If Fingolfin is greatest swordsman, why does AI say Turin is greater?

[Elthir]

In this Youtube version, Morgoth defeats Tulkas - the narrator says the outcome was "grim" and the animation shows Morgoth stepping over Tulkas' body, then the narrator adds that Morgoth proved victorious.

So, not sure if Tulkas is dead here, or only mostly dead, or something else.

Manwe isn't at this confrontation and is shown (alive) later in the video coming down from Taniquetil, after Morgoth is vanquished (again says the narrator).

Is the fate of Eonwe mentioned in this video?

Aha!

In this version, we have Eonwe doing something. After Tulkas goes dormant or dead, Eonwe steps up, but in the midst of his battle with Morgoth Túrin jumps in and "struck at Morgoth's flank"

Two on one! No fair! But then the narrator seems to forget about mighty Eonwe, and Túrin ultimately wins, of course.

Anyway, this one's also interesting for the narration itself - example: Morgoth's scream resounding "across the world as his form wavered, shattering into darkness."

 

[Turin_Turambar]

In this Youtube version, Morgoth defeats Tulkas - the narrator says the outcome was "grim" and the animation shows Morgoth stepping over Tulkas' body, then the narrator adds that Morgoth proved victorious.

So, not sure if Tulkas is dead here, or only mostly dead, or something else.

Manwe isn't at this confrontation and is shown (alive) later in the video coming down from Taniquetil, after Morgoth is vanquished (again says the narrator).



Aha!

In this version, we have Eonwe doing something. After Tulkas goes dormant or dead, Eonwe steps up, but in the midst of his battle with Morgoth Túrin jumps in and "struck at Morgoth's flank"

Two on one! No fair! But then the narrator seems to forget about mighty Eonwe, and Túrin ultimately wins, of course.

Anyway, this one's also interesting for the narration itself - example: Morgoth's scream resounding "across the world as his form wavered, shattering into darkness."

First of all, thank you for presenting this video. It's nice to see such videos and stories. You make great contributions to the forum. But I think after Morgoth defeating tulkas and fighting Eönwe, he enters into one-on-one combat with Turin and Turin kills Morgoth during the one-on-one combat. Let me explain it this way; In the Avengers Endgame movie, Thanos first defeats Captain America and then Thor. But he is later defeated by Iron Man in a one-on-one physical fight. The Dagor Dagorath battle is designed in the same way. So, just because Morgoth defeats Tulkas first doesn't mean he didn't fight Turin one-on-one. Morgoth defeats Tulkas first. Then he fights Turin one-on-one. I also want to tell you something. You say that Tolkien gave up on the Dagor Dagorath prophecy and that Tolkien transformed Dagor Dagorath into a men legend. But there's one point you're missing. Throughout his life, Tolkien had previously produced many ideas and events and then abandoned them. But later he returned to those abandoned ideas and events. I think even if Tolkien had given up on Dagor Dagorath, maybe if he had lived longer he could have included the Dagor Dagorath prophecy back into the canon. It's not certain, but it's a possibility.

 

[Elthir]

But he is later defeated by Iron Man in a one-on-one physical fight. The Dagor Dagorath battle is designed in the same way.

Well but that's the question isn't it - all these videos with all these descriptions of this particular confrontation are really only based (essentially anyway) upon one Tolkienian sentence.

and no Youtube video (that I've seen yet) seems to be dealing much with Eonwe's role - and that part I just find interesting I guess

But there's one point you're missing. Throughout his life, Tolkien had previously produced many ideas and events and then abandoned them. But later he returned to those abandoned ideas and events. I think even if Tolkien had given up on Dagor Dagorath, maybe if he had lived longer he could have included the Dagor Dagorath prophecy back into the canon. It's not certain, but it's a possibility.

While maybes, could-haves, and possibilities have their place in polite discussion, with respect to this topic specifically (in the "what about Tolkien living longer" context), if you can imagine a cat in a coat shrugging. . .

. . . now's the time

But you have sparked something in my little skull here!

What ideas or events did JRR Tolkien arguably abandon, only to bring them back into Middle-earth at some later time - I would be especially interested if he brought something back in the later 1950s to the end of his life, given that The Lord of The Rings was now in print and part of Middle-earth.

Without thinking, two linguistic examples come to mind, 'cause they're too wonderful to forget!

But I caution me if I choose to dive in here and start trying to work out some sort of (even partial) list, because "abandoned" may not be so easy to stamp upon a given idea in the first place.

