin, Eärendel later becomes Eärendil, Sorontur later becomes Thorondor, Glorund later becomes Glaurung, Kosomot later becomes Gothmog and so forth.

In contrast very few characters have totally different names. Melian is one of these, being variously named as Gwedheling, Gwendelin(g), Gwenthlin, and Gwenniel. And notoriously Sauron is replaced by Tevildo, King of Cats, or rather the opposite is true. The other such renamed characters are minor characters.

You seem not to recall much of the work. I suggest trying to reread it before commenting on it. There are indeed many changes of names and of style and of plot in respect to the published Silmarillion. If this bothers you then you are missing one of the main reasons for interest in any author’s early version of a work: the differences from the later version or versions.

I recall when this volume first appeared. Christopher Tolkien had already published Unfinished Tales and one hoped for more. That he now intended to publish early versions of all his father’s work was totally unexpected, considering earlier remarks which had suggested no such course.

The work was for me a delightful surprise.

On page 4 of this volume Christopher Tolkien writes: “We do not actually see the Silmarils as we see the Ring.” That seems to me to be a flaw in The Silmarillion, perhaps a necessary flaw considering that The Silmarillion was supposed to be a summary of imagined fuller accounts.

But The Book of Lost Tales, while incomplete and in disagreement with later conceptions told its tale in full. The reader sees the growth of the Two Trees in Tolkien’s only full description of them. The reader sees the city of the Valar with the only descriptions of the dwellings of the Valar, internal and external. One sees the Silmarils themselves as Fëanor creates them. One sees Rúmil himself, not as a vaguely imagined ancient elven sage responsible for an early writing system but as an eccentric, old codger, enraged at meeting with a bird whose speech he cannot understand, and then blaming the no-doubt innocent bird for the sage’s ignorance.

The story, though incomplete, is most enjoyable.

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Hardly so. Most of the major characters have exactly the same names as in versions written later: Ilúvatar, Manwë, Varda, Ulmo, Yavanna, Oromë, Mandos, Tulkas, Fëanor, Barahir, Beren, Lúthien, Beleg, Tuor, Huor, Turgon, Idril, Glorfindel, and Elwing, for example. A few characters have smaller changes of name: Melco later becomes Melcor, Ungweliantë later becomes Ungoliant, Tinwë Linto later becomes Thingol, Dairon later becomes Daeron, Meglin later becomes Maeglin, Eärendel later becomes Eärendil, Sorontur later becomes Thorondor, Glorund later becomes Glaurung, Kosomot later becomes Gothmog and so forth.

I was more talking about places and things, not characters. However, some of the Valar did undergo name changes. Mandos was Vefantur, Nienna was Fui. I know a number of people who actually skip pages (despicable) and they find themselves lost, because you only get told once who these people are.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

I was more talking about places and things, not characters.

Your original post does not indicate this. But I still fail to take your point. Fomendacil, quite rightly, in my opinion, indicates that Tolkien’s change of Teleri from the first kindred of the Eldar to the third, combined with his change of the names of the other two kindreds, is potentially confusing to a reader familiar with the published Silmarillion.

But such switches are rare. Indeed I think that this switch in the meanings to Teleri is almost unique in Tolkien’s writing.

However, some of the Valar did undergo name changes. Mandos was Vefantur, Nienna was Fui.

The word some indicates more than two or three in most people’s idiolect. And the so-called name changes are not complete name changes.

The Vala Mandos, is first introduced on page 66 of The Book of Lost Tales, Book One, in the statement:

… and those brethren the Fánturi, Fantur of Dreams who is Lórien Olofántur, and Fantur of Death, who is Véfantur Mandos, …

Thereafter in the The Book of Lost Tales he is mostly called Mandos, as normally he is in the published Silmarillion, though in a few places in The Book of Lost Tales he is simply Véfantur. The corresponding statement in the published Silmarillion is somewhat longer and clearer:

The Fëanturi, masters of spirits, are brethren, and they are called most often Mandos and Lórien. Yet these are rightly the names of the places of their dwellings, and their true names are Námo and Irmo.

Nienna is also introduced for the first time on page 66 of The Book of Lost Tales, Part One as Fui Nienna. Admittedly the name Fui by itself, explained as properly the name of her dwelling, is more commonly used in the Book of Lost Tales and not used at all in the published Silmarillion. And in the Book of Lost Tales Fui/Nienna is the wife of Mandos, not his sister as she is in the published Silmarillion. But otherwise they are almost the same character.

This is, in my opinion, less confusing than the various names of the Hobbits who take part in the Quest for the Ring in early versions of the Lord of the Rings. And there is an index of names to help the reader who needs it.

