Gil-Galad's Tragedy - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Legolas in spandex · 04-01-2006, 10:12 PM

I personally wish that they would have gone further in depth with the elven king Gil-Galad's story in the FotR. Do you all agree?

A_Brandybuck · 04-02-2006, 12:02 AM

Sorry, I would say, that Tolkien included exactly the right details concerning Gil-galad in FotR. I think, that the attraction of 'Lord of the Rings' comes inter alia from those things, which Tolkien only indicates.

I still know, when I read 'Lord of the Rings' years ago the first time, I was very fascinated from the background of the story and it quickened my appetite for more stuff concerning Middle-Earth. The details of Gil-galad, the former life of Elrond and the existence of a mysterious island called Númenor were those details, which leads me to the Silmarillion and the Unfinished Tales.

A deeper background of all these things included in 'Lord of the Rings' would make the world less interesting in my view.

Legolas in spandex · 04-02-2006, 07:18 PM

I see what you mean, but I still wish I knew at least a little more about GG.

Selmo · 04-03-2006, 02:39 AM

I agree with A Brandybuck.
When I first read Lord of The Rings as a young teenager I, too, was intrigued by by the hints that Tolkien gave about the deep history of his creation. I devoured the appendices to the book to feed my growing obsession, filling in the gaps with my imagination and feeling frustrated that The Tale of Years told nothing of The First Age.

At that time, there seemed to be very little chance that any more of Tolkien's work would be published. That kept me going back to LoTR and The Hobbit, searching for more clues.
When, after years of waiting, The Silmarillion was was published, my excitement was tinged with a little sadness because, although my curiosity would be satisfied, some of the mystery would be gone.

Thinlómien · 04-03-2006, 07:11 AM

The briefness about Gil-Galad evidently caused that he never came as close to me as other high-elven lords. Is that a good or a bad thing, that can be debated.

Glaurung · 04-04-2006, 08:29 AM

I agree that in leaving some things incomplete, Tolkien made his readers even more excited and interested in Middle-Earth. Also, it is worth consideration that in explaining every little detail, Tolkien would have had to make the book much longer. And with that, the readers' interest in the book would reduce because of unnecessary explaining of unnecessary matters. But I also agree with Thinlómien that in leaving the story of Gil-Galad unfinished, Tolkien made Gil-Galad somehow distant and even unreal to some point.

King of the North · 04-04-2006, 04:23 PM

I, like those above, agree that one of the main strengths of Tolkien's works is that he does not feel the need to explain everything, and always leaves at least some of the answers for the reader to find. That is the perhaps most stimulating aspect of Tolkien's writing for me, and the major factor in me becoming a huge fan of his work. It always seems to me that authors who explain everything in minute
detail, so that no deducing is left to the reader, have little confidence in his or her reader's intelligence. That is always why I rather dislike all literature catered to my age group (teenagers). Accordingly when authors stick to the way of providing details like that of Tolkien, it compels me much more to read their material. However, now to the real point. I rather like that most of Gil-Galad's backstory is leftout of the books, as with that cloud of mystery there also comes more interest in the character. This obviously fits into Tolkien's approach on character information. However, I believe the reason he is not discussed more is that he is relatively insignificant in the story it would be prohibitive for him to spend a great deal of time on him. To describe in depth a character who dies in a battle some time before LotR would definitely slow down the narrative, and provide us with information not necessary for understanding/enjoying LotR/ Therefore I think it was a good choice to leave Gil-galad left un-discussed.

Thalion · 04-05-2006, 01:26 PM

Quote:

like those above, agree that one of the main strengths of Tolkien's works is that he does not feel the need to explain everything, and always leaves at least some of the answers for the reader to find

Tolkien specifically says something to this effect in one of his Letters...although I can't find which one it is at the moment...in fact, I believe he says in retrospect that he feels he put in too many glimpses of the past in believe he called "volume 1" if I remember correctly...I'm sure this meant book 1, probably referring mostly to the "Shadow of the Past" chapter...

