# The fate of Ecthelion the Balrog-slayer



## Burzum (Oct 20, 2008)

I think it is worthy of note that of the three known identities who have slain a Balrog (Ecthelion, Glorfindel, and Gandalf), all were slain themselves in the process, but two were sent back while one was not. Gandalf is more or less a special case (he's a Maia, etc.), so I can understand ignoring his case in relation to Ecthelion's case, but Glorfindel's case is too similar to be dismissed.

They are both from Gondolin, are leaders of major houses, and died in the same war. Some of the differences I can think of are: Glorfindel's body was preserved and he had Vanyarin blood. The Vanyarin blood doesn't matter, since by the time Glorfindel was sent back the ban against the Noldor was cleared, and he was a Noldo at any rate. The preservation of the corpse does seem more important, but I don't think it would matter much.

So, why wasn't Ecthelion sent back?

Maybe I'm thinking backwards, though; "why/how was Glorfindel sent back?" might be a better question, since in the bigger picture (outside of the frame of Balrog-slayers), Glorfindel's case is the peculiar one, not Ecthelion's.


----------



## YayGollum (Oct 21, 2008)

Tolkien doesn't write enough about reincarnation, for myself. I don't see why Ecthelion couldn't have been reincarnated, too. We just never met the guy in his new body. I read that any elf could get reincarnated. I read nothing about requirements for a new body, besides having some living relatives who plan on having a kid. I am wondering if Glorfindel's soul was tossed into the body of the unborn elf, then he had to grow up with lots of frustrations. "Shut up, lady! I'm Glorfindel! You can't tell me what to do! Could you hand me that thing on the top shelf really quick?" Or did he get to grow up like any other kid, and there was some sort of trigger to traumatically flood him with his old body's memories, thereby making him scoff at the boring life he'd been peacefully living with his new family? I don't know how reincarnation works. I would like to, since I have a cool idea for another elf type character.


----------



## Elthir (Oct 21, 2008)

Tolkien seems to find a number of reasons why Glorfindel was reincarnated (being under the ban was problematic). He didn't list them like this, but here goes:

1) Glorfindel was an Elda of high and noble spirit (I'm going to assume exceptionally high and noble is meant)

2) he incurred the ban reluctantly only because of kinship and allegiance to Turgon, and love for his Kindred.

3) he took no part in the Kinslaying

4) 'More important': he had sacrificed his life, enabling Tuor and Idril to escape, a deed of vital importance to the designs of the Valar.

So Glorfindel was purged of any guilt (in note 12 Tolkien describes that his guilt had been small, and once again refers to his noble character, among other things), released from Mandos, and Manwe restored him to bodily life -- and he gained the primitive innocence and grace of the Eldar. It is then said he became a friend and follower of Gandalf! Glorfindel remained in the Blessed Realm, but his ultimate return (it is said) must have been for the purpose of strengthening Gil-galad and Elrond, in SA 1600 it appears.

*YayGollum*, basically for a (very) long time JRRT held that an Elf could be reincarnated by being reborn as a child, but he ultimately rejected this. Tolkien turned to the idea of the Valar restoring the body, and noted that the former idea must be abandoned or at least noted as a false notion.


----------



## Burzum (Oct 21, 2008)

That looks like enough explanation. Thanks.


----------



## YayGollum (Oct 22, 2008)

No information on how things would have worked in the reincarnation scenario, though? That crazy Tolkien guy changed his mind on all kinds of things, and I have no problem with working with whichever idea is more convenient, or just making something up, if required.


----------



## Elthir (Oct 23, 2008)

YayGollum said:


> No information on how things would have worked in the reincarnation scenario, though?


 
Tolkien did write some texts, and Christopher Tolkien did not reproduce them in full but explained the essential points. There is a manuscript entitled Reincarnation of Elves wherein JRRT decided that the Elvish fea retains a memory, an imprint of its hroa, its 'former house', so powerful and precise that the reconstruction of an identical body can proceed from it. For Tolkien's description of fea see below, as it's a bit long I paraphrased it just a bit for brevity. 