Mandos and Nienna are indeed called Mandos and Nienna in the Book of Lost Tales. The change in names for Mandos is from Véfantur to Námo and Nienna has only an additional name of Fui which is later dropped.

I believe totally that the Book of Lost Tales confused you but can’t figure out what you found so confusing when the Book of Lost Tales was presented as an earlier version of Tolkien’s Silmarillion and Christopher Tolkien continually in his notes points out the differences. That the work was different from the published Silmarillion was the main reason for its being published. What you find confusing is to those who like it one of the main reasons for being delighted with the work being published.

I know a number of people who actually skip pages (despicable) and they find themselves lost, because you only get told once who these people are.

That Tolkien does not explain everything fully is a persistent complaint about The Lord of the Rings also. Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings early introduces dozens of hobbits, most of whom are never mentioned again. Some find the geographic names frightful. The reader is apparently expected to remember them all, when any of them are encountered later.

When I find myself confused in similar fashion, say in a book of Irish mythology or history that is unfamiliar to me, I might also shut the book. But I don’t blame the book for my ignorance, as Tolkien presents Rúmil as enraged when a bird happens to sing a song he does not already know.

[Findegil]

jallanite, I second your point that it is normally not very difficult to recognise the characters even so some names are slightly changed. But nonetheless you should moderate your tone as long as you does not have your own facts straight: the later Hour, Tuor's father has a different name in the Lost Tales: Peleg.

Respectfully
Findegil

P.S.: Sorry, I couldn't resist to point that out, even so I think the discussion is worthless. The point should be taken on both sides: The names bear some potential for confusion, but it is less the changes made compared to later versions than the pure number of them.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Findegil

But nonetheless you should moderate your tone as long as you does not have your own facts straight: the later Hour, Tuor's father has a different name in the Lost Tales: Peleg.

Indeed, my list of names that are the same in The Book of Lost Tales and The Silmarillion was wrong in three places, because I simply put down forms that I remembered as being the same in both, and did not actually check, which is just asking for trouble.

I think my addition of Huor instead of Peleg was a stupid slip when I should have posted Túrin (and also possibly have posted other names from the chapter “Turambar and the Foalóke”, namely Brodda and Mîm, though I was not intending to list every name that was the same in the Book of Lost Tales and the published Silmarillion). But I don’t really know how Huor wrongly slipped in. I fully admit this as an inexcusable error.

Another error was my listing of Barahir in the list where Christopher Tolkien quite clearly states that Barahir only appears as a change in a late retelling of the “The Tale of Tinúviel”. In the main account Beren’s father is named Egnor.

Also, the form Tinwë Linto which I gave for Thingol is a rare variant. The most common name for the character in the Book of Lost Tales is Tinwelint.

Sorry, I couldn't resist to point that out, even so I think the discussion is worthless. The point should be taken on both sides: The names bear some potential for confusion, but it is less the changes made compared to later versions than the pure number of them.

Here I very much disagree. Tar-Jêx originally posted: “… the name are all different, very few the same.” The names are not all different from those in the published Silmarillion. Most of them are the same or at least very close to the versions which appear in the published Silmarillion, unless Tar-Jêx is possibly including forms that appear only very seldom in the Book of Lost Tales and were soon changed by Tolkien to more familiar forms within the Book of Lost Tales.

I do not take Tar-Jêx’s point, because I do not see the point. Tar-Jêx excused himself by claiming that he “… was more talking about places and things, not characters.” But he does not explain by indicating what persons and places in the Book of Lost Tales so confused him, instead pointing out two supposed personal name changes and he gets that wrong also.

My own suspicion is that Tar-Jêx does not now clearly recall what turned him off the Book of Lost Tales, only vaguely that some of the changes in the nomenclature were involved. But this has led him to statements that are quite untrue concerning the extent of the name changes.

The name changes he claims are mostly either non-existent, or very minor. They are at least no more than one might expect in a work published as an early version of Tolkien’s Silmarillion. One surely ought to expect some differences in plot and names from the published Silmarillion.

To complain that differences between the Book of Lost Tales and the Silmarillion are confusing to the point that the reader finds the works unreadable suggests to me that that reader must be very easily confused.

I fully admit Tar-Jêx’s right not to like the Book of Lost Tales but the reasons he presents for doing to do not make sense to me.

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by jallanite

The name changes he claims are mostly either non-existent, or very minor. They are at least no more than one might expect in a work published as an early version of Tolkien’s Silmarillion. One surely ought to expect some differences in plot and names from the published Silmarillion.

To complain that differences between the Book of Lost Tales and the Silmarillion are confusing to the point that the reader finds the works unreadable suggests to me that that reader must be very easily confused.

