The fate of Ecthelion the Balrog-slayer

Prince of Cats said:

...

Click to expand...

Tolkien was buried in Wolvercote Cemetery (North Oxford) and this name appears on the stone:
JOHN RONALD REUEL TOLKIEN Beren 1892 – 1973
The name of Lúthien also appears on the stone:
EDITH MARY TOLKIEN Lúthien 1889 – 1971

by Tyelkormo
As a counter, I need but point at Tolkien's grave: He didn't marry Glorfindel

Click to expand...

That wouldn't have gone over too well in the church .

Prince brings up a good point. I think it should be the other way around personally. What makes Lúthien more worthy of being sent back than Glorfindel? Because she was half Maia? That would mean that Eru ruled by the law of precedence. Lúthien wanted to be with her man; Glorfindel wanted to assist in saving the Elves of Middle Earth (actually; help save Middle Earth itself). Disregarding the relative importance of pedigree, who is more deserving? Glorfindel’s intent is far more noble as far as I’m concerned.

Well, Glorfindel was already alive......

As were many previously dead Elves, including Finrod.

Luthien, as far as being 'sent back', wasn't half Maia, she was 100% elf because Melian had her in Elvish form to begin with, but she was sent back as part of her special deal with Beren as a mortal Man (woman).

She could've remained in Valinor as an elf forever.

But what made Luthien more worthy of being 'sent back'?

First, 'Sent back' really means 'returned from Mandos', as opposed to Glorfindel's 'sent back' being a directive from the Valar (or permission) to help those left in Middle-earth.......

The reason was Luthien moved the heart of Mandos with pity as it has never been moved before or since.
The 'Tale of Beren & luthien' says so.

Where she chose to go - Valinor Forever without Beren, or Middle-earth with Beren for a mortal man's lifespan was her choice & she chose Middle-earth with Beren.

Obviously, Valinor with Beren forever wasn't offered behind Door #3 or Luthien would've taken that.

Originally posted by Bucky
The reason was Luthien moved the heart of Mandos with pity as it has never been moved before or since.
The 'Tale of Beren & luthien' says so.

Click to expand...

As a reader, of course it’s much more exciting and romantic. You can never go wrong with a good love story. But as far as being worthy; there was no "self" with Glorfindel. He forfeited his own personal peace of mind and fought for the good of Middle Earth. I do wish the story of Glorfindel was given more importance, and was fully developed and presented in a way that captured the imagination. It certainly had the potential. Just another reason to say; "Arrrggh! If only he finished it". Ouch!

I do wish the story of Glorfindel was given more importance

It always comes back to Glorfindel and/or Balrogs....

ALWAYS.


Just another reason to say; "Arrrggh! If only he finished it". Ouch!

We'd still be waiting for The Silmarillion even if he was alive & healthy.....

Originally posted by Bucky
It always comes back to Glorfindel and/or Balrogs....

ALWAYS.

Click to expand...

Well, there is good reason I guess.

We'd still be waiting for The Silmarillion even if he was alive & healthy.....

Click to expand...

I don't doubt that; but I‘m sure many gaps would be filled (only to make new ones ); and I would bet the presentation would be far more polished, and the narrative would be far more like signature Hobbit/Lord of The Rings Tolkien.

Bucky said:

Just another reason to say; "Arrrggh! If only he finished it". Ouch!

We'd still be waiting for The Silmarillion even if he was alive & healthy.....

Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that. I think the key point was that he never had a perspective for publication. If someone had told him "We're going to print it, December 1st next year just in time for Christmas" he would have had to sit down and sieve through the fragments and notes and hammer something together.

The other question, of course, is whether we -or he, for that matter- would have been satisfied with the outcome.

Bucky said:

What makes Lúthien more worthy of being sent back than Glorfindel?

Click to expand...

Maybe her sending back wasn't as important to Middle-earth as Glorfindel's, but her story is a more positive one: a tale of love during war. Moreover, The Lay Of Leithian is the center of Tolkien's legendarium. Tolkien refers to it as 'the kernel of the mythology" in Letter 165:

The kernel of the mythology, the matter of Lúthien Tinúviel and Beren, arose from a small woodland glade filled with 'hemlocks'

Click to expand...