This idea of the _fea_ retaining a memory of its _hroa_ for Elvish reincarnation appears in another work called The Converse of Manwe and Eru. In this text re-birth was still an alternate possibility, however it was not within the power of the Valar, and God said: 'Those whom ye judge fit to be re-born, if they desire it and understand clearly what they incur, ye shall surrender to Me; and I will consider them'. But Christopher Tolkien explains that JRRT had difficulties with the idea of re-birth, both practical and psychological difficulties, the most fatal objection being that it: '... contradicts the fundamental notion that fea and hroa were each fitted to the other, and since hroar have a physical descent, the body of rebirth, having different parents, must be different, and this must be a condition of pain to the reborn fea.'


A later text (in two versions) is characterized as a discussion of the question of Elvish reincarnation. The essentials are explained in note 17 to Last Writings, reproduced in the last volume of _The History of Middle-Earth_ series. It is said that JRRT discussed again the idea that Elvish reincarnation might be achieved by re-birth, 'and rejected it as emphatically as he had done in the discussion called Reincarnation of Elves'. This is also where Christopher explains (that JRRT wrote) that the idea must be abandoned or at least noted as a false notion, probably of Mannish origin. 


A somewhat simplified version of the matter anyway!

__________


Fea: 'spirit': the particular 'spirit' belonging to and 'housed' in any one hroa of the incarnates, corresponding, more or less to 'soul' and to 'mind', when any attempt is made to distinguish between mentality, and the mental processes of incarnates, conditioned and limited by the co-operation of the physical organs of the hroa. It was thus in its being (apart from its experience) the impulse and power to think: enquire and reflect, as distinct from the means of acquiring data. It was conscious and self-aware: 'self' however in Incarnates included the hroa. The fea was said by the Eldar to retain the impress or memory of the hroa and of all the combined experiences of itself and its body.


----------



## Bucky (Dec 4, 2008)

Some of the differences I can think of are: Glorfindel's body was preserved and he had Vanyarin blood. 

*Where'd those things come from?

Never heard either.....

First one, Glorf's body fell a long way & must've been pretty damaged, though brought out of the abyss.....*


----------



## Elthir (Dec 5, 2008)

Well the Vanyarin association likely comes from Glorfindel's golden hair. Technically Tolkien reveals that he was a Noldo with 'kinship' to Turgon (whose wife was Elenwe of course) but doesn't go into detail on the nature of this kinship. Since Tolkien writes...

'Owing to intermarriage the golden hair of the Vanyar sometimes later appeared among the Ñoldor: notably in the case of Finarfin, and in his children Finrod and Galadriel, in whom it came from King Finwe's second wife, Indis of the Vanyar.' JRRT _Quendi And Eldar_ 

... it wouldn't be that much of a jump for Glorfindel to have some Vanyarin ancestry, though it's not stated anywhere _specifically_ that I recall. Before the late essays on Glorfindel were published Robert Foster (_Guide to Middle-earth_) had conjectured that Glorfindel was possibly of the House of Finarfin, due to his hair.


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 5, 2008)

A few ideas:


When did Glorfindel return to Middle-earth? There is some textual evidence, I think I recall – *Galin* may be able to put his finger upon it faster than I – that Glorfindel returned during the Second Age, not the Third, when the Istari appeared.
Glorfindel died protecting Eärendil and his parents from a Balrog in the Pass of Crissaegrim; Ecthelion died leading part of the defense of the city of Gondolin. Now, Ecthelion proved incredibly tough: he speared Gothmog with the spike on his helmet after he’d lost both his arms; and Gothmog was arguably the toughest f the bad guys besides Sauron and Morgoth (and possibly one of the dragons, such as Ancalagon) but the battle for Gondolin was already lost; Glorfindel died to sustain hope, and by his sacrifice, Tuor, Idril, and Eärendil survived to reach the Mouths of Sirion. This might be argued to have no bearing on whether Glorfindel might have returned to Middle-earth rather than Ecthelion; but I think it does.
The simple fact is that Ecthelion might well have had enough of Middle-earth; Glorfindel clearly had not.
Perhaps the whole issue simply revolves about the fact that Tolkien re-used the name _Glorfindel_ while writing _LotR_.
Should we not assume that Ecthelion suffered a stay in Mandos, was released, and returned to Eldamar to be with his family and friends, as did apparently many other of the Noldor who went to Middle-earth?