Consider me warned

 

[Ricardo]

First of all, thank you for presenting this video. It's nice to see such videos and stories. You make great contributions to the forum. But I think after Morgoth defeating tulkas and fighting Eönwe, he enters into one-on-one combat with Turin and Turin kills Morgoth during the one-on-one combat. Let me explain it this way; In the Avengers Endgame movie, Thanos first defeats Captain America and then Thor. But he is later defeated by Iron Man in a one-on-one physical fight. The Dagor Dagorath battle is designed in the same way. So, just because Morgoth defeats Tulkas first doesn't mean he didn't fight Turin one-on-one. Morgoth defeats Tulkas first. Then he fights Turin one-on-one. I also want to tell you something. You say that Tolkien gave up on the Dagor Dagorath prophecy and that Tolkien transformed Dagor Dagorath into a men legend. But there's one point you're missing. Throughout his life, Tolkien had previously produced many ideas and events and then abandoned them. But later he returned to those abandoned ideas and events. I think even if Tolkien had given up on Dagor Dagorath, maybe if he had lived longer he could have included the Dagor Dagorath prophecy back into the canon. It's not certain, but it's a possibility.

I believe the real story is that Tulkas, Eonwe and Turin they all charged against Morgoth, Morgoth would defeat Tulkas and Eonwe (not kill, they cannot be killed) but that gave Turin the opportunity to get closer. Protected by some kind of magic (Iluvatar) he was able to withstand Morgoth's blows and eventually get close enough to stab him.

Now I do have a problem with that because Morgoth supposedly cannot be killed, was there something in Gurthang that would kill even an Ainur? Tolkien of course never explained that.

As per returning to abandoned stories, it's certainly possible, in any case, the DD was too incomplete and too disconnected to be included in the Silmarillion. But I am not sure even if he had the time that Tolkien would go back to it. I think it's more tied to an early conception of basing the Legendarium mostly on Norse Mythology where there is the concept of Ragnarok.

Anyway, I wish he did finalized the story, even if it was disconnected with the rest. It's a beautiful myth and I can see why it attracts so much attention.

As an analogy, in the Vampire Diaries, the original vampires could only be killed by stabbing them in the heart with a white oak stake. Maybe Gurthang was something similar, perhaps somehow tied to the origin of Morgoth (like the white oak and the original vampires).

 

[Elthir]

Doug Kane, in his book Arda Reconstructed (if I represent Doug correctly here), is of the opinion that the Dagor Dagorath should have been presented in the 1977 constructed Silmarillion - as a Mannish Myth (again based on the same evidence already raised in this thread).

"It is not "Elvish history" (Doug writes, AR, page 238) "it is Mannish mythology, as stated in the Athrabeth commentary. But I see no reason why the two cannot exist side by side with each other."

And I agree, generally speaking.

And not that Doug said otherwise (reading his full commentary here is best, of course), but this matter has, in my opinion, at least one more (or maybe a couple more) arguable concern(s) that might have caused Christopher Tolkien to doubt his father's ultimate intention here.

Doug also adds his opinion that the part of the prophecy > myth concerning the vanquishing of Morgoth "is a comparatively minor component" compared to the part concerning Arda Healed which itself is found referred to in various later texts, including the Athrabeth for instance.

Dough also opinions that the Athrabeth should have been published as an Appendix to the 1977 Silmarillion, based on a Tolkienian note of intention to do so - noting that the Athrabeth contains its own references about Arda Healed - including one in which (some say) Eru himself will enter Arda "and heal Men and all the Marring from the beginning to the end."

Hmm. Eru entering Arda in some way, healing Men, and all the Marring. And if I recall correctly. . .

. . . there's no Feanor breaking the Silmarils in the Athrabeth, for a rekindling of the Two Trees - and not that this silence means that the older idea was necessarily abandoned (or abandoned along with the earlier part in which Túrin delivers Morgoth his death blow) - but it's indeed "here" in a note to the Commentary on the Athrabeth that the Second Prophecy is newly characterized as a "myth" of Númenórean origin "clearly made by Men"

Do I see dots connecting? Although maybe I hit my skull too hard falling off that windowsill.

Sooooo Arda Healed in the Athrabeth? And looking again at Tolkien's text regarding the Marring: "And if any change shall come and the Marring be amended, Manwe and Varda may know; but they have not revealed it, and it is not declared in the Dooms of Mandos."