I fully admit Tar-Jêx’s right not to like the Book of Lost Tales but the reasons he presents for doing to do not make sense to me.

While I admit that I was wrong in saying that all of the names were different, there are still a great deal, and some of the more important ones. The renaming of the Solosimpi and Teleri can be quite a confusing one. After going back through the book, scanning for name changes, I noticed with the Valar that after the initial name changes, they still don't have just one name. Many of them have multiple different forms of their name, or just multiple names entirely. Melkor is an example. He was Melko, then Melkor, also known as Morgoth, Bauglir, Morgoth Bauglir, the Dark Lord, and other various 'evil' titles. This is also true for what I was referring to, the places. A great deal of them don't undergo name changes, but are called different things every other page.

We seem to have a misunderstanding, though, as I personally really enjoy BoLT. I was stating that a reader can be turned off and become disinterested when every place or item is being referred to by a different name every second page. A number of people I know that have tried to read BoLT found the name switching to be confusing, and never knew what was being referred to.

[Orphalesion]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Nienna is also introduced for the first time on page 66 of The Book of Lost Tales, Part One as Fui Nienna. Admittedly the name Fui by itself, explained as properly the name of her dwelling, is more commonly used in the Book of Lost Tales and not used at all in the published Silmarillion. And in the Book of Lost Tales Fui/Nienna is the wife of Mandos, not his sister as she is in the published Silmarillion. But otherwise they are almost the same character.

Sorry, but no..... no two characters could be further apart from each other than Fui Nienna from the BOLT and Nienna from the Silmarillion.

Fui Nienna is a spirit of death and despair, almost evil: she is Qualme-Tari, the Queen of Death and Heskil, who brings winter. She judges the souls of dead men ( humans) in her dark hall and throws those she finds wanting to Melco to be his slaves in Angamandi. She weaves dark clouds that float into the world and descend upon people as grief and suffering and unspeakable despair. She and Mandos are explicitly said to "have no warm feelings for any living thing"
In this phase she was the crone, the life-taker in complete opposite to her (back then) sister Vana, Tári- Laisi the Mistress of Life and goddess of spring and sunlight (who was a far mightier entity than Vana the Everyoung in the Silmarillion, CT explicitly points out in the BOLT how Vana lost importance in the later legendarium, while Nienna gained it)

Nienna in the Silmarillion? She is the incarnation of Compassion and wisdom gained from great suffering. Her tears are life giving, as she waters the hill upon which Yavanna grows the two trees with them and later weeps upon the dead stumps to clean them of Morgoth's and Ungoliant's corruption.
She was Gandalf's teacher from whom he learned much wisdom and compassion and she is so gentle and soft hearted that she even speaks in favour of Melkor's appeal, even while she is weeping over every ill he has ever done and every hurt he has ever caused. She often journeys to Mandos to counsel the spirits of the dead Elves there, helping them to turn their pain and suffering into wisdom.

Fui Nienna and "our" Nienna are complete opposites!

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Orphalesion

Sorry, but no..... no two characters could be further apart from each other than Fui Nienna from the BOLT and Nienna from the Silmarillion.

Do you mean that Fui Nienna in The Book of Lost Tales is more evil than Melko, or Ungweliantë, or Tevildo King of Cats, or than many Orcs and Balrogs? Then I disagree. That Fui Nienna is “almost evil” is not I think, ever said by Tolkien. As a critical reader I therefore may not accept at its face value what seems to me to be gross exaggeration.

Fui Nienna is indeed the spirit of death (of Men) in The Book of Lost Tales, but is she indeed totally the spirit of despair? Neil Gaiman’s endless who is called Despair, in his series The Sandman, seems to me a far grimmer and darker being, while Neil Gaiman’s endless Death is, as a person, far more cheerful and understanding. Even in The Book of Lost Tales Mandos and Fui Nienna remain ranked among the Valar, and while relating what might be thought to be dreadful things of them, he voices no criticism. Both remain among the Valar in Tolkien’s later writing whereas the war deities Makar and Meássë are to some degree sneered at by Tolkien and neither is mentioned beyond The Book of Lost Tales.

In this phase she was the crone, …

Tolkien himself says nothing about this. Vui Nienna’s counterpart in Norse myth would be the godess Hel, whose apparent age is not mentioned in existent texts. Similarly in the Sumerian/Babylonian tales the death goddess is Ereskigal, the elder sister of Inanna/Ishtar, who corresponds most closely to Tolkien’s Vána, but otherwise there is no mention of Ereshkigal’s apparent age. In the Norse Prose Edda the god Thor is defeated by the allegorical figure of Old Age (Elli), who appears in the guise of an old woman. This is the closest I can come to fitting a mythological pattern to your interpretation of Tolkien.