Tyelkormo said:

I think it's maybe a bit trying too hard to getting sense into something Tolkien made up ex post facto to weed out inconsistencies. All the more so since in working that way, you all too often simply replace one inconsistency with another. I never was quite fond of the "Glorfindel was sent back" explanation. In my eyes, it diminishes Luthien's being allowed back to some degree.

So in any case, the explanation for "Why was Glorfindel sent back but not Ecthelion?" is that Tolkien needed to iron out a Glorfindel-related glitch, not an Ecthelion-related glitch

Click to expand...

There's no glitch in the first place however, and no inconsistency. Tolkien desired the explanation he gave in the late essays and was not forced into it due to some error that his readers would (theoretically) want ironed out.

Linguistic considerations aside, there is no problem with an Elf named Glorfindel in The Lord of the Rings of course, and the general public knew nothing about any Elf named Glorfindel in Gondolin.

JRRT decided the 'truth' about this character long after the fact, yes (however he did also note that Glorfindel might tell of his ancestry in Gondolin in draft writing for The Lord of the Rings), but not because a true inconsistency existed and needed fixing with respect to 'two Glorfindels'. As CJRT points out his father could have easily changed the name in any case, and if he had it is arguable that Christopher Tolkien would have published the new name for the 1977 Silmarillion.

Galin said:

There's no glitch in the first place however, and no inconsistency. Tolkien desired the explanation he gave in the late essays, and was not forced into it due to some error that his Readership would (theoretically) want ironed out.

Click to expand...

I think you missed the point of what I said. I didn't refer to the readership at all. It was Tolkien himself who wanted to iron out inconsistencies and to that end started to change things time and time again. This was not the least necessary due to his changing his opinion on one or the other issue, "grandfathering in" characters and concepts not originally conceived for Middle-Earth at all etc.

The key point is that it's an ex post facto explanation, and as such it should not be expected that there is a completely satisfying explanation for everything connected to it. It WAS an inconsistency, because it didn't fit together with the rules he had established, and so he had to do something to make it fit. Yes, he could have changed the name of the character. He could likewise have changed the rule. None of which changes anything about the fact that he had to find an explanation for an apparent discrepancy. He changed neither the rule nor the character but rather came up with a reason why this was while not a real exception from the rule terms of the usage of the name very much an exception from the rule concerning a return to ME.

Much like the Shire doesn't seamlessly integrate into ME because it was grandfathered in when the Hobbit was transferred into the Middle-Earth corpus, we shouldn't expect to see no seams when other characters are transferred from one narrative chain onto another - which is what happens when you state that two formerly independent usages of a name aren't independent anymore.

I'm not sure that this was more understandable... But Tolkien is a human being, and most importantly, the entire process of (sub)creation of his work was pretty chaotic. He tried his best to make things fit together where he had to stitch them together. That doesn't mean that everything's a nice and clean checkerboard, and sometimes, when human being try to fix one hole, they open up an entirely different can of worms...

Tyelkormo said:

I think you missed the point of what I said. I didn't refer to the readership at all. It was Tolkien himself who wanted to iron out inconsistencies and to that end started to change things time and time again.

Click to expand...

This issue was not a real inconsistency from Tolkien's point of view or the readers point of view. As CJRT relates his father 'took up the question' which is very different from saying 'oops, time to fix that mistake'. Of course JRRT chose to act as if the name had appeared in print and to then decide, based on various factors, if there were two Glorfindels or one -- and if one, how that could be said if Glorfindel of Gondolin was considered an Exile.

The key point is that it's an ex post facto explanation, and as such it should not be expected that there is a completely satisfying explanation for everything connected to it. It WAS an inconsistency, because it didn't fit together with the rules he had established, and so he had to do something to make it fit.

Click to expand...

Do you mean if Tolkien decides that Glorfindel of Gondolin was a Rebel then we are left with a problematic issue? If so, that puts the cart before the horse with respect to this matter, as that was the result of a decision once he had asked himself the question.