Once again, could these ideas co-exist in a multi-perspective Legendarium? I agree they could, but nobody knows for certain if Tolkien finally intended this, especially when Andreth's Prophecy gets tossed into the mix!

Christopher Tolkien did regret not including an external framework to the 1977 Silmarillion, which I think would arguably have helped Readers with a multi-perspective Legendarium. . .

. . . wherein variant traditions concerning the Sun and Moon, the Awakening of Men, and the "true" shape of the World, might be lurking too - along with Arda Healed?

:cough:

did I have to add that end part - admittedly no

 

[Elthir]

According to Tolkien in Myths Transformed, after the War of Wrath, Morgoth was judged, eventually taken out of the Blessed Realm and executed; that is, killed like one of the incarnate.

Morgoth had by then become permanently incarnated in his "beloved" body, and with this execution he became Houseless > he then was a terribly shrunken and reduced spirit, thrust out into the Void (Tolkien then notes that this may refer inaccurately to the extrusion or flight of his spirit from Arda).

It's then noted that Morgoth could not yet reclothe himself, but that the spirit of his "remainder" might be expected (for related reasons, see text VII, MT, MR), at least after long ages, to increase again, and become, as it were, "a dark shadow brooding on the confines of Arda, and yearning towards it."

That said, for myself, within the context of a Númenórean/Manish myth, I don't feel the need to go very deep here. In this context it simply makes sense that Morgoth be defeated by a Man, or at least a Man should be awarded the death blow, and Túrin, considering his tragic story, fits. Or to say it another way, why would such a story arise among Men, in which a notable Man is defeated by Morgoth in the end!

In other words, no matter the deeper concepts that might lie beneath all this, to my mind the prime impulse behind this myth is that, again, no matter "how", Túrin will be raised in "stature" to defeat even Morgoth himself: "so that the children of Húrin and all Men be avenged"

Vengeance and Renewel.

In the "1937" Quenta Silmarillion, Túrin is even given a place among the sons of the Valar! Tolkien would later write a large X near this concept, and of course, we know the Valar having actual "sons" was dropped from the Legendarium.


Mânawenûz And Tulukhastâz

One could argue, I guess, that the "Gods" had grown weary after long ages (in the prophecy version), and that could/might/possibly explain why Morgoth could/might/possibly defeat Tulkas here, because in this version of the prophecy, in the light of the Two Trees (rekindled) "the Gods will grow young again" and earlier in section 31, it had been said: "When the world is old and the Powers grow weary, then Morgoth, seeing that the guard sleepeth. . . " which might mean "weary" beyond simple vigilance, admittedly.

Now I'm using "could, might, possibly"

see also MT text VII about the "fading" of the Valar, which I'll leave up to interpretation there

What about Manwe? Could he have "died" in some final battle, even if not named in section 31?

Again in MT, Text VII, Tolkien says this much: "The 'Elder King' is obviously not going to be finally defeated or destroyed, at least not before some ultimate 'Ragnarok' - which even for us is still in the future, so he can have no real "adventures" (. . .) "Even to the final war against Morgoth it is Fionwe son of Manwe who leads out the power of the Valar. When we move out Manwe it will be the last battle, and the end of the World (or of 'Arda Marred') as the Eldar would say."

Again, interpret as you like, but please consider all this within the points/arguments already raised and discussed, including the dating of Myths Transformed here! I note, in any case and for whatever reason, JRRT writes "Fionwe son of Manwe" here, rather than the later Eonwe, herald of Manwe!

And while getting into Ragnarok itself (not to mention Christian ideas) could get fairly complicated in this already stuffed post, very generally speaking we do have Ragnarokian accounts where even some notable "Gods" perish before the earth will appear once more from the sea > along with even Baldr, on the other hand and for one example, returning from "Hel".

All that said, what can anyone simply or easily "conclude" from this long-winded yammering?

I think it's pretty safe to mumble that Tolkien could be said to be "generally influenced" by certain versions of the Ragnarok myth, or Christian accounts of an "End of World" scenario, but that only goes so far in my book, especially without doing a deeper dive into all this, if trying to make any compelling connections. . .

. . . and I for one, am happy with Christopher Tolkien's caution concerning this matter > again, especially in light of the Mannish Myth change (and his caution with respect to the actual changes made to the relevant text in the later 1950s), and yes, once again, Andreth's Prophecy.