----------



## Illuin (Dec 6, 2008)

> by Galin
> _Before the late essays on Glorfindel were published Robert Foster (Guide to Middle-earth) had conjectured that Glorfindel was possibly of the House of Finarfin, due to his hair._


 

I don’t see how that would be possible myself, at all; given the known genealogies of the House of Finarfin. I’m pretty sure Tolkien would have revealed that in some way (in HoME, his Letters, somewhere), considering how much attention was given to the House of Finarfin in all of his writings. Even in LoTR, it was an Elf from the House of Finarfin (Galadriel) that had a pivotal role. So I’m not buying this Foster character’s "conjecture" .

As far as Alcuin’s post; I think you nailed it spot on. That’s about as accurate and comprehensive as you can get with this subject as far as I'm concerned .


----------



## Elthir (Dec 6, 2008)

Alcuin said:


> (...) When did Glorfindel return to Middle-earth? There is some textual evidence, I think I recall – *Galin* may be able to put his finger upon it faster than I – that Glorfindel returned during the Second Age, not the Third, when the Istari appeared.


 
I'm usually pretty quick on Glorfindel matters, once I find the thread 

SA 1600 is appears.

JRRT imagined that Glorfindel returned during the Second Age, before the shadow fell on Númenor, and that it 'might' have been as early as SA 1200, when Sauron came to Lindon. In _Of The Rings Of Power_ however, it was said that only to Lindon he (Sauron) did not come, for Gil-galad and Elrond doubted him and his fair-seeming. Anyway, Tolkien continues: _'But it may have been, perhaps more probably,' _as late as c. 1600, when the Dark Tower was completed and the One forged. Tolkien writes that in 1600 it became clear to the leaders of the Elves, Men and Dwarves that war was inevitable against Sauron, now unmasked as a new Dark Lord. 

This is from _Glorfindel II._ There is a note that presumably came between the writing of Glorfindel I and II (CJRT guesses), since JRRT mused that while Glorfindel might have come with Gandalf: _'it seems far more likely that he was sent in the crisis of the Second Age, when Sauron invaded Eriador, and that though not (yet) mentioned in the annals recording Sauron's defeat he played a notable and heroic part in the war'._ 

At the end of this note is written _'Númenórean ship' _presumably indicating how Glorfindel crossed the Sea.


----------



## Bucky (Dec 23, 2008)

Now, Ecthelion proved incredibly tough: he speared Gothmog with the spike on his helmet after he’d lost both his arms;*

This is such an early writing, one of Tolkien's original Lost Tales in fact, that one cannot accept it as a 'historical' part of Middle-earth 'canon' by any stretch of the imagination.........

The number of Balrogs is far greater than Tolkien later came to conceive & the story has Tuor & Ectellion killing Balrogs 
left & right (3 & 5 each I believe).


On Gloefindel's return to Middle'earth, Tolkien wrote those 2 essays very late in life & close together (1967). I think it's fair to say that, as in many unpublished matters, it was hardly selttled in Tolkien's mind whether Glorfindel returned in the Second or Third Age.......

Each version presents it's own difficulties in trying to fit into 'know history'.

On the one hand, we have it on record that the Istari came alone in the Third Age 1000.

But, if Glorfindel came on a special ship in c. S.A. 1600, why is he never mentioned until T.A. 1976?
Why is such a prominant elf not mentioned in the Last Alliance, for example?*


----------



## Elthir (Jan 7, 2009)

Bucky said:


> On Gloefindel's return to Middle'earth, Tolkien wrote those 2 essays very late in life & close together (1967).