And what established rules are you referring to, even in unpublished text? Elvish reincarnation existed for decades before the Glorfindel essays were written. Elsewhere Tolkien allows for Elves having the same name. He is 'incorrect' with what he states concerning the Sindar in Gondolin, at least with respect to what he had stated in earlier text. And it would only be inconsistent to suppose Glorfindel of Gondolin was Sindarin if one first supposes he is the same character as in The Lord of the Rings (this is what JRRT is essentially doing when he appears to reject the Sindarin alternative).

In any case, you seem to me to be characterizing the scenario in such a way as to conclude that some 'inconsistency' existed in some sense. But really JRRT was simply answering his own question in his own way: were the 'two' the same, or not.

Yes, he could have changed the name of the character. He could likewise have changed the rule. None of which changes anything about the fact that he had to find an explanation for an apparent discrepancy.

Click to expand...

These things do significantly change the fact that he had to find an explanation for an apparent discrepency, because there was no apparent discrepancy. Tolkien was not perfect and made mistakes, but I say let's not find a way to call this backtracking to cover an inconsistency because JRRT chose to answer a question in his own mind in a certain way.

That seems a bit unfair to me, arguably muddles the issue for those not aware of all the details involved, and in any case disregards the reality that JRRT himself was fully aware of too, despite his approach.

Galin said:

This issue was not a real inconsistency from Tolkien's point of view or the readers point of view. As CJRT relates his father 'took up the question' which is very different from saying 'oops, time to fix that mistake'. Of course JRRT chose to act as if the name had appeared in print and to then decide, based on various factors, if there were two Glorfindels or one -- and if one, how that could be said if Glorfindel of Gondolin was considered an Exile.

...

These things do significantly change the fact that he had to find an explanation for an apparent discrepency, because there was no apparent discrepancy. Tolkien was not perfect and made mistakes, but I say let's not find a way to call this backtracking to cover an inconsistency because JRRT chose to answer a question in his own mind in a certain way.

That seems a bit unfair to me, arguably muddles the issue for those not aware of all the details involved, and in any case disregards the reality that JRRT himself was fully aware of too, despite his approach.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I have the impression you're arguing within a set of definitions of your own, and it's impossible to make a point under these circumstances. I explicitly made the point of the problem of joining to distinct lines of narrative. I can't make it more explicit than that. I didn't talk about "backtracking", any more than I talked about the reader. You introduced these aspects all on your own. You say "he took up the question" is something distinct from an inconsistency. I say it isn't. An explanation was needed and he came up with one. I think the problem is inherent to your using "inconsistency" and "mistake" interchangeably when they are, in fact, totally distinct things. An inconsistency is a natural thing which occurs if you put two things together that were originally not meant to be together. That's not a "mistake" since no one actually made an error. The decision was consciously done to put one and the other together and inconsistencies are the natural consequence. Only then would an inconsistency be an actual mistake if all parts had from the get-go been part of one whole. That wasn't the case anymore than it was with the Shire.

Bucky, I wish you would use the forum's quote feature when quoting other people. Other members are not differentiating someone’s quote from your reply, and miss the opportunity to respond .

Tyelkormo said:

Sorry, but I have the impression you're arguing within a set of definitions of your own, and it's impossible to make a point under these circumstances. I explicitly made the point of the problem of joining to distinct lines of narrative. I can't make it more explicit than that.

Click to expand...

You didn't explain the rules you referred to, so yes I think you can be more explicit. You posted: 'It WAS an inconsistency, because it didn't fit together with the rules he had established, and so he had to do something to make it fit.'

On the one hand we have a powerful Noldo in Imladris in the Third Age. On the other we have an Elf of Gondolin who died heroically in the First Age. Nothing there needs ironing out that I can see. They have the same name because Tolkien borrowed it. OK he borrowed others too.

Even if JRRT had published the 1977 Silmarillion as it stands, there's no problematic harmony with the two works. Questions arose yes, and people have been asking the same question since 1977: are they the same person, or different? Tolkien asked himself the same thing.