For me, in Tolkien's world. . . well, I'll just say that my ears begin to twitch when I see an actual prophecy anywhere in the Legendarium.

Anywho, I'm not changing my overall stance about this matter. . . I'm just sayin'

 

[Elthir]

Sorry to triple post, but this post is number 3,773 from me, and
2,455 of these are about the Dagor Dagorath in some measure.

That said, one of my parents was "double pawed" but the other wasn't,
so I never learned to count very well. Meaning, I could easily be way off
with respect to these numbers!

 

[Amalcarin]

Again, interpret as you like, but please consider all this within the points/arguments already raised and discussed, including the dating of Myths Transformed here! I note, in any case and for whatever reason, JRRT writes "Fionwe son of Manwe" here, rather than the later Eonwe, herald of Manwe!

I pondered the dating of this particular text before, and a few other details that may be relevant are these.

1. The equation of Arda with the Solar System in the footnote on p. 403 (I do not recall any evidence that it appeared before the late 1950s, although I guess this is what you may be trying to imply here).
2. A supposed Mannish origin of the Orcs at the end of the text (which IMO must have made sense chronologically to exist even as a supposition, while this was still not the case in text VIII of Myths Transformed, which is written on paper from 1955 and references the Athrabeth from c. 1959, although text X, which already treats the idea of the Mannish origin of the Orcs as probable, seems to belong to 1959–60 and thus cannot have been written much later).
3. The similarity of the beginning of part (ii) to the Ósanwe-kenta from 1959–60, pointed out by Carl Hostetter in note 3 to the corresponding chapter of NoMe.

All of this makes me inclined to think that the text actually dates from c. 1960 despite the mention of Fionwe son of Manwe, which might have been a momentary (and most probably inadvertent) return to the earlier concept, although this is of course no more than a guess.

 

[Ricardo]

According to Tolkien in Myths Transformed, after the War of Wrath, Morgoth was judged, eventually taken out of the Blessed Realm and executed; that is, killed like one of the incarnate.

Morgoth had by then become permanently incarnated in his "beloved" body, and with this execution he became Houseless > he then was a terribly shrunken and reduced spirit, thrust out into the Void (Tolkien then notes that this may refer inaccurately to the extrusion or flight of his spirit from Arda).

It's then noted that Morgoth could not yet reclothe himself, but that the spirit of his "remainder" might be expected (for related reasons, see text VII, MT, MR), at least after long ages, to increase again, and become, as it were, "a dark shadow brooding on the confines of Arda, and yearning towards it."

That said, for myself, within the context of a Númenórean/Manish myth, I don't feel the need to go very deep here. In this context it simply makes sense that Morgoth be defeated by a Man, or at least a Man should be awarded the death blow, and Túrin, considering his tragic story, fits. Or to say it another way, why would such a story arise among Men, in which a notable Man is defeated by Morgoth in the end!

In other words, no matter the deeper concepts that might lie beneath all this, to my mind the prime impulse behind this myth is that, again, no matter "how", Túrin will be raised in "stature" to defeat even Morgoth himself: "so that the children of Húrin and all Men be avenged"

Vengeance and Renewel.

In the "1937" Quenta Silmarillion, Túrin is even given a place among the sons of the Valar! Tolkien would later write a large X near this concept, and of course, we know the Valar having actual "sons" was dropped from the Legendarium.


Mânawenûz And Tulukhastâz

One could argue, I guess, that the "Gods" had grown weary after long ages (in the prophecy version), and that could/might/possibly explain why Morgoth could/might/possibly defeat Tulkas here, because in this version of the prophecy, in the light of the Two Trees (rekindled) "the Gods will grow young again" and earlier in section 31, it had been said: "When the world is old and the Powers grow weary, then Morgoth, seeing that the guard sleepeth. . . " which might mean "weary" beyond simple vigilance, admittedly.

Now I'm using "could, might, possibly"

see also MT text VII about the "fading" of the Valar, which I'll leave up to interpretation there

What about Manwe? Could he have "died" in some final battle, even if not named in section 31?

Again in MT, Text VII, Tolkien says this much: "The 'Elder King' is obviously not going to be finally defeated or destroyed, at least not before some ultimate 'Ragnarok' - which even for us is still in the future, so he can have no real "adventures" (. . .) "Even to the final war against Morgoth it is Fionwe son of Manwe who leads out the power of the Valar. When we move out Manwe it will be the last battle, and the end of the World (or of 'Arda Marred') as the Eldar would say."

