The diminshing of the characters

[Inderjit Sanghera]

Do you feel that the reading of the Silmarillion diminished your opinion on the greatness of some of the characters form LOTR?I thought Aragorn was the mightiest man ever, but after reading about the deeds, might and valour of Beren, Hurin, Turin and Tuor amongst others, my opinion of him had diminished. I thought Legolas was great, but is he really comparable to Faenor, Fingolfin, Maedhros, Fingon, Elwe and all of the other mighty Elves of the First age. The characters in The Silmarillion are probably the greatest in any book ever (In my opinion) though sometimes I wish I hadn’t read it (though it is my favourite book) so my opinions on Aragorn and co. could remain as high as they used to be. One thing that I notice about the Sil., is that I haven’t go that feeling of wishing I can go back to the first time I read it, and read it without knowing what was going to happen, which is what I feel about LOTR. Does anyone else feel this?

[lindil]

Inderjit, a good topic [ and a truly NEW one too, I think].

As for The Silmarillion , putting the LotR in perspective, it does, with Characters and much else.

Sauron Compared to Morgoth for instance.

I think it raises the stature of galadriel and Elrond , to see how open they were compared to the Elves of Nargothrond, Gondolin or Feanor's folks.

although one really needs RGEO and especially UT to get the bigger view of galadriel.

But While Beren's quest in some respects dwarfs Aragorns [ in other senses I would say it does not] it also shows greater strengths, Aragorn had to be extremely patient over a time period greater than that of any Silm mortal [ not counting dwarves]. His was no suicide mission, but life that had to be lived with skill, grit and hope [ estel, his name being rightly given in many ways].

Their simply is no tragedy comparable to Turin's [ and his family] in the LotR although again UT is needed to give the big picture.

The Silm certainly puts Gandalf anf Saruman in perspective, and the Akallabeth and of the Rings of Power also help us to understand Gondor and Arnor better.

But as all things were continually dimishing in M-E I never thought to comapare too much the differences of the 'levels of being' of the earlier 1st age Elves and those of the late 3rd Age.

as for not wanting to re-read the Silm, hmmm, I suppose I 'enjoy' the LotR more than the Silmarillion per se, but not more than the expanded versions of some of it, available in HoME 10-12 and UT.
But I have probably re-read the entire LotR more. With the Silm and co. I go more for clusters of chapters. I recently read the 'complete' Narn incorporating the Silm material into the UT. And i Might read abot the period of the Noldor in valinor, or the Akkalabeth.

In short I find it more profitablt to not try and take in to many different scenarios [ Valinor, Creation, Ilmarin, Beleriand, Numenor etc,] of the Silm at once.

Eruhen note the absence of any advertisements

[img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

-lindil

[ January 16, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Elven-Maiden]

Yes, I did feel that way! After reading The Hobbit, I thought it was a cool story, after LotR, I thought it was the pinnacle of Middle Earth history, but after starting to read the Silm, I realized it really wasn't. It was a turning point, but not the climax. I found it a little disappointing that the Unfinished Tales dealt almost entirely with the Silm.

I missed the characters that we really got to know.

[Legolas]

I'd say the Last Alliance and Siege of Barad-dur was the turning point; the War of the Ring was the resolution.

Why did The Silmarillion diminish? It did nothing but expand the characters to me. There are still plenty of things left to wonder about too.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Did my reading of Silm diminish my opinion of the greatness of the characters in LotR? Absolutely, positively no. The reading of Silm made me realize that the characters in LotR accomplished things which no other folk in the entire history of Middle-earth accomplished, even though they lacked the great valor and strength and wisdom of the ancient heroes. That is incredible to me.

I would ask you to look at things from a totally different point of view.

First of all, compared with LotR, the Silm is a tragedy of cosmic proportions. There is very little victory here. Yes, the Silm is filled with Valar and Elves. They are representative figures whose valor, strength, and brains can not be matched in LotR.

But the Silm is filled with tragedy after tragedy. There are few clear cut victories, even though the tale goes on for thousands of years. Look at the War of the Jewels....the only ones who really made a dent in Morgoth's power were Beren and Luthien. They managed to wrest away one of the Silmarils. Other than that, what was really accomplished? A prodigious number of Elves and Men were slain. It was only when the Valar took pity on their plight and directly intervened that Morgoth was finally overthrown.

The great men of Numenor similarly fell into evil ways. Because of their sacrilege, Eru decided to uproot the evil by sweeping away the island forever.

