Who truly stands out as the greatest in Middle Earth lore?

[Ent]

The wars surrounding the Silmarils were not glorious, but rather miserable and tragic, and the "epic quest" to reclaim the Silmarils only brought pain, misery, grief and ultimately death to everyone involved.

All wars are fought over 'Simlarils' of one kind or another. Tolkien's use of Silmarils for all the absurdities following their theft is probably representative of his view of anything and everything anyone and everyone has ever used as their 'Silmaril' for their wars.

Sadly, in Tolkien's work, the Silmarils are actually 'lost'... i.e. they are stolen. But in the real world, the Silmarils don't even really need to be lost or stolen... there only needs to be an appearance they MIGHT be lost or stolen.

For us in the United States, not to get political, but think about this in relation to the "Democracy" and its two parties. What is it making them be so at war all the time? it is the APPEARANCE one side or the other MIGHT lose something, or have something taken away. And this is fostered to the hilt by the clever 'machine.'

The same occurs between nations. The term 'fear mongering' speaks to the Silmarils most exactly. At least in Middle-earth there was an actual loss. Corruption of mind has gone so far as to only require its potential.

Tolkien's political views are very, very open in his work... and play themselves out in much the same way his religious views do.

 

[Ent]

I did not know this!!! 🥺 Thank you for sharing. Tolkien's a miracle, guys!

Indeed this is true... though I don't think it was 'the same' or one thing killing that group of his friends. Yet all met their death in the war one way or another, leaving him alone... (except maybe one of them with whom he never connected perhaps, but the brain cell telling me that is very, very lonely..!) I'll need to go back and check the reading where I found this information to confirm... (either one of the biographies, or Tolkien and the War, or such.)

 

[ZehnWaters]

In my opinion, if Feanor had not made the silmarils, Melkor would still have waged war against the Valar and the Elves and escaped to Middle Earth. And most of the wars in the Silmarillion would still have happened. So, in my opinion, the wars in the Silmarillion could still have happened again if there were no Silmarils. Because Melkor was obsessed with returning to evil again. So he didn't kill Finwe just for the Silmarils. If it weren't for the Silmarils, he would still have declared war on the Valar and the Elves as before.

Exactly. And he had already corrupted Sauron at this point, so the lasting impact would still exist.

 

[ZehnWaters]

Indeed this is true... though I don't think it was 'the same' or one thing killing that group of his friends. Yet all met their death in the war one way or another, leaving him alone... (except maybe one of them with whom he never connected perhaps, but the brain cell telling me that is very, very lonely..!) I'll need to go back and check the reading where I found this information to confirm... (either one of the biographies, or Tolkien and the War, or such.)

It would explain his deep attachment to his living friends (C.S. Lewis, the Inklings). Don't forget his parents also died when he was very young.

 

[Ent]

Exactly.

Indeed. Melkor's "silmaril" was different, but the same.
Melkor's 'silmaril' was withholding from him what he wanted most... to be Eru, owning and molding everything according to his own wish.

And in a very real sense, this is the same 'simlaril' we all face, though it has different forms. Feanor believed he had the 'right' to sole possession and ownership of the Silmarils, and in his worldview, absolutely nothing else mattered...not even people's lives.

In Melkor's worldview his Silmaril was his feeling he had the 'right' to make, rule, and control it all. Thus Arda became his One Ring.

In Sauron's worldview, he had the 'right' to control it all. (He was just smart enough to know he couldn't make or remake it... but he could certainly control it.) In a real sense, he made himself another Silmaril... which was also his achilles heel, and the one thing he became absolutely a slave to... the One Ring.

NOTE ADDED: Melkor and Sauron both fought the wars they fought because they DIDN'T HAVE what they wanted... but were convinced they should have... so the feared loss of it nonetheless.

Feanor of course possessed it at one time, actually lost it, and feared he would not get it back.

While these are the reverse effects, nonetheless the issue is the same. Fixation on what one does have but looses, or cannot have but wants to gain. See how this fits into what happens at all levels of power and control within countries, and between countries.

Things never change. The Silmaris expose that for us.

 

[ZehnWaters]

Indeed. Melkor's "silmaril" was different, but the same.
Melkor's 'silmaril' was withholding from him what he wanted most... to be Eru, owning and molding everything according to his own wish.

It's ironic, the Silmarils themselves were holy. There's a religious parallel there somewhere but I won't go into it here.

And in a very real sense, this is the same 'simlaril' we all face, though it has different forms. Feanor believed he had the 'right' to sole possession and ownership of the Silmarils, and in his worldview, absolutely nothing else mattered...not even people's lives.

Not even his son's lives. He knew Amrod would try to go back (though he may not have known he was still aboard) when he burned the ships.