Yet, when I posted, “otherwise they are almost the same character”, I overspoke. I ought perhaps to have posted something like, “but even the Nienna of the published Silmarillion is in some of her features still relatable to the Fui Nienna of The Book of Lost Tales.

Fui Nienna and "our" Nienna are complete opposites!

This is where I find you exaggerating. What does complete opposite mean? Both Fui Nienna and the later Nienna are of the same species. They are Valar. They are of the same gender, female. Both bare the same name. Both are connected with weeping and sorrow. Both are connected with Mandos. They seem to me to not be complete opposites.

Perhaps one ought to ignore species, in which case one my find counterparts among the Ainur in Arda. If one does not ignore gender, then Melkor is arguably the counterpart to Varda, otherwise he is the counterpart to Manwë. But who would be the counterpart to Ulmo, some spirit of the dry dessert? Who would be the counterpart to Oromë? Some non-riding, non-archer, spirit of sloth? Who would be the counterpart of Aulë or Yavanna or Lórien or Estë?

[Orphalesion]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Do you mean that Fui Nienna in The Book of Lost Tales is more evil than Melko, or Ungweliantë, or Tevildo King of Cats, or than many Orcs and Balrogs? Then I disagree. That Fui Nienna is “almost evil” is not I think, ever said by Tolkien. As a critical reader I therefore may not accept at its face value what seems to me to be gross exaggeration.

Declaring them to be basically the same character seems to me a gross exaggeration.

Okay I might have oversimplified, you might have oversimplified, I will explain how I came to my conclusions.

I should have called her perhaps sinister, but she does have elements in her character that can be interpreted as evil (I'll explain later). The difference between characters like Fui, Makrar and Measse (thanks for bringing them up) is that their "evil" is still worked within the dominion of Manwe, they never rebel against him whearas Melko and his ilk did.
How did you conclude that I said Fui was more evil than Melko? Do you suggest that Nienna from the Silmarillion is "more good" than Morgoth is evil? Then you should see how far removed she is from Fui.

Fui Nienna is indeed the spirit of death (of Men) in The Book of Lost Tales, but is she indeed totally the spirit of despair? Neil Gaiman’s endless who is called Despair, in his series The Sandman, seems to me a far grimmer and darker being, while Neil Gaiman’s endless Death is, as a person, far more cheerful and understanding.

Fui Nienna is a spirit of despair, she weaves dark clouds that settle upon the world as "despairs and hopeless mourning, sorrows and blind grief" settling upon people like "lightless webs" (BOLT Part 1, Chapter she creates these things, not Melko and is responsible for them.
In this early stage the idea of salvation (or even of Arda Marred) has not yet entered the mythology and the world of BOLT is a much darker place than Arda would eventually become.

Neil Gaiman's Death and Despair have no relevance to the discussion, a completely different mythology, a completely different writer. I know you wanted to make the point "Spirit of Death does not necessarily equal Spirit of Despair" but in this case Fui Nienna is both the Goddess of Despair and the judge of dead mortals.

Mandos and Fui Nienna remain ranked among the Valar, and while relating what might be thought to be dreadful things of them, he voices no criticism. Both remain among the Valar in Tolkien’s later writing whereas the war deities Makar and Meássë are to some degree sneered at by Tolkien and neither is mentioned beyond The Book of Lost Tales.

Makar and Measse I think were an experiment by Tolkien that did not work out, especially not with the later mythology.
Fui Nienna doesn't really do anything in the story, she never takes action, she just sits in her hall unleashing the emotions of despair and sorrow upon the world. She would not have worked in the later mythology either
She did remain a Vala, but only after being completely overhauled by Tolkien, can you imagine Silmarillion Nienna sitting in a hall with a ceiling made of bat wings, sending the souls of men to be tortured by Morgoth and then unleashing her black nets of despair upon Middle Earth?
And on a similar note, can you imagine Gandalf learning wisdom and compassion from a hag like Fui?

She had to be turned into the exact opposite direction to work in the new mythology.
Tolkien could have easily done that with Makar and Measse, making them guardians and heroic slayers of Melkor's creations, but chose not to do so, possibly because the Valar already "noble" warriors in the form of Tulkas and Orome.

Compare the whole transformation process with characters like Yavanna, Orome, Tulkas or even Varda, who changed much less in the transition.