Just compare this with the poor folk of the LotR. In terms of individual greatness, they were no match for the wondrous Elves and even men of the First and Second Age. Yet, in a few short years, and with only minor intervention by a maia and the occasional element of divine providence, the hobbits and men of the Third Age succeeded in doing what those in the Silm were unable to do. They brought both fgures of evil --Sauron and Saruman--to their knees. And the chief agent of this was the humblest of all, a simple hobbit.

When you read LotR, you must stress not who the characters are, but what they did. And by that standard, they tower over all others, including those in Silm. It was a clear case where those who came after did what their ancestors could not, even though their own gifts were much smaller. That, to me, is mind boggling.

When I read Silm, I am constantly amazed at the wondrous individual feats and feel there is no way that I could ever match up to such folk. But when I look at Frodo and Sam, or even Aragorn, I can identify much more closely with them and believe that even the smallest can succeed where the great and mighty have failed. It is a feeling which is both humbling and inspiring.

[ January 17, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Diamond18]

That was a most inspiring post, Sharon. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I feel almost like doing something heroic. Or just going, "Ditto" (grandiosely, of course).

It never occured to me that the Sil makes the LotR characters diminish. Actually, my opinion of the Sil was "It's great and all, but what it's lacking is Hobbits and other slightly more 'accessible' creatures." In other words, just like Sharon said, it's not who the characters are, it's what they did. I found reading about four (or five if you count Bilbo) Hobbits rising far above anything any of their kind ever did to be most inspiring, more so than some inherently mythic demigods coming to tragic ruin.

So, though I found The Sil to be very beautiful (I read it in two sittings, that tells you something) and perhaps more epic than LotR, my view of the LotR characters did not diminish. Rather, the Sil lifted them up, because it made the whole world and story larger, so that the deeds they did seemed even more important. Plus I became nostaligic for LotR, and read it again after reading the Sil.

A good topic for discussion. [img]smilies/cool.gif[/img]

[Lalaith]

I don't think Inderjit meant "diminish" in a perjorative sense. But the feel of the Silmirillion is altogether "higher" and perhaps more noble. It is in the Aristotlean tradition of tragedy - something which provokes pity and fear.
LOTR is as others have said accessible - not just in its style but also in its subject matter. You might wish you were Aragorn and co on a dangerous, exciting adventure, but no-one in their right mind would wish to be Hurin or Turin, no matter how much you admire them.
On a slightly different note, this subject has reminded me how excited I was when I first got the Silmarillion and the solutions to so many previously unanswered questions. I got into Tolkien as a child, before the Sil had been published, and very frustrating it was too. I remember writing to the publishers and hassling them, asking when it was coming out. I still have my treasured first edition copy..

[Jurion]

I think that you must always remember that Elves are inherently more powerful than Hobbits and men. In the Silm the elves didn't manage to defeat Melkor on their own, as someone else in this thread said, Only Beren an Luthien made a dent in Morgoth's power. It was only through a unified effort of Elves and Men that they accomplished something.

If we go to LotR we see that a Hobbit, a being far less powerful than Elves, actually destroyed Sauron. I think that when you compare the stories in the Silm to LotR that it makes Frodo's journey and accomplishement only greater.

[Legolas]

I think you mean 'derogative' sense. I know - what he/she was saying is that The Silmarillion takes away the mystery that laid behind Gandalf, Sauron, and the elves as their unknown (yet alluded to) paths, and seems to belittle the characters in The Lord of the Rings by showing that they weren't the only folk to undertake a great mission.

The characters in each books have very similar but still very different motivations. Beren and Luthien did what they did for each other; the Noldor did what they did for themselves; and so on. I'm not being totally extreme - not *everything* the characters did was self-centered, but a good bit of it was, and often, that's what caused more trouble. Only the army of elves/Maiar were fighting for the good of the world. For the most part, The Silmarillion was more impersonal. The Lord of the Rings (as well as The Hobbit) were on a more personal level. The characters were more real to the readers because they were more like us. We could identify with them more.

The journey of Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, Boromir, Gimli, and the hobbits was a sacrifice. Only Gandalf knew what they were getting into, but they all knew it might cost them they're lives. That did not hold them back. They did what they did for all the good left in the world.