I didn't talk about "backtracking", any more than I talked about the reader. You introduced these aspects all on your own.

Click to expand...

OK, apologies if I implied you brought these things up. But I still think they are worth bringing up

You say "he took up the question" is something distinct from an inconsistency. I say it isn't. An explanation was needed and he came up with one.

Click to expand...

Tolkien didn't write an explanation for the name Legolas appearing in the early long prose Fall of Gondolin. He knew nobody knew that, he didn't need to explain it to himself or anyone (despite that some now post: are the 'two' characters named Legolas the same?). JRRT knew nobody knew about Glorfindel of Gondolin too, but he decided to investigate the matter for himself.

I think the problem is inherent to your using "inconsistency" and "mistake" interchangeably when they are, in fact, totally distinct things. An inconsistency is a natural thing which occurs if you put two things together that were originally not meant to be together.

Click to expand...

Inconsistency has to do with a lack of harmony or agreement. You used 'glitch' in any case, indicating a fault or defect.

That's not a "mistake" since no one actually made an error. The decision was consciously done to put one and the other together and inconsistencies are the natural consequence. Only then would an inconsistency be an actual mistake if all parts had from the get-go been part of one whole. That wasn't the case anymore than it was with the Shire.

Click to expand...

For example, some people have written that Tolkien made a mistake because Elves can't have the same name. That's not accurate (and mixes up published text with unpublished text), but at least it's an example of an inconsistency that might exist if it were accurate.

I'm asking what you think the inconsistency is that caused Tolkien to write the late essays.

Galin said:

Tolkien didn't write an explanation for the name Legolas appearing in the early long prose Fall of Gondolin. He knew nobody knew that, he didn't need to explain it to himself or anyone (despite that some now post: are the 'two' characters named Legolas the same?). JRRT knew nobody knew about Glorfindel of Gondolin too, but he decided to investigate the matter for himself.

Click to expand...

Tolkien was constantly reviewing and editing the material, including the material concerning Greenwood. There are far more problems in this aspect than just the name of Legolas. Given that he identifies as Silvan in LotR, while his father is Sindar, it can easily be argued that he grew up in Greenwood when the group led by, depending which version one trusts, Thranduil or his father Oropher, had completely merged with the local population. Now who actually founded the realm is another can of worms altogether.

In any case, the fact that Tolkien adressed one issue but not another is not a real indication of anything. The amount of material is huge and his dealing with it in large parts not very systematical.

Inconsistency has to do with a lack of harmony or agreement. You used 'glitch' in any case, indicating a fault or defect.

Click to expand...

A "fault" or "defect", yes, but that doesn't indicate a mistake someone makes. Faults, defects, occur in naturally grown crystals, for example. A fault line exists where sheets of natural rock meet or have broken apart. Take the Shire: It's description is in many parts anachronistic to the rest of Middle-Earth. That's an anachronistic fault line, if you wish, that naturally occurs from grandfathering in the Hobbit into the Middle-Earth narrative. And since LotR is the instrument of said "grandfathering in", as well as new material attached to old in itself, we can expect quite a few faultlines.

For example, some people have written that Tolkien made a mistake because Elves can't have the same name. That's not accurate (and mixes up published text with unpublished text), but at least it's an example of an inconsistency that might exist if it were accurate.
I'm asking what you think the inconsistency is that caused Tolkien to write the late essays.

Click to expand...

And why would it matter whether it's published or unpublished? It certainly didn't matter to Tolkien, who was often concerned with internal consistency - up to the point of actually rewriting parts of already published material!

The whole point -your own quote showing that Tolkien "took up the question" illustrates that the situation was far from self-explanatory. So Tolkien came up with an explanation. Why he picked this non-self-evident issue and not another is not really relevant. Your own quote shows that there was an issue Tolkien saw necessary to address - which means it didn't appear a seamless, entirely satisfactory, construct.

What IS relevant is that he tried to explain it retrospectively. Which means that any explanation is yet another layer of narration stitched onto the rest. Which means we should expect to see seams rather than one continues piece of narrative weaving. That's my point. The question "Why Glorfindel and not Ecthelion" is one such seam.