 
Even later, in 1972 is seems (or so I read CJRT's commentary to this).



> I think it's fair to say that, as in many unpublished matters, it was hardly selttled in Tolkien's mind whether Glorfindel returned in the Second or Third Age.......


 
This made me rethink _Glorfindel I_ (GI), which might contain an easier reason for Glorfindel to have returned -- as a companion to Gandalf on his voyage to Middle-earth in the Third Age, possibly as a guard or assistant in addition to being a friend and follower (considering the first words of the second page anyway, noting that the first page is missing). 



> '... as guards or assistants. An Elf who had once known Middle-earth and had fought in the long wars against Melkor would be an eminently suitable companion for Gandalf. We could then reasonably suppose that Glorfindel (possibly as one of a small party, more probably as a sole companion) landed with Gandalf-Olórin about Third Age 1000.'
> 
> [skipping to end of GI]
> 
> '(...) It is indeed probable that he had in Valinor already become a friend and follower of Olórin, Even in the brief glimpses of him given in The Lord of the Rings he appears as specially concerned with Gandalf, and was one (the most powerful it would seem) of those sent out from Rivendell when the disquieting news reached Elrond that Gandalf had never reappeared to guide or protect the Ring-bearer.'


 

Tolkien seems to reject this in _Glorfindel II_, but there he appears to be considering it an improbable exception that Glorfindel be sent to Middle-earth after the Blessed Realm was removed from the Circles of the World. OK, but as the focus of the trip was really Gandalf and the mission of the Istari anyway, I don't think it necessarily would make Glorfindel _'... of greater power and importance than seems fitting'_ (GII) to have him accompany the Wizard.

Hmmm. I kind of like this explanation from GI myself.



> Each version presents it's own difficulties in trying to fit into 'know history'. On the one hand, we have it on record that the Istari came alone in the Third Age 1000. But, if Glorfindel came on a special ship in c. S.A. 1600, why is he never mentioned until T.A. 1976? Why is such a prominant elf not mentioned in the Last Alliance, for example?


 
On a slip of paper, seemingly written between GI and GII, JRRT noted: 'it seems far more likely that he was sent in the crisis of the Second Age, when Sauron invaded Eriador, to assist Elrond, and that though not (yet) mentioned in the annals recording Sauron's defeat he played a notable and heroic part in the war.'

I posted that earlier but here emphasizing Tolkien's _'not (yet) mentioned'_ -- in the context of this earlier return anyway. Seems like maybe he planned to add something in some way.


----------



## Bucky (Jan 14, 2009)

On a slip of paper, seemingly written between GI and GII, JRRT noted: 'it seems far more likely that he was sent in the crisis of the Second Age, when Sauron invaded Eriador, to assist Elrond, and that though not (yet) mentioned in the annals recording Sauron's defeat he played a notable and heroic part in the war.'

I posted that earlier but here emphasizing Tolkien's 'not (yet) mentioned' -- in the context of this earlier return anyway. Seems like maybe he planned to add something in some way. 

*OK, I'll buy that.*


----------



## Tyelkormo (Jan 14, 2009)

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


----------



## Prince of Cats (Jan 14, 2009)

Tyelkormo said:


> 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.



Yeah, I can see it diminishing the significance of Luthien being allowed back, but there are different motives to each. Luthien was for a relationship, Glorfindel was to battle Sauron for the fate of Arda. It all does seem a bit convenient, though


----------



## Bucky (Jan 14, 2009)

Well, I too was never that comfortable with the 'GSBS' (Glorfindel Sent Back Syndrome), and all because of a duplicate name.......

But, it's Tolkien's world, not mine or your's. 

Reading HoMe, there's a wealth of evidence that dead Elves reaquire their bodies in time. (It's even stated in The Silmarillion: 'And Finrod walks with his father Finarfin beneath the trees in Eldamar'' after his death in Minas Tirith to the werewolf).