[ January 17, 2003: Message edited by: Legalos ]

[Maédhros]

I think that Legalos has hit a point. Definitely the motives of the Ñoldor in The Silmarillion, are not as noble as those of The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings. Yet having said that, the deeds of The Silmarillion seem more grandeur and heroic; (deeds of Húrin, Túrin, etc.), the characters too seem more special, I mean there is no way that you could compare say a Fingolfin or Maedhros to a Legolas or Thranduil.
To me, it diminshed those characters in a certain way because it's not fair to compare them head on with those of The Silmarillion.

[Lalaith]

think you mean 'derogative' sense

no, I meant pejorative - meaning having disparaging connotations. An extra r did slip in which may have confused you. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Legolas]

Thanks, Maédhros.

I might also should've included some other thoughts...

The characters are not exactly 'diminished' in The Lord of the Rings. The exaggerated focus on stature and the extremes the characters went to in order to please themselves in The Silmarillion is not there, but they are no greater than the people of the Third Age. As shown by the fall of Beleriand, a cold world like that of the First Age would never (and did not) last long.

What changes did occur include the discovery of self-control, wisdom, and a greater capacity to look at the big picture. The world and characters of the Third Age (and the Second Age too, given the alliances of men and elves) had learned the importance of helping each other out.

[Legolas]

I should clarify that I myself don't feel so strongly about it being 'impersonal' though I think it may be to a degree. I do realize it wasn't Tolkien's finished product. That sentence should probably end with "...to the average reader looking to identify with the characters in the same way he/she did in the tales of the Third Age."

Is it me, or just did lindil just delete his post I was responding to?

[lindil]

For the most part, The Silmarillion was more impersonal.

this along with the lack of hobbits and co. is sometimes expressed as a weakness of the Silm.

I encourage those who experience such difficulties to see the thread


How to read a much longer Silmarillion

Much of the compression CJRT allowed to stand in THe Silmarillion is reduced when the longer [ and later] versions of UT and HoME 10-12 are added into the mix.

The details added especially to Hurin and Turin are substantial, and to Finrod.

Just these additions alone help reduce the feeling of compression.

Also worthy of mention but ommitted in the referenced thread is the LQ versions of The Elves in Valinor. These along with the latter half of the Shibboleth of Feanor give a greater depth and feeling to the descendants of Finwe.

[ January 17, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[The Saucepan Man]

I have only just started reading the Silmarillion, so this might be completely off the wall, but this is my impression from what I have read (and from what has been said in some of the postings above).

The Silmarillion seems to be presented much more as a myth, embellished and exaggerated in the re-telling, whereas LotR is presented as an almost contemporaneous (albeit beautifully told) account. So, while the characters in the Silmarillion appear more impressive in power and deed, this is only because they are presented as mythological heroes (like, for example, Hercules). It does not follow that the characters in LotR are any less heroic or mighty. It is just the way in which they are presented.

And Legalos, I do not quite follow your inclusion of The Hobbit with the LotR as a story of heroes fighting to save their world. Surely, it was just about a bunch of Dwarves and a burglar trying to reclaim the Dwarves' lost treasure hoard. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[lindil]

... this might be completely off the wall, but this is my impression from what I have read (and from what has been said in some of the postings above).
The Silmarillion seems to be presented much more as a myth, embellished and exaggerated in the re-telling...

Well, not quite off the wall but not accurate either I am afraid.

The only matter where JRRT hypothesised that the legendarium might contain falsehoods or 'myth' embedded within the story is in the matter of the making of the Sun and moon. Later in his life [ after the LotR] he began to speculate on this and pondered making the story we know have in our 'The Silmarillion' of the Two Trees and the making of the Sun and Moon out of the last flower and fruit of the Trees to be a Numenorean myth, as oppposed to the true story which the Valar [ of course] and the Elves of Aman knew.

Other than that the Silm is as 'factual' as the LotR, indeed there were still High -Elves alive from the time many of the tales in the Silmarillion happened! The Silmarillion was said to have been compiled by Bilbo in Rivendell [as opposed to the Eriol/Aelfwine story]. Glorfindel, Elrond, Galadriel, Celeborn etc were all alive in the first age and between them many of the events of the Silmarillion could be re-counted first or second hand.

The true Tales were known to all who wished to seek them out [although aragorn himself expresses that there was a but of a mystery as to the final end of Luthien and Beren, but says Elrond knew it].

Other than that we are I feel led to rely on the accuracy of Bilbo's accounts which were after all the fruits of his long stay in Imladris.