Again, interpret as you like, but please consider all this within the points/arguments already raised and discussed, including the dating of Myths Transformed here! I note, in any case and for whatever reason, JRRT writes "Fionwe son of Manwe" here, rather than the later Eonwe, herald of Manwe!

And while getting into Ragnarok itself (not to mention Christian ideas) could get fairly complicated in this already stuffed post, very generally speaking we do have Ragnarokian accounts where even some notable "Gods" perish before the earth will appear once more from the sea > along with even Baldr, on the other hand and for one example, returning from "Hel".

All that said, what can anyone simply or easily "conclude" from this long-winded yammering?

I think it's pretty safe to mumble that Tolkien could be said to be "generally influenced" by certain versions of the Ragnarok myth, or Christian accounts of an "End of World" scenario, but that only goes so far in my book, especially without doing a deeper dive into all this, if trying to make any compelling connections. . .

. . . and I for one, am happy with Christopher Tolkien's caution concerning this matter > again, especially in light of the Mannish Myth change (and his caution with respect to the actual changes made to the relevant text in the later 1950s), and yes, once again, Andreth's Prophecy.

For me, in Tolkien's world. . . well, I'll just say that my ears begin to twitch when I see an actual prophecy anywhere in the Legendarium.

Anywho, I'm not changing my overall stance about this matter. . . I'm just sayin'

I do have an issue when some parts of the Legendarium are framed as "man myth", that is making less believable? or less certain?


The thing is, the whole legendarium is a myth, and certainly a man's myth (Tolkien's) None of it happened, none of it can be verified, checked against archeological artifacts or ancient scriptures or whatever they do to verify historical facts.

Regardless on how they are framed, they are all Tolkien's creation and the problem arises from Tolkien either abandoning some stories, or changing them, or being unable to make up his mind. Some times he found inconsistencies and when trying to fix them created new ones. I believe that as a rule he imposed on himself, he would prioritize material that have been published (e.g. LOTR, The Hobbit) and try to fit the rest according to what it's said there.

I am not even sure if Tolkien was alive he could answer all this questions (give him time and he might but not right away).

 

[Ent]

the problem arises

Friend @Ricardo, Ent likes to phrase this as 'the fun arises.' Just FYI. Look at how long this thread has become, for example, on things folks will ever see differences with regard to? SUCH fun.

I am not even sure if Tolkien was alive he could answer all this questions

Ent is sure. He could not..! And no time would be time enough, because as you note, he fixed things only to create issues elsewhere. The whole simply became too large for him. (Besides, if we gave him more time, he'd just find so much to do in it he'd still not get things to completion. Not even in an Ent's lifetime.)

Sigh... what a wonder is Tolkien, and what wonders are his works.

 

[Amalcarin]

I do have an issue when some parts of the Legendarium are framed as "man myth", that is making less believable? or less certain?


The thing is, the whole legendarium is a myth, and certainly a man's myth (Tolkien's) None of it happened, none of it can be verified, checked against archeological artifacts or ancient scriptures or whatever they do to verify historical facts.

Regardless on how they are framed, they are all Tolkien's creation and the problem arises from Tolkien either abandoning some stories, or changing them, or being unable to make up his mind. Some times he found inconsistencies and when trying to fix them created new ones. I believe that as a rule he imposed on himself, he would prioritize material that have been published (e.g. LOTR, The Hobbit) and try to fit the rest according to what it's said there.

I am not even sure if Tolkien was alive he could answer all this questions (give him time and he might but not right away).

As for the “myth” part, I think it is first and foremost about the need Tokien felt to make his stories grounded inside his universe. The Silmarillion is given the status of a Númenórean (or in Tolkien’s earlier writings Elvish) legendarium for the same reason the authorship of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are ascribed to Bilbo and Frodo, or the Narn i Chîn Húrin to Dírhaval. The stories just need their authors or narrators to become true living stories and not “out-of-universe lore-dump”, as I saw someone put it elsewhere recently. And Tolkien always treated his legendarium in this way, from its earliest iteration in The Book of Lost Tales, although the fact that no such framing device was used in the published Silmarillion makes this unobvious for many of its readers.

 

[Elthir]

I pondered the dating of this particular text before, and a few other details that may be relevant are (. . .)
All of this makes me inclined to think that the text actually dates from c. 1960 despite the mention of Fionwe son of Manwe, which might have been a momentary (and most probably inadvertent) return to the earlier concept, although this is of course no more than a guess.