04-01-2006, 10:12 PM	#1
Legolas in spandex Wight Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 106	Gil-Galad's Tragedy I personally wish that they would have gone further in depth with the elven king Gil-Galad's story in the FotR. Do you all agree? __________________ "I want to die in my sleep, like my grandfather... not screaming and yelling like the passengers in his car."

04-02-2006, 12:02 AM	#2
A_Brandybuck Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 95	Sorry, I would say, that Tolkien included exactly the right details concerning Gil-galad in FotR. I think, that the attraction of 'Lord of the Rings' comes inter alia from those things, which Tolkien only indicates. I still know, when I read 'Lord of the Rings' years ago the first time, I was very fascinated from the background of the story and it quickened my appetite for more stuff concerning Middle-Earth. The details of Gil-galad, the former life of Elrond and the existence of a mysterious island called Númenor were those details, which leads me to the Silmarillion and the Unfinished Tales. A deeper background of all these things included in 'Lord of the Rings' would make the world less interesting in my view. __________________ „I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

04-02-2006, 07:18 PM	#3
Legolas in spandex Wight Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 106	I see what you mean, but I still wish I knew at least a little more about GG. __________________ "I want to die in my sleep, like my grandfather... not screaming and yelling like the passengers in his car."

04-03-2006, 07:11 AM	#5
Thinlómien Shady She-Penguin Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: In a far land beyond the Sea Posts: 8,385	The briefness about Gil-Galad evidently caused that he never came as close to me as other high-elven lords. Is that a good or a bad thing, that can be debated. __________________ Like the stars chase the sun, over the glowing hill I will conquer Blood is running deep, some things never sleep Double Fenris

04-04-2006, 04:23 PM	#7
King of the North Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Washington State Posts: 60	I, like those above, agree that one of the main strengths of Tolkien's works is that he does not feel the need to explain everything, and always leaves at least some of the answers for the reader to find. That is the perhaps most stimulating aspect of Tolkien's writing for me, and the major factor in me becoming a huge fan of his work. It always seems to me that authors who explain everything in minute detail, so that no deducing is left to the reader, have little confidence in his or her reader's intelligence. That is always why I rather dislike all literature catered to my age group (teenagers). Accordingly when authors stick to the way of providing details like that of Tolkien, it compels me much more to read their material. However, now to the real point. I rather like that most of Gil-Galad's backstory is leftout of the books, as with that cloud of mystery there also comes more interest in the character. This obviously fits into Tolkien's approach on character information. However, I believe the reason he is not discussed more is that he is relatively insignificant in the story it would be prohibitive for him to spend a great deal of time on him. To describe in depth a character who dies in a battle some time before LotR would definitely slow down the narrative, and provide us with information not necessary for understanding/enjoying LotR/ Therefore I think it was a good choice to leave Gil-galad left un-discussed. __________________ Ask for everything, recieve nothing

04-03-2006, 02:39 AM	#4
Selmo Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The Shire (Staffordshire), United Kingdom Posts: 273	I agree with A Brandybuck. When I first read Lord of The Rings as a young teenager I, too, was intrigued by by the hints that Tolkien gave about the deep history of his creation. I devoured the appendices to the book to feed my growing obsession, filling in the gaps with my imagination and feeling frustrated that The Tale of Years told nothing of The First Age. At that time, there seemed to be very little chance that any more of Tolkien's work would be published. That kept me going back to LoTR and The Hobbit, searching for more clues. When, after years of waiting, The Silmarillion was was published, my excitement was tinged with a little sadness because, although my curiosity would be satisfied, some of the mystery would be gone.

04-04-2006, 08:29 AM	#6
Glaurung Pile O'Bones Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Dancing in rain Posts: 16	I agree that in leaving some things incomplete, Tolkien made his readers even more excited and interested in Middle-Earth. Also, it is worth consideration that in explaining every little detail, Tolkien would have had to make the book much longer. And with that, the readers' interest in the book would reduce because of unnecessary explaining of unnecessary matters. But I also agree with Thinlómien that in leaving the story of Gil-Galad unfinished, Tolkien made Gil-Galad somehow distant and even unreal to some point.