[ January 17, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Magician of Nathar]

I don't think Silm diminish the characters of LOTR, but rather, I think, make them appear more noble. The characters in LOTR had a purpose. They gave all they got to accomplish their goals and fight for the good things remain in their world. Charaters in Silm, on a modern scale, really appear to be suicidals. They are loved in another way as we love Achilles, Odysseus, and Brunnhilde.

I tend to think that LOTR is a modern novel written for modern readers with spice of old style in it, while the Silm is completely after the styles of old nyth. I think Silm is more comparable to Beowulf, Elder Edda, Iliad and Odyssey. You can feel those ancient, mystical wind in it.
I have to say i don't enjoy Silm that much. I rather admire it from afar. It's beautiful, grand, heroic, epic, but also darn right tragic. I can't stand tragedies. i know their impacts and accomplishments, but I don't like them. Everytime I read Silm i want to cry. It's just too sad. To me, Silm is something you gawk at from far away, but LOTR is always closer to the heart.

[The Saucepan Man]

Glorfindel, Elrond, Galadriel, Celeborn etc were all alive in the first age and between them many of the events of the Silmarillion could be re-counted first or second hand.

Ah, but how good are Elven memories? We all embellish tales from our childhood, and we only live four score years and ten (if we're lucky). [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

But, seriously, there is clearly a different style in the telling of the two tales. And I think that this affects how we view the characters in each.

[Legolas]

The Lord of the Rings (as well as The Hobbit) were on a more personal level. The characters were more real to the readers because they were more like us. We could identify with them more.

I never said the characters of The Hobbit were saving the world.

You didn't notice when I used The Hobbit - I said the characters of that book are more easily identified with (like the characters of The Lord of the Rings) than are their counterparts in the First Age tales.

The characters in The Hobbit did discover the importance of helping each other out, though. Bilbo and Gandalf helping the dwarves; Beorn takes Gandalf, Bilbo, Thorin & Co. in; the elves and men uniting against the dwarves who were blind in their greed; the eagles helping Gandalf and the party; the elves, men, and dwarves all uniting against the orcs; the eagles, Beorn, and Gandalf fighting in a battle that wasn't their own - quite a number of examples.

When I mentioned saving the world, I was very specific in indicating it was The Lord of the Rings I was speaking of:

The journey of Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, Boromir, Gimli, and the hobbits was a sacrifice. Only Gandalf knew what they were getting into, but they all knew it might cost them they're lives. That did not hold them back. They did what they did for all the good left in the world.

[ January 18, 2003: Message edited by: Legalos ]

[Inderjit Sanghera]

By 'diminishing' I mean diminishing in strength of mind and body. I think that there are few people in M-E who can match the strength of the Noldor and the Edain of old. Alas for the fading of the Noldor and the weakning of Numenor.

[Neferchoirwen]

The way I see it is like reading a history book. History books have the lives of great people that we incidentally look up too. The people in the Silm are great, and are, as much as possible, emulated by the generations in the 3rd age. (too wide a gap to make a connection there) The Silm is like a history book for ME, and the 3rd age needed heroes, and so ME was provided with one: Frodo.

Unless Frodo bravely began his journey to Mount Doom, he would not have been worthy of a song, with Sam in the chorus [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] In terms of "greatness," Frodo would have been the "new breed" of heroes the Middle Earth ould celebrate.

[Legolas]

By 'diminishing' I mean diminishing in strength of mind and body.

Did they really diminish in mind? Not in my opinion. It was the exact opposite. Take humans for instance - we probably aren't as strong physically as cave men might have been, but as the body weakened, the mind grew exponentially.

Strength of body isn't important as far as how much you have - it's whether or not you have enough to accomplish what you need to. The characters in The Lord of the Rings had the strength and control of mind and body to do what they needed - unlike most of the cases in The Silmarillion.

[ January 18, 2003: Message edited by: Legalos ]

[doug*platypus]

By 'diminishing' I mean diminishing in strength of mind and body. I think that there are few people in M-E who can match the strength of the Noldor and the Edain of old. Alas for the fading of the Noldor and the weakning of Numenor.

Excellent point, Inderjit - I liked this more than your original post. Even the greatest hero of his age, Aragorn, never did deeds in battle as great as Húrin, Túrin or Beren. Men are said to have grown greater as the years of the sun go past, but by comparing to these three I can't see it. Possibly they were greater for having basked in the glory of the Noldor.

I think that the greatness of the characters in The Silmarillion cuts right to the heart of the story. It was a golden age. The sorrows were greater, the stories more heart wrenching even when not described in detail, and the victories were more glorious. There is nothing in the Third Age to compare with the Silmarils, with Fëanor, or with Valinor and the Valar.