In Melkor's worldview his Silmaril was his feeling he had the 'right' to make, rule, and control it all. Thus Arda became his One Ring.

"Into it he poured his cruelty, his malice, and his will to dominate all life." Sounds pretty much like what he did.

You are right that we all face this in different forms. Galadriel, even in drafts where she was the most righteous, had a level of this. She desired to rule. Not evilly, but as a governor or teacher or matriarch. I know I struggle with this desire as well. I'll often daydream about what I'd do if I had the Infinity Gems* and could thus cause my every whim to happen. How would I orchestrate the world while maintaining my beliefs about freedom?

*The Infinity GEMS are their names from the comics, there anyone can use them without harm. The Infinity STONES are their names in the films and using even one can kill you.

 

[Ent]

How would I orchestrate the world while maintaining my beliefs about freedom?

In truth, you would subjugate the world to your views of what freedom actually is. In other words, they would have no freedom lest it be defined by you.
If one thinks to 'orchestrate the world' one has already forced departure from the way of 'freedom' for others, orchestrating according to their own will.
Thus would Gandalf have done with the Silmaril - the One Ring.
Thus Galadriel. Thus Elrond. Or Denethor. Or anyone.

Only Eru has the capability of making every provision for perfect freedom. No created being ever can. And therein lay the great failure of all who chased after their silmarils in Middle-earth... and otherwise.

 

[Turin_Turambar]

Indeed. Melkor's "silmaril" was different, but the same.
Melkor's 'silmaril' was withholding from him what he wanted most... to be Eru, owning and molding everything according to his own wish.

And in a very real sense, this is the same 'simlaril' we all face, though it has different forms. Feanor believed he had the 'right' to sole possession and ownership of the Silmarils, and in his worldview, absolutely nothing else mattered...not even people's lives.

In Melkor's worldview his Silmaril was his feeling he had the 'right' to make, rule, and control it all. Thus Arda became his One Ring.

In Sauron's worldview, he had the 'right' to control it all. (He was just smart enough to know he couldn't make or remake it... but he could certainly control it.) In a real sense, he made himself another Silmaril... which was also his achilles heel, and the one thing he became absolutely a slave to... the One Ring.

Yes, but Melkor did not want to be Eru and shape everything as he wanted, just because of the Silmarils. When the Valar were first created, both in the first music of the Ainur and while the Valar were living together with Eru, Melkor wanted to become Eru and rule everything as his first feeling, desire. Melkor had a sense of selfishness and self. Because he had this feeling, he wanted to become Eru. And when he could not become Eru, he declared war on all the Valar, elves and Arda. So, if Melkor were Eru or replaced Eru, he would rule everything as his greatest wish. And maybe he would not even be a bad character. In fact, he would be as good as Manwe. Because his only wish came true, there would be no need for him to do evil or be a bad character.

 

[ZehnWaters]

In truth, you would subjugate the world to your views of what freedom actually is. In other words, they would have no freedom lest it be defined by you.
If one thinks to 'orchestrate the world' one has already forced departure from the way of 'freedom' for others, orchestrating according to their own will.

This was the major criticism of the first season of Loki. The argument was the show pretty much made it so no one previous to it had any free agency. Their timeline was destroyed unless they did what was desired by Kang for his "Golden Timeline".

 

[ZehnWaters]

Yes, but Melkor did not want to be Eru and shape everything as he wanted, just because of the Silmarils. When the Valar were first created, both in the first music of the Ainur and while the Valar were living together with Eru, Melkor wanted to become Eru and rule everything as his first feeling, desire. Melkor had a sense of selfishness and self. Because he had this feeling, he wanted to become Eru. And when he could not become Eru, he declared war on all the Valar, elves and Arda. So, if Melkor were Eru or replaced Eru, he would rule everything as his greatest wish. And maybe he would not even be a bad character. In fact, he would be as good as Manwe. Because his only wish came true, there would be no need for him to do evil or be a bad character.

Until someone defied his will.

 

[Ent]

as he wanted, just because of the Silmarils

I never said he did it 'just because of the silmarils.' I said his ambition to be Eru WAS his silmaril. To him, Feanor's silmarils were just a tiny passing tidbit he wanted due to his lust... a part of what he wanted to possess.

 

[Turin_Turambar]

Until someone defied his will.

Oh, I never thought of that. No matter how stronger and powerful someone is, they cannot have as much perfection and control as the true god itself. In fact, if Melkor could understand that he was not as perfect as Eru, I think everything would be fine and nothing would happen.

 

[Turin_Turambar]

I never said he did it 'just because of the silmarils.' I said his ambition to be Eru WAS his silmaril. To him, Feanor's silmarils were just a tiny passing tidbit he wanted due to his lust... a part of what he wanted to possess.