More good work Amalcarin. I'd go with probably inadvertent as well. I've noticed this before and wondered; and quoting it here made me comment on it, and then I started to further wonder if I'd missed something notable about the evidence.

And next I said a silent "oh well" and moved on!

The thing is, the whole legendarium is a myth, and certainly a man's myth (Tolkien's) None of it happened, . . .

Wait.

What!?!

I must disagree.

At the very least, Galadriel happened! And so far I've written (again by my math) 5,018 posts to prove it!

(. . .) And Tolkien always treated his legendarium in this way, from its earliest iteration in The Book of Lost Tales, although the fact that no such framing device was used in the published Silmarillion makes this unobvious for many of its readers.

👍

 

[Ent]

Wait.

What!?!

I must disagree.

At the very least, Galadriel happened! And so far I've written (again by my math) 5,018 posts to prove it!

 

[Ricardo]

As for the “myth” part, I think it is first and foremost about the need Tokien felt to make his stories grounded inside his universe. The Silmarillion is given the status of a Númenórean (or in Tolkien’s earlier writings Elvish) legendarium for the same reason the authorship of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are ascribed to Bilbo and Frodo, or the Narn i Chîn Húrin to Dírhaval. The stories just need their authors or narrators to become true living stories and not “out-of-universe lore-dump”, as I saw someone put it elsewhere recently. And Tolkien always treated his legendarium in this way, from its earliest iteration in The Book of Lost Tales, although the fact that no such framing device was used in the published Silmarillion makes this unobvious for many of its readers.

I do understand how Tolkien framed the stories. It's within the Legendarium that the stories find a source.

The majority of them, whether it's the Silmarillion, LOTR or the Hobbit come from the red blood of westmarch, written by Bilbo, Frodo and a little Sam. Some are their own accounts of what happened, either they were directly involved or they learn from others in their own time (e.g. the events of Helm's deep where Frodo wasn't present).

The stories in the Silmarillion are mostly in translations from elvish by BB and are sourced from materials found in Rivendel, their origin if of course varied, stuff the exiles brought from Numenor, Lindon, etc. The events in Aman come from the stories told by the elves that were there in Beleriand.

My point is, everything comes from one single place: Tolkien's mind, and he wanted to narrate the stories in like a fictional historic context, much like the real world where we know about the Egyptians, or the Sumerians and others through archeological artifacts or writings, many of those stories can be altered or twisted, or have a bit of invention in them.

But in the end, the Legendarium is comprised exclusively of Tolkien's myths, + some interpretations made by scholars on topics that weren't clear or fully developed, man or elvish myth is more related to give the story telling (not the content of the story) a logical path. Due to the very important role that Gondor and Arnor played in the third age, it's only logical to assume the stories came from Numenor, that's is man stories, and man myth would mostly refer to stories coming from Numenor where there are some unknowns, or some mythical/magic components, in short, elvish stories passed along by the Numenoreans.

 

[Elthir]

But in the end, the Legendarium is comprised exclusively of Tolkien's myths, + some interpretations made by scholars on topics that weren't clear or fully developed, man or elvish myth is more related to give the story telling (not the content of the story) a logical path.

I'd say rather that both content and internal transmission are in concert here, and that the new transmission NBT (Númenórean/Bilbo Transmission for short), is exactly how Tolkien solved his concerns about previous content - including his cosmological concerns.

In other words, the multi-perspective legendarium did much more than give Tolkien an internal transmission that was logical (enough), it solved what Christopher Tolkien himself mentioned in Myths Transformed.

In the thread Tolkien's Cosmology (in response to Ent) you wrote: "There is no way to know but I think at some point Tolkien knew that his world was wonderful as it was. My point was to blatantly show how different it is and why that couldn't work, Tolkien knew that, he had a better purpose."

If that's your opinion, no problem of course; but for myself, I'd like to see more of an argument, with textual evidence if possible, for why you think so. For example, how does Tolkien's revision to the Third Edition Hobbit (1966) fall in line with your opinion here?