Even Frodo's story is not as unique or remarkable compared with the woes of Túrin, or the perils that Beren had to endure. But that's not to say we should let this diminish our opinions of the characters in the War of the Ring. It just happens that even greater deeds were done in the First Age. Still, horses for courses, and in the time in which they lived, Frodo, Gandalf, Aragorn etc. accomplished great things. The yardstick had shortened.

Conversely, I think that in our world the yardstick has gotten much, much longer. To write a book and have it published for example, is much more commonplace these days than it used to be. And the pace of inventions is frenetic, so much so that most of them go unnoticed. Many scientists that these days work away for companies such as Dow Chemical would, a century and a half ago, have found themselves queueing for awards.

[greyhavener]

When I talk to people who participated in events from the past, they don't think of themselves as heroic even though history paints them that way. I think because the Silm. reads like a history, the characters seem more removed and thus more heroic.
The way LOTR is told makes it seem more like the reader is part of the unfolding action. We are privvy to the characters' thoughts and feelings as well as witnesses to their actions. The more I find out about "heroes", the more I identify with them. Heroism becomes a part of who I know that person to be rather their single defining trait.

[ January 19, 2003: Message edited by: greyhavener ]

[Inderjit Sanghera]

Thanks, for the great answer Doug!

Well, I've been thinking about it, and I feel that the Numenoreans were as close as you will ever get to men as they were originally intended by Eru. There, lifespan could reflect the original lifepsan of men, until it was cut short, by Eru, and the birds and beasts do not reject them, like the way they did with man in his early fall. The Numenoreans were the only people wiht a organised religion, as such. With their fading, the fading of the memory of Eru, the Valar, Elves, Draves and Ents will soon pass to myth, so that men may become less wise.

[Angry Hill Troll]

In response to doug*platypus's comment on how the yardstick has shortened, I think it's worth recalling Elrond's statement to Frodo after he volunteers to take the Ring to Mordor

Were all the elf-friends of old gathered together...yet your place should be among them

Pretty remarkable considering Frodo hasn't even done anything (much) yet! Elrond wasn't quite a contemporary with Beren, Turin, etc., but he's about as well-qualified as anyone in ME to make the comparison. I think what he means by this statement is that he has shown equal courage and self-sacrifice for others as the heroes of the First Age, given the time, place, and situation in which he finds himself. This is sort of reminiscent of Gandalf's statement to Frodo after he tells Gandalf he wishes the ring had never come into his hands, and that he had not lived in such a troubled time.

I think that in the passage at Rivendell, Elrond is speaking Tolkien's own opinion of Frodo's quest and of heroism. Certainly Tolkien's world has the property of diminishing over time, and Frodo and perhaps even Aragorn would have been no match for the heroes of the First and Second Ages in single combat, but I believe they showed equal heroism, given the situation and what they had to work with.

[The Saucepan Man]

You didn't notice when I used The Hobbit - I said the characters of that book are more easily identified with (like the characters of The Lord of the Rings) than are their counterparts in the First Age tales.

Sorry Legalos, I was being a bit flippant.

I think that you are absolutely right in what you say. The characters in LotR are far more accessible to us and we can more easily identify with their struggles.

I still believe that this comes down to the style in which the tales are written. I do not necessarily believe that Aragorn would have been no match for his counterparts of the Second or Third Age, any more than the Duke of Wellington would have been no match for King Arthur. We are not really comparing like with like. The heroes of the Silmarillion were from a Golden Age, yes - a Golden Age of legend. This is the way in which they are portrayed. The characters in LotR are portrayed very much more at first hand. Irrespective of whether some of the characters in the latter were alive at the tine of the former, this is the way in which they are presented to us.

I do not feel from reading the Silm that it diminishes in any way the characters in LotR. They are two different "types" of character.

I personally believe in LOTR Middle Earth as a whole is diminishing. Compare the time of LOTR to that of Numenor. Look at the accomplishments of Numenor, Orthanc, Minas Tirith, the argonath. Things like that would be nearly impossible in the third age.In the book, after the seige of Minas Tirith they march against Mordor with 7,000 troops, and they refer to it as barely the Vanguard in the days of the last alliance. Even Mordor is a shadow of the evils that oncee were. In LOTR Middle Earth and its peoples have gone down. So naturally the strength of heroes as well as worthy quests.