Tyelkormo said:

In any case, the fact that Tolkien adressed one issue but not another is not a real indication of anything. The amount of material is huge and his dealing with it in large parts not very systematical.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but you continue to imply that Tolkien 'had' to iron out some inconsistency with respect to Glorfindel. The point there was that simply because JRRT had the same name in both an unpublished legend and in The Lord of the Rings does not constitute an inconsistency that needs fixing. OK, that only goes so far I admit, but I'm trying to determine what inconsistency (you say) Tolkien had on his hands here.

And why would it matter whether it's published or unpublished? It certainly didn't matter to Tolkien, who was often concerned with internal consistency - up to the point of actually rewriting parts of already published material!

Click to expand...

Already published material matters to Tolkien. The problem of ROS is just one example.

But that's a side topic

Your own quote shows that there was an issue Tolkien saw necessary to address - which means it didn't appear a seamless, entirely satisfactory, construct.

Click to expand...

Tolkien had two tales which were not in conflict, and you have yet to point out any inconsistency between the two which arguably might mean he had to smooth over a glitch. If Tolkien saw an issue it was arguably linguistic (I posted much earlier in the thread, linguistic concerns aside), because Glorfindel had been constructed in Gnomish not Sindarin, but it was now published so he felt he had to deal with it (Tolkien nicely handles this point elsewhere).

After noting the form of the name in one essay, the 'difficulty' then expressed comes under the context: if the two are supposed to be the same.

What IS relevant is that he tried to explain it retrospectively. Which means that any explanation is yet another layer of narration stitched onto the rest. Which means we should expect to see seams rather than one continues piece of narrative weaving. That's my point. The question "Why Glorfindel and not Ecthelion" is one such seam.

Click to expand...

Arguable seams that might arise from the essays is not why I jumped in here -- your implication was that there was some glitch that needed fixing, this being Tolkien's keyspring to write the essays.

Rather, we have an external scenario that caused Tolkien to desire to 'find out the truth' with respect to two storylines, and the simple existence of later writings in no way necessarily means Tolkien has found some inconsistency that needed attention.

Galin said:

Rather, we have an external scenario that caused Tolkien to desire to 'find out the truth' with respect to two storylines, and the simple existence of later writings in no way necessarily means Tolkien has found some inconsistency that needed attention.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but we're really running in circles here. If you want to simply define the terms in such a fashion that you're right, go ahead, by all means do so - but there's no point in having a discussion, then.

It's not unnatural that we both believe in our own opinions, however I'm not simply saying 'I'm right' but have (now) asked you often enough for any evidence of any kind of true inconsistency here.

You're not the first to post the idea that JRRT wrote these essays in order to iron out an inconsistency, but that appears to be simply based on the fact that Tolkien wrote the texts.

Illuin said:

Bucky, I wish you would use the forum's quote feature when quoting other people. Other members are not differentiating someone’s quote from your reply, and miss the opportunity to respond .

Click to expand...

Illuin: To tell you the truth, I never knew such a thing existed 'till right now....

I'm a computer illiterate.

Now, if I can make it work in a partial posting 'cut & paste', I'm all set.


BTW: All this over Glorfindel? Some things NEVER change.....

Galin said:

It's not unnatural that we both believe in our own opinions, however I'm not simply saying 'I'm right' but have (now) asked you often enough for any evidence of any kind of true inconsistency here.

You're not the first to post the idea that JRRT wrote these essays in order to iron out an inconsistency, but that appears to be simply based on the fact that Tolkien wrote the texts.

Click to expand...

Look, as long as you reserve for yourself the right to define what a "true inconsistency" is, there is no point in continuing this discussion. No, you're not simply saying "I'm right", you're doing something much worse. You're asking people not to provide evidence for their points, but for distortions you make out of them - and you did so repeatedly during this "discussion". You yourself provided evidence for what I said, but since it doesn't comply with your own set of definitions, you simply ignore it. And as long as that's the case, there's no point in further wasting time.