Or this gem (written "sometime" in the 1960s), where Tolkien writes the following on an envelope containing The Drowning of Anadûnê (colour emphasis mine):

"Contains very old version (in Adunaic) which is good - in so far as it is just as much different (in inclusion and omission and emphasis) as would be probable in the supposed case:

a) Mannish Tradition
b) Elvish tradition
c) Mixed Dunedanic tradition"

And these variant traditions include content of course > indeed author-purposed confusions and obscurities, like the "submergence" of the Elves under the general term Avalai (in DA 1), for example, or the virtual disappearance of Tol Eressea > with the name "Lonely Isle" given to the summit of the Pillar of Heaven.

All of which seems in perfect step with other Tolkienian statements like this: "The cosmogonic myths are Númenórean, blending Elven-lore with human myth and imagination. A note should say that the Wise of Númenor recorded that the making of stars was not so, nor of Sun and Moon. For Sun and stars were all older than Arda." JRRT, Morgoth's Ring

In short and in general, I'd say we have a good amount of textual evidence from the 1960s and later.

 

[Elthir]

Throughout his life, Tolkien had previously produced many ideas and events and then abandoned them. But later he returned to those abandoned ideas and events.

As I noted above, this got me thinking about arguably abandoned ideas that JRR Tolkien later returned to (or again, "arguably" returned to). . .

. . . and in doing so, I have indeed, at last, figured out who really killed Morgoth in the End.

It was right under my nose!

 

[Ricardo]

I'd say rather that both content and internal transmission are in concert here, and that the new transmission NBT (Númenórean/Bilbo Transmission for short), is exactly how Tolkien solved his concerns about previous content - including his cosmological concerns.

In other words, the multi-perspective legendarium did much more than give Tolkien an internal transmission that was logical (enough), it solved what Christopher Tolkien himself mentioned in Myths Transformed.

In the thread Tolkien's Cosmology (in response to Ent) you wrote: "There is no way to know but I think at some point Tolkien knew that his world was wonderful as it was. My point was to blatantly show how different it is and why that couldn't work, Tolkien knew that, he had a better purpose."

If that's your opinion, no problem of course; but for myself, I'd like to see more of an argument, with textual evidence if possible, for why you think so. For example, how does Tolkien's revision to the Third Edition Hobbit (1966) fall in line with your opinion here?

Or this gem (written "sometime" in the 1960s), where Tolkien writes the following on an envelope containing The Drowning of Anadûnê (colour emphasis mine):

"Contains very old version (in Adunaic) which is good - in so far as it is just as much different (in inclusion and omission and emphasis) as would be probable in the supposed case:

a) Mannish Tradition
b) Elvish tradition
c) Mixed Dunedanic tradition"

And these variant traditions include content of course > indeed author-purposed confusions and obscurities, like the "submergence" of the Elves under the general term Avalai (in DA 1), for example, or the virtual disappearance of Tol Eressea > with the name "Lonely Isle" given to the summit of the Pillar of Heaven.

All of which seems in perfect step with other Tolkienian statements like this: "The cosmogonic myths are Númenórean, blending Elven-lore with human myth and imagination. A note should say that the Wise of Númenor recorded that the making of stars was not so, nor of Sun and Moon. For Sun and stars were all older than Arda." JRRT, Morgoth's Ring

In short and in general, I'd say we have a good amount of textual evidence from the 1960s and later.

I don't disagree, let's just said that I cannot know what was in Tolkien's mind, and maybe I put my own thoughts on that statement.

In myths, we can distinguished 2 very different features. One is what the myth says, the other is the origin of that myths. Myths are made in different ways and often include contributions from multiple sources, and evolution. We can study the story contained in the myth, or try to learn how it originated, when, where.

Some times knowing where the myth comes from may help understand the story within it.

Yet, unlike norse myths or greek myths, that came from many different people across many years, Tolkien devised his in a relatively short time, and the source was his own brain, of course with some external influences.

But at the same time he tells us a story, he is trying to justify where it came from, and not in the real world, but inside his own mythical world, in other words, myths within myths.

The stories that happened in Aman before the coming of the Noldor, those are myths within the mythical legendarium. Supposedly told by elves that were there and came back to Beleriand to other elves and men, that in turn would pass the stories until they reach Numenor, and later Arnor, Gondor and Rivendell.

In real life, such a chain of story telling would be susceptible to changes, with each passing teller maybe adding or omitting or changes parts, the story likely would not be as original told, and even the original story can be factually wrong. But again, in those myths, there are many different sources involved.


Not such in Tolkien's world, the myths he created are his own, if a story is twisted in the middle is because tolkien decided so.