[Lindril Arvilya]

Like many others here, The Silmarillion increased my appreciation of LotR. I think that the qualities and things valued by the 3rd-Agers are more important than those valued by the 1st-Agers. (I've worded that wrong, but it was the best I could come up with.)
In the First Age, what were the wars fought for? A set of jewels. The so-called "good guys" were greedy and hasty. (Some of them, anyway.) They made the mistake of taking their obsession with the Silmarils too far and swore an oath against basically the rest of the world.
Now, for the 3rd Age, I'll break it down to the fact that the so-called "bad guys" are trying to take on the rest of the world to get what's theirs. The good guys aren't fighting to keep this precious ring. They're fighting for peace, harmony, pans, pipweed, and a good ale in The Green Dragon.
For me, The Silmarillion brought home the humanity of LotR. The real heroes in our world aren't necessarily those who fight grand battles, swear oaths and so on... they don't want to fight in the first place, and being forced to, they just want to protect the simple things in life, the ability to go home to a good supper, to pet the dog, to drink their coffee in peace.
It's interesting and fascinating to read about these grand battles, oaths, and treacheries, but in the end we all like to go home, pet the dog, and read our newspaper.

[Lady Of Light]

The Silmarillion did not in any way change my feelings towards those beloved LOTR characters. While it has wonderful epic stories in it, I think of it as more of a supplement. It enriches the history of the world that we only barely get to know in LOTR.

The stories are presented in the Silm. in the fashion of history and legends, not in the more novel-like form of the trilogy. I also think that perhaps not all of the details of bravery were true. I feel almost as if the stories could have been told by campfires and embellished countless times until the deeds were far greater. I don't know if that was Tolkien's intent (probably not) but it is an interesting idea. Like Christopher Columbus, he was a terrible merciless tyrant, but today we mainly remember him as a hero who discovered America.

Perhaps hundreds of years later, the stories about Aragorn and Frodo and Sam would be told in similar fashion... who knows? n/eway, neat topic!

[doug*platypus]

Oh, no, an Angry Hill Troll! And in the permanent darkness of the Barrow Downs! Alas! And I am already weary...

in the time in which they lived, Frodo, Gandalf, Aragorn etc. accomplished great things.

In response to doug*platypus's comment

I believe they showed equal heroism, given the situation and what they had to work with.

Seems more like an echo than a response to me. But I am heartened to see that you feel the same way I do. And you are absolutely right, this gives us an important lesson on heroism. It is very empowering to think that such a humble creature as Frodo can achieve deeds such as those of Beren and Tuor. It gives hope to all of us, for while we may live in different times, we can still show the same fortitude and morality that Frodo does, and achieve our own quest, whatever that may be.

I loved Lindril Arvilya's uncovering of the different moral fibre of the different ages, as well. This thread has resulted in some really good posts. I think that for the participants in the Wars of Beleriand, the situation became more complicated, as their new homes were under threat. I think that the Silmarils remained the main priority only for the Fëanorians, and that most of the Eldar and the Edain were united in hatred for Morgoth. They wanted to remove him from their world, for revenge and for stability. Sounds disturbingly familiar.

[Lalaith]

Also for the people of the first age, the situation was more desperate. Morgoth was a more invincible foe than Sauron. The Elves had, as they thought, been abandoned by the Valar. Men were in an even worse position - they had been more or less ignored by the Valar, and left open to Morgoth's blandishments from the moment of their awakening. Many generations of Edain who rejected Morgoth and allied themselves with the Elves got little reward for their courage other than death and enslavement.
For the ultimate example of valour and sacrifice in Tolkien's work, I am always haunted by the Last Stand of the Men of Dor-lomin at the Fen of Serech.

[Inderjit Sanghera]

Lindril-on men. Men didn't even know why the Elves were at war. Even the wise woman Andreth is unsure.They couldn't care less about the silmaril's. They fought for the love of the land and the Elves. Do you consider the sacrifice of the Hadorain warriors to allow Turgon's warriors to escape selfish? Or the wall of spears put up by Barahir's men to protect Felagund selfish? The men of hte First age had a lot more lore and wisdom and morals then in the Third One. The Valar had become almost mythical in none Dunedian countries.Communication with Elves was discouraged, and without the teachings of the Elves, man would be a lesser race.

I believe that the need for valiance has decreased. I also believe that that in LOTR the type of deeds available to the characters are not as heroic as that in the Sim. Look at Sam's reference to how there quest is nothing compared to the quest with the jewel.