Thuringwethil

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by denethorthefirst

Well, the Numenoreans are supposed to have Airships and Rockets (HOME 9) and a lot of the Silmarillion actually feels a bit like Science-Fiction when you read between the lines ... the decline in Arda is also technological, the Third Age is medieval and primitive compared to the First and Second Age. But that was not what i meant when i wrote that the "flying apparatus" would "fit" Arda. I meant that this interpretation believably explains how Luthien can "transform" (as you put it) herself and fly even though she does not possess the ability to change her hröa. Luthien is an elven woman and Elves are (like the Dwarves, the Humans, the Orcs, etc.) Incarnates that are bound to their body/hröa and are not able to change them. We may mock the tendency of the Fandom to invent and establish "rules" but that is one of the few hard laws of Ea, established by Tolkien himself in his writings. But: the "rules" can be handwaived away in this particular instance, because the whole Luthien-Beren-tale is (like the rest of the Silmarillion) mythological in nature, embellished and expanded upon by later generations. Over the centuries the tale grew with every generation until Luthien took Thuringwethils fur and actually flew away. Its not meant to be taken altogether literal. The Silmarillion is supposed to be the mythology of Middle-Earth and not an historical account.

But what is the source for incarnates not being able to change their hröa under any circumstances? This is directly contradicated in a number of places, including published material, so if Tolkien said that at a later stage, he certainly wasn't taking everything he'd written into account.

As for your flying apparatus theory- no, I don't find it "believable" at all, in fact in seems decidedly forced to me- sorry.

Edit: I meant to post this before, but seems it got deleted- look, it's true the "Translator Conceit" and allied concepts can, technically, get one out of almost any difficulty- but that's precisely why it needs to be used with discretion, else it just becomes an arbitrary way to dismiss any inconvenient bits of evidence- and I think you're running the risk of that here.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

But what is the source for incarnates not being able to change their hröa under any circumstances? This is directly contradicated in a number of places, including published material, so if Tolkien said that at a later stage, he certainly wasn't taking everything he'd written into account.

Concur. From the Lay of Leithian (technically quoted earlier, but I had a lot of quotes up there):

Originally Posted by Lay of Leithian: Canto VIII

The poisoned spears, the bows of horn,
the crooked swords their foes had borne
they took; and loathing each him clad
in Angband's raiment foul and sad.
They smeared their hands and faces fair
with pigment dark; the matted hair
all lank and black from goblin head
they shore, and joined it thread by thread
with Elvish skill. As each one leers
at each dismayed, about his ears
he hangs it noisome, shuddering.

Then Felagund a spell did sing
of changing and of shifting shape;
their ears grew hideous, and agape
their mouths did start, and like a fang
each tooth became, as slow he sang.

That's genuine shapeshifting, and in the same source as Luthien's transformation. (I'm curious, though, Nerwen: what published material are you thinking of? Nothing springs to mind, assuming you mean 'published in Tolkien's lifetime'.)

As to the Numenorean airships and missiles (and Ironclads!), I've loved those since the moment I found out about them. ^_^ They're an early (late? I think early) exploration of the themes of industrialisation that Tolkien delved into with Saruman and Orthanc.

But... they're also based on a single passage, in a story which was rejected in other particulars (I believe it's the one that features pro-Pharazon Isildur), and shown as a late flowering of Numenor. So projecting them back to the First Age would be highly problematic. You could maybe argue that they were introduced by Sauron, but in that case, why didn't he do the same in the War of the Ring?

... and this is the point where I remember the existence of the Mordor Special Mission Flying Corps Emblem, which means Sauron did have an air force. But the point still stands: where were they during the fighting in Gondor? Either it was just a term for the Nazgul, or they were unable to move around during daytime - which suggests that the Flying Corps were actually vampires/vampire bats. We know bats are part of the forces of darkness from The Hobbit, and Nerwen's note that 'vampire' can be short for 'vampire bat' suggests the possibility that these were in fact the debased vampires of the Elder Days.

In which case... could they shapeshift?

hS

[Nerwen]

I rather think The Hobbit was published in Tolkien's lifetime, don't you?

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I rather think The Hobbit was published in Tolkien's lifetime, don't you?

:O Perhaps you've uncovered a deep conspiracy to misrepresent the publication date of the very foundation of Middle-earth!

Or perhaps I just can't figure out who you're OH it's Beorn and now I feel silly.

Anyway, yeah: shapeshifting is a thing.