Oh, I misunderstood, I'm so sorry. Yes, you are right, the silmarils were part of Melkor's desire to become eru and rule.

 

[Ent]

the silmarils were part of Melkor's desire to become eru and rule.

Getting close, but still not quite there.
Let's try it this way:

To Feanor, the Silmarils were "all", and he would sacrifice ANYTHING, for his "all" - the Silmarils. Even his own life.

To Melkor, being Eru and molding and controlling everything was his "all"... SO... being Eru was Melkor's 'silmaril'.... he would sacrifice anything to be Eru. Even his own being.

The ACTUAL silmarils are just a 'representation' of a state of mind.
Melkor couldn't care less for the 'real' Silmarils, other than that they are bright shiny bobbles, and he wanted them so nobody else could have them.

Everybody has their 'silmarils'... their 'states of mind' they feel they 'must have' and fear losing. It's the 'state of mind' that's REAL.. the silmarils become just a figure of speech for them.

 

[Stu_Ov85]

I voted Feanor.

Without his charge against Morgoth, what exactly happens in Middle-earth? Zero of the Noldor heroics transpire, and you would think that the Edain who pass over the Blue Mountains are quickly crushed or would side with Morgoth in the face of certain defeat? Im speculating, rather than concluding.

If this happens, then there's no warriors such as Hurin, Turin, Eärendil , Beren etc. This results in no Numenor. That the Valar would have started another war with Morgoth is up for debate, given their 'hands off' rule when it came to Men.

When I think of the later days in Middle-earth, when hobbits and the like and feasting and signing song, I always see Feanor as the one of the chief characters in their tales . A deeply conflicted individual, but the catalyst for much of the wonder and magic that was to follow.

 

[d4rk3lf]

If we talk about ultimate influence, over all ages, for sure Melkor.
Second is Feanor, that leads many elves to M.E, that changes the fate of M.E.

If we talk about ages, ultimate is Sauron (without him, there would be much less "events" in the world)
If we talk "per age" I'd say like this:
1st Age: Earendil
(without his effort, there wouldn't be war of wraths)
2nd Age: Isildur
(without his effort, Sauron wouldn't be defeated, leading to a very different third Age, then we know of)
3rd Age: Gandalf
(without his effort, Sauron wouldn't be destroyed)

 

[Ricardo]

It depends, I guess that by Middle Earth you mean Arda, otherwise the Valar should not be included (unless you take the period before the destruction of the lamps.

If we mean that, then I would say Ulmo. Nearly an equal to Manwe, but was the only Vala that didn't abandon the elves and men in Beleriand and it was through his actions that Earendil delivered his message and the Valar finally acted.

But if it's about the whole Legendarium, then there are no doubts, Iluvatar.

In my opinion, if Feanor had not made the silmarils, Melkor would still have waged war against the Valar and the Elves and escaped to Middle Earth. And most of the wars in the Silmarillion would still have happened. So, in my opinion, the wars in the Silmarillion could still have happened again if there were no Silmarils. Because Melkor was obsessed with returning to evil again. So he didn't kill Finwe just for the Silmarils. If it weren't for the Silmarils, he would still have declared war on the Valar and the Elves as before.

I don't disagree, but bear in mind it's difficult to speculate about unwritten fantasy. I find myself sometimes thinking of Tolkien's world as real, until I slap myself on the face.

I do agree that Melkor would have tried to dominate Arda even if there weren't silmarils, the silmarils weren't his target, just the cherry on top, what he wanted was all of Arda.

However, without the silmarils, it's possible that the Noldor wouldn't have rebelled against the Valar and then the Valar, Maiar and elves of Aman could have probably planned a massive assault on Morgoth. If the armies of the Valar were able to rip off Morgoth's armies in the war of the wrath, their combined forces when Morgoth still hadn't developed the dragons would have overwhelmed him, much faster and less painfully.

But without the drama, the suffering, the deaths we wouldn't have a truly epic story. The Silmarillion is full of tragic moments that help in defeating Morgoth. The heroes all face tragedy that make them stronger and that's how they finally win.

Remember that Tolkien originally wrote the Hobbit as a children's book, for his own children, it was much lighter, even Gollumn wasn't as bad, but when he had to reconcile it with LOTR he needed to rewrite parts of it, and as usual with Tolkien, he found a way to explain it. Bilbo just didn't tell the truth at first, because of the evil influence or the ring. We need suffering, death and pain for a story to be epic, and interesting to read, unless one like children's books only.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Of course, there is suffering and death in The Hobbit, but the tone grows more serious and "adult" in later chapters, which fits the theme of growing up.