So, Tolkien sends one who was 'born again' back to Middle-earth (sounds absurd that the Valar would do this even as I write it)......

Perhaps not that absurd though.

Just a precursor to the Istari......


----------



## Illuin (Jan 14, 2009)

> _Originally posted by Tyelkormo_
> _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. _


 
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.


----------



## Tyelkormo (Jan 14, 2009)

Illuin said:


> 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.



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


----------



## Prince of Cats (Jan 14, 2009)

Tyelkormo said:


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



Wow, I'd never seen this before!







Thanks, Tyelkormo


----------



## Ingwë (Jan 14, 2009)

Prince of Cats said:


> ...


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_


----------



## Illuin (Jan 14, 2009)

> by Tyelkormo
> _As a counter, I need but point at Tolkien's grave: He didn't marry Glorfindel_


 


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


----------



## Bucky (Jan 14, 2009)

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. *


----------



## Illuin (Jan 14, 2009)

> 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._


 
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!


----------



## Bucky (Jan 14, 2009)

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..... *


----------



## Illuin (Jan 15, 2009)

> _*Originally posted by Bucky*_
> _*It always comes back to Glorfindel and/or Balrogs....
> 
> ALWAYS.*_


 
Well, there is good reason I guess.



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


 
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.


----------



## Tyelkormo (Jan 15, 2009)

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..... *



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.


----------



## Ingwë (Jan 15, 2009)

Bucky said:


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


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'


----------



## Elthir (Jan 15, 2009)

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


 
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.


----------



## Tyelkormo (Jan 15, 2009)

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.


 
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...


----------



## Elthir (Jan 15, 2009)

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.


 
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.


 
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.


 
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.


----------



## Tyelkormo (Jan 15, 2009)

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.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


 
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.


----------



## Illuin (Jan 15, 2009)

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 .


----------



## Elthir (Jan 15, 2009)

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.


 
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.


 
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.


 
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.


 
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.


 
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.


----------



## Tyelkormo (Jan 16, 2009)

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.


 
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.


 
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.


 
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.


----------



## Elthir (Jan 16, 2009)

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.


 
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!


 
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.


 
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.


 
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.


----------



## Tyelkormo (Jan 16, 2009)

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.



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.


----------



## Elthir (Jan 16, 2009)

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.


----------



## Bucky (Jan 17, 2009)

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 .



*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..... *


----------



## Tyelkormo (Jan 18, 2009)

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.



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.


----------



## Elthir (Jan 18, 2009)

Tyelkormo said:


> 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".



*Tyelkormo*: on the contrary I'm asking you to provide _specific_ evidence for your point -- looking for something specific to back up your own statement. You wrote: _'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.' _


You define what a 'true inconsistency' is -- then point out which specific elements or details fall in line with your definition.


What exactly doesn't fit with what rule? for example, if you say 'reincarnated Elves can't or don't return to Middle-earth at any time' then please provide the text where this is established as a rule. I say that Tolkien had to do nothing here because there was nothing here that didn't fit with any established rules. JRRT no more had to explain the appearance of two occurrences of _Glorfindel_ than he had to explain more than one instance of _Rúmil_, or _Boromir._

If you can't point to A being arguably inconsistent with B -- that is, if you can't provide anything specific that doesn't fit with something else, then yes I'm challenging (not 'distorting') your general statement here. 




> 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.



Here you say I provided evidence for what 'you said' (meaning your point I assume), and you also wrote: _'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.'_ Not 'glitch' or 'inconsistency' here, but the situation is 'far from self-explanatory'.



In my opinion inconsistency and not 'self-explanatory' are not the same things. Tolkien simply deciding to write about whether or not there were two Glorfindels is very different from a _need_ to explain something _because_ it is not consistent with some established point or rule.



After the publication of _The Silmarillion_ in 1977, people began to wonder if the Glorfindel of the Gondolin tale could be the same one from The _Lord of the Rings._ The matter wasn't self-explanatory, but why characterize the mere appearance of the same name as inconsistent with something else?


----------

