talktob3cks:fieldofheathers-stuff:awildellethappears:thatsthegreatgreenwoodtoyou:lotrconfessions:I h

talktob3cks:fieldofheathers-stuff:awildellethappears:thatsthegreatgreenwoodtoyou:lotrconfessions:I have never liked the Feanorians and I could never understand how anyone could. They killed so many people and destroyed so many beautiful things, and they (assumedly) killed those two baby boys, Elured and Elurin. Maedhros and Maglor’s adoption of Elros and Elrond could never make up for the crimes they committed, and it disgusts me that anyone could think it did. They were meant to be the good guys, instead I can’t see anything but greed in their hearts, Morgoth and Sauron are better imho.OMG YES! SO MUCH THIS! The reason I cannot be part of the tumblr silmarillion fandom is because there are people who act as if these are complicated characters instead of reaaally straightforward mass murderers. Uggg. It’s the ugliest form of villain-stanning I’ve seen anywhere. I was actually not going get involved in this, because the Fëanorians are such an extremely controversial subject in the Silmarillion fandom that even as a fan of them I am boggling at some of the defensive positions as much as I am at the negative ones, and sitting in between chairs (as they say in German) is a little uncomfortable. Honestly, the implication that one must love or support the Fëanorians, those poor little lambs who really are victims and don’t deserve (lots of their) blame sits as badly with me as the idea that people who don’t like the Fëanorians are not approaching the text right or are preferring a simplistic reading (because you know, you can have an understanding of complexity and still dislike characters, and especially with these there are plenty of reasons and/or priorities that may fall differently for different people), but. BUT. Seeing the Fëanorians dismissed as evil monsters or “straightforward mass murderers”, or labeling people who like them as needing to grow up, or, goodness forbid, calling these fans’ behaviour “disgusting” is both simplistic and dismissive. It’s okay to not like things, but don’t be a dick about it, as the saying goes. The Silmarillion admittedly doesn’t really have a track record narrative depth at its most basic (which is not its point either; it is intended to be a body of legends that supports different avenues of interpretation, and no, they don’t have to be all unequivocally positive), but if there is one thing that Tolkien made clear it’s that the Fëanorians are not unusual in their shades-of-grey-ness even if they number among the more extreme cases in their actions. Even the characters that Tolkien intended to be objectively good (and which are very clearly adhering to a lot of Tolkien’s own values - authorial intent is often difficult to determine, but in this case I think it’s no stretch to claim that there are distinct matches between author and fictional world) are not exempt from imperfections. I’m not trying to apologize the actions of the Fëanorians by pointing at others (ugh, nope, I don’t want to abrogate their agency or responsibility or guilt), in fact even as a fan of theirs I find the kinslayings and many associated acts reprehensible (if mostly understandable when doing a close reading, and hell yes, it makes me uneasy sometimes), but the point that needs making here is that no character in the Silmarillion is ever one single thing only. Not even people you may consider evil. There are very many fluent dynamics, and becoming ensconced in a static one - as for example the Second- and Third Age Elves do, is in fact depicted as quite problematic and against the order of things. But let’s look at some people:Morgoth turned from a failed creator to rebel and nihilistic Dark Lord, Sauron turned from a lover of order to tyrant. Thingol turned from an enemy of Men to the foster-father of one. The Fëanorians turned from princes in a contested situation to exiles struggling to uphold a venture that was doomed to failure from the start, and they did some no good, very bad, horrible, terrible things in the process, as well as some noble and genuinely good ones - but finding those gradations and complexities and contradictions fascinating for (for example) their tenacity, or loyalty to their father, or the fact that their “dreadful oath” had left them sick and tired at the end does in no way necessitate approval of their actions and shows a fair deal of development. Reading them as insane, fingersteeply villains who just can’t wait to plunge their swords into the next-best innocent misrepresents both the motives of the Fëanorians within the text and the motivations of many fans who may find self-inflicted, imperfect clusterfucks like the Fëanorians to be just the thing.In terms of the lack of sympathetic actions that came up in your other reply, I agree that there is not much of a repentance regarding the kinslayings apart from the end, but they are still not exclusively evil, and there are plenty of places that make them sympathetic and more complex to me and a lot of other people. Several of them below a cut because this post is already long enough.Read More*Slowly stands up and claps*AMEN.The intriguing thing about the Silmarillion is it revolves around characters who are deeply complex and broken. There are no “hobbits” or characters who are truly innocent. Even the heroes of the First Age had serious flaws.-Finrod died because of an oath he swore, which caused the death of his kingdom. It could be argued that he was patronizing, and he had a group of starving elves drag his treasure across the Helcaraxe.-Glorfindel was killed because he was too vain to braid his hair.-Beren massacred dwarves for vengeance.-Fingon participated in the first kinslaying.-Fingolfin killed himself.Perhaps several characters might be considered ideal heroes (Luthien, Huor, Hurin…), but most of them make poor choices for good reasons or good choices for poor reasons. This is why the book is unique. It isn’t a fairytale, it’s a history.Agreed. What I really don’t like is when any character gets a free pass as a “good” character who makes no mistakes and does nothing questionable. Because they all do. The narrative of The Silmarillion demands moral relativism, if not in the cosmic sense (though I think that, too), at least in the sense of looking how individual actions affect other characters. It comes down to a matter of taste. I like Fingon’s hair, so I’ll headcanon away or rationalize or justify the kinslaying thing; Luthien is a BAMF so I’ll ignore the fact that in her happily ever after with Beren she wore stolen property that made her age faster because it was shiny and pretty; none of these things matter when they are your personal opinion. It matters when you call other people wrong for not accepting your personal view of a very indeterminate text.   -- source link

More pics about