In that context, it's difficult to reconcile such a magical world with reality. And in many cases, attempting to do so would ruin the magic of the story. That's why I think that some parts, Tolkien would have preferred to leave them as they were, not everything of course, he did change a lot of things, but if he tried to explain too much and make it too much as other world, it would not be as wonderful as it is.

 

[Elthir]

. . . and in doing so, I have indeed, at last, figured out who really killed Morgoth in the End.

I posted the following over at the One Ring Dot Net, as I thought Mr. Kane might enjoy it.

No one over here seems to care - I mean no one took the bait and you should all be applauded for that - but I thought I might as well post it here too. Also, it appears as though my copy and paste has produced some unique elements (with respect to quoting) that I didn't really intend. But anyway.

Eonwe did it!

That's right, Eonwe slew Morgoth at the actual Battle of Battles. The Dagor Something, I think it's called. But of course those very imaginative (and sometimes confused) Númenóreans gave Morgoth's death blow to Túrin Turambar. . .

. . . a Man. A man who had plenty of reason to hate Morgoth of course. And how appropriate that he should avenge Men! But myths are myths; and prophecy. . . well, that's another thing in Tolkien's Middle-earth, even when it isn't from the very mouth of Mandos himself.

And Andreth's prophecy "returns" Túrin to his roots: Dragonslayer.

Admittedly there was a longish period where we had Tulkas, Eonwe (and possibly Beren?) with Túrin, and Turambar "statures up" to Morgoth at some point and delivers the death blow.

Yawn. Read that version one hundred and one times already!

But what indeed did Eonwe do? When this dire Dagor Dagorathian idea was a prophecy of Mandos himself, Tulkas "strove" (or something) with Morgoth. . . and Túrin delivered the death blow. . . and Eonwe. . . what? Was he taking notes?

Making sandwiches?


What if he was thinking of his great love for Arien, hating Morgoth for ravishing her! And now we come to it (pause for effect if you like): who was the Dragonslayer, and who the Morgothslayer?

Quote​

". . . and the Sun and the Moon shall be lost. So shall it be that Eonwe herald of Manwe, of love for Arien shall in the end be Melkor's bane, and shall destroy the world to destroy his foe, and so shall all things be rolled away."

Elthir editing certain names from The Hiding of Valinor, The Book of Lost Tales

And moreover!

Quote​

". . . but Turambar indeed shall stand beside Eonwe in the Great Wrack, and Melkor and his drakes shall curse the sword of Mormegil."

Elthir editing certain names from Turambar and the Foalóke, The Book of Lost Tales

Note that it's the drakes that shall curse the Black Sword! Dragons! Okay Melkor too, yes. . . but don't forget:

Quote​

"Fionwe's rage and grief. In the end he will slay Melkor."

JRRT, The Book of Lost Tales

So we (I) come full circle, like a dragon with its tail in its great, long jaws.

Andreth's prophecy comes true, putting Túrin "back" into his role as dragonslayer, indeed slaying Morgoth's greatest dragon, Ancalagon the Black, soon to become the Black and Blue!

And those Númenóreans. . . wait. I went over that already.

Anyway, why wouldn't Eonwe (Fionwe) "still" love Arien (Urwendi)? Tilion loved her. Morgoth was drawn to her. And at least this way we can "say" what Eonwe was doing, and did, at the dreaded Dagor of Dagors.

I mean, I can say Eonwe did it!


Or maybe not!

And thus ended Elthir, tongue-in-cheek, and his strange tale fell silent in the room.

 

[Backyard Professor]

I think AI can be useful when used properly. To depend solely on it is not correct but to use it as a reference tool, like anything else, can be helpful. But I wouldn’t rely on it 100% alone.

Exactly correct, in my way of thinking. Like everything else, AI can be abused. And like everything else, if used with care, it can be a tool, not ever as a final answer, but as a tool to use, like books, journals, newspapers, and magazines are tools for helping us get information.

 

[Elthir]

A brief, unasked for update concerning my thread over at the One Ring Dot Net:

Last time I checked, no one had disagreed with me that Eonwe slewed Morgoth.

But as I fully expected. . .

. . . the thread turned slightly towards "couples" in Middle-earth, and then broke into chat about Celeborn's separation from Galadriel [their separation after the One Ring (spoiler alert) was destroyed].

Also now in the thread, some nice discussion concerning the fate of Elrond's sons.

And I probably should add - last time I checked, no one had agreed with me that Eonwe slewed Morgoth either.

🤣