Tolkien himself says nothing about this. Vui Nienna’s counterpart in Norse myth would be the godess Hel, whose apparent age is not mentioned in existent texts. Similarly in the Sumerian/Babylonian tales the death goddess is Ereskigal, the elder sister of Inanna/Ishtar, who corresponds most closely to Tolkien’s Vána, but otherwise there is no mention of Ereshkigal’s apparent age. In the Norse Prose Edda the god Thor is defeated by the allegorical figure of Old Age (Elli), who appears in the guise of an old woman. This is the closest I can come to fitting a mythological pattern to your interpretation of Tolkien.

Hell is a good counterpart to Fui Nienna and when I read the tet the first time I assumed she was the inspiration for her.

Ereskigal and Inanna/Ishtar are not very good counterparts to Fui Nienna and Vana. Especially the comparison Inanna=Vana does not work. Inanna/Ishtar was the goddess of love and war, a self-indulgent, petty Goddess of Sex who most likely served as inspiration for Aphrodite.
Vana is life and youth incarnate, and the Goddess of Spring, just as Fui Nienna is the Goddess of Winter ("Heskil who breedeth winter")
I admit that jumping from Vana being the goddess of youth and Fui "breeding winter" to the conclusion that Fui is "a crone" was a bit of interpretation. But it is easy to see Tari-Laisi and Qualme Tari as the incarnations of beginnings (birth, spring, youth, joy) and end (death, winter, old age, despair)
She is metaphorically, if not necessarily literally "the Crone" among the primitive Valar, just as Vana is "the Maiden"

Rather than Hell or Elli I was also thinking of Annis the Celtic crone goddess, I know Celtic mythology was not a primary inspiration of Tolkien, still the crone had by that time become part of our collective well of stories.

Yet, when I posted, “otherwise they are almost the same character”, I overspoke. I ought perhaps to have posted something like, “but even the Nienna of the published Silmarillion is in some of her features still relatable to the Fui Nienna of The Book of Lost Tales.

This is where I find you exaggerating. What does complete opposite mean? Both Fui Nienna and the later Nienna are of the same species. They are Valar. They are of the same gender, female. Both bare the same name. Both are connected with weeping and sorrow. Both are connected with Mandos. They seem to me to not be complete opposites.


Perhaps one ought to ignore species, in which case one my find counterparts among the Ainur in Arda. If one does not ignore gender, then Melkor is arguably the counterpart to Varda, otherwise he is the counterpart to Manwë. But who would be the counterpart to Ulmo, some spirit of the dry dessert? Who would be the counterpart to Oromë? Some non-riding, non-archer, spirit of sloth? Who would be the counterpart of Aulë or Yavanna or Lórien or Estë?

Those are the only things they share; being Valar a female gender, a connection to Mandos (however it is wife vs. sister, very different) and a connection to sorrow (however the exact opposite)

You are splitting hairs with that, a opposite to a female character does not necessarily have to be a male (Fui Nienna and Vana were opposites in the primitive mythology after all)

But Neinna and Fui Nienna are opposites in the way that Fui Nienna causes and creates despair and sorrow, which she then inflicts upon others, is connected to death and has "cold to the Eldar as to all else"

Nienna (from the Silmarillion) however is the mourner who takes it upon herself to grieve over every hurt and every wrong in the world out of the compassion of her heart. She helps others (the spirits of the Elves in Mandos) overcome their sorrow with wise counsel and symbolizes the Christian principle that from suffering can come great wisdom.
She even supports Morgoth's pleas for an appeal (as the only of the Valar) and her tears help bring forth the two trees as well as the sun and the moon.

to sum it up

Fui:

Creates sorrow and despair
Inflicts these emotions on others
Begets winter and death
Is cold to all beings
Robs people of the sanity with her lightless nets of blind grief and hopeless sorrow

Nienna:
Turns sorrow and despair into wisdom
Takes it upon herself to mourn all hurts and evil of the world
Helps to create light from dark, joy from sorrow
Is compassionate towards even Melkor
Imparts wisdom and compassion into all that are willing to learn from her, such as Gandalf

Those are some pretty heavy, irreconcilable differences.

Whereas the similarities

Both female (so are Varda, Galadriel, Lobelia Sackville-Baggings and Ungoliant)
Both are Valar (so are Vana, Orome, Manwe and Ulmo)
Both share a name (so do Vaire the Elf and Vaire the Valie)
Both have a connection to Mandos and his halls (however wife and judge vs. sister and counselor)
Both have a connection to sorrow (however, the exact opposite, inflicter vs. healer)

are more common place or only very superficial.

I don't know how sincere you were with your question about the counterparts of the Valar. In general I think Morgoth would be the counterpart to all Valar in the sense creation/healing/stewardship vs. destruction/corruption/rebellion.