Does this mean that if Galadriel went and skinned Beorn - or, for the sake of propriety, one of the later, less-Good beornings - she'd be able to duplicate her old friend's trick and turn herself into a bear...?

hS

[denethorthefirst]

Beorn is the exception from the rule, he is an enigma like Tom Bombadil. The essentially unexplainable existence of Beorn does not mean that every human in Middle-Earth possessed the ability or the potential to shapeshift. Luthien is a children of Iluvatar and as such not able to change or "transform" her hröa. But: maybe she took the fur of Thuringwethil, worked some spell and wore it like an animated suit. That way she "transforms" and is able to fly without really changing her hröa (under the suit she is still Luthien).

The question remains if and how much of Tolkiens writing (like the Lay of Leithian or HOME in general) is actually "canon". If we accept the Lay of Leithian, then powerful Elf-Lords like Felagung obviously possessed the ability to change their hröa or the hröa of others in small (non-fundamental) ways (length and shape of teeth and ears, etc.). The change in skin-color on the other hand was achieved via make-up/face paint. All in all a rather miniscule change that doesn't alter the hröa in a fundamental way. In my opinion it would be a stretch to call Felagunds lengthening of ears and teeth "shapeshifting" and i don't think that this instance can compare to Luthiens transformation/appropriation of Thuringwethils body.

[Huinesoron]

I mean... Beorn isn't that much of an enigma. Here's what Gandalf says about him:

Originally Posted by Gandalf

He is a skin-changer. He changes his skin: sometimes he is a huge black bear, sometimes he is a great strong black-haired man with huge arms and a great beard. I cannot tell you much more, though that ought to be enough. Some say that he is a bear descended from the great and ancient bears of the mountains that lived there before the giants came. Others say that he is a man descended from the first men who lived before Smaug or the other dragons came into this part of the world, and before the goblins came into the hills out of the North. I cannot say, though I fancy the last is the true tale.

Okay, Gandalf doesn't know for sure (he's more into elves and hobbits; Men and their ways are Saruman's field), but he thinks it pretty likely that Beorn is a Man who learnt to change his shape (he says a couple of lines on that 'he is under no enchantment but his own'). That means that, regardless of what Beorn is, Gandalf the Grey - Istar, Maia, Ainu - thinks it's possible for a mortal Man, and not even one of the Edain, to learn the trick of transforming himself, and not even with a bear-skin to put on!

We know that Finrod was able to transform himself, Beren, and the Ten well enough to fool Sauron (to a point). We know that, when confronting Sauron, Finrod sang a song "of changing and of shifting shape", which line is quoted directly in the published Silmarillion. We know that Luthien was able to fly wearing Thuringwethil's bat-fell, but that she was also affected by the sun while wearing it. We know that Beren was a convincing enough werewolf to briefly fool Carcharoth while wearing Draugluin's skin. I'm pretty sure that can't have been Beren crawling along under a rug!

All of these last examples come from the Lay of Leithian, but they persist in later texts, and paint a consistent picture: shapeshifting by way of 'sympathetic magic', incorporating part of another creature as a basis for your change, is entirely possible for at least high-ranking Eldar (Luthien is part-Maia, which gives her an advantage, but Finrod is 'just' a Noldo of the Blessed Realm). Innate shapeshifting, whether inborn or learnt, is also possible, and for Men as well as elves - but may be somewhat frowned upon, as the only person we know of who does it is the morally-ambiguous Beorn.

Random thought: could Beorn have learnt his skin-change from Radagast? We know they get on, and Radagast is known to be a 'master of shapes and changes of hue'. Obviously he wouldn't be able to teach a Man the way a Maia might change form... but so far as we know, the Istari couldn't do that any more anyway. Could Radagast have spent his time studying the Enemy's transformation enchantments (that 'no enchantment but his own' implies the possibility that someone could have put it on him), and teaching 'cleaned-up' versions to the locals? (... this is straying a bit far afield, isn't it?)

hS

[Nerwen]

Beorn is definitely a Man. There is a direct word-of-author statement to this effect, in The Letters of J.R.R.Tolkien: "Though a skin-changer and no doubt a bit of a magician, Beorn was a Man". Enigmatic he may be in other ways, but his species isn't.

And denethorthefirst, in your last post you state flatly that it is impossible for a Child of Ilúvatar to alter its hröa, then in the very next paragraph you admit that Felagund "obviously" could, at least according to The Lay of Leithian, but then you say that doesn't count because it's in "non-fundamental ways". Don't you think your reasoning here is a bit all over the place? I mean, either the thing is a absolute, categorical impossibility or it isn't. I don't think there's a middle ground on that one.