art is long and time is fleeting @a-grecian-urn - Tumblr Blog

🌒🌓🌔🌕🌖🌗🌘

#atla #atla yue #avatar the last airbender

The Silmarils, The Oath and Free Will

It seems that one of the most interesting issues we have to consider when reading the Silmarillion and evaluating its characters' actions is how much the presence of the Silmarils and the Oath interfere with their ability to make choices. In many ways fandom discourse also appears to separate along this fault line.

For the sake of full disclosure: I have read and entertained enjoyable interpretations of nearly all silm characters and their possible motivations and future arcs, really the only character I've never found a positive connection to is Thingol, but I'm happy to be persuaded if someone has fun ideas. I'll still try to be fair to him here.

I'd first like to get the two, in my opinion, most boring interpretations out of the way:

1.) The Silmarils are so compelling that absolutely nobody can resist them ever, spending time in their presence ensnares you completely, they undermine free will utterly (by extension, so does the oath, but it wouldn't even be really necessary, except to keep their snare long after one has possessed them last). They can only be given to family members or taken forcefully.

Now, this wouldn't make a very compelling story. There was never any chance Thingol or Dior or Elwing could have given them up, the Sons of Feanor had no choice but to do whatever they could to get them back, in some ways you can barely fault Morgoth for any actions taken to keep them. Moral of the story maybe: Don't create magical stones that magically magic away choice. Not very helpful.

2.) The Silmaril are just pretty stones that exert no real influence on their own except for how greedy their worth and prettiness makes people (like the black pearl in the Sherlock Holmes story). Oaths are more like oaths and creeds in our world, nothing more than belief binds you to them. The story is mainly about property rights. The Feanorions are deranged monsters killing innocent people because they believe the pretty rocks belong to them on the basis of 'twice stolen doesn't make you an owner'. Thingol, Dior, and Elwing don't give the stones back even though they (and all their people!) are threatened because they think the pretty rocks belong to them now (and, maybe for Elwing, they function as some sort of blood price, perhaps understandable, but maybe we wouldn't really accept that as a reason to keep them when it endangers the Havens).

A better story than 1 , I would say, though I think this is incompatible with the characterisations Tolkien has given our elves. This seems way too callous, our elves aren't really supposed to be tiny compassionless mini morgoths and saurons who think only of themselves and pretty rocks.

And so I think the real answer can only be

3) The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Now, where exactly the balance lies is up to the reader I think, canon leaves it ambiguous in many details but here is my interpretation:

The Silmarils, like their maker, are compelling and persuasive, they want to be wanted and will find and cling to whatever connection they can make to their holders. I do think they're honest and won't straight up deceive. Plus they contain an arresting dose of divine loveliness.

To Feanor they sing of progress and freedom, and I do think a piece of him is in them. In some way they are one and he is probably the elf that can endure being parted from them least.

His sons are interesting, I'm picturing the oath as a connection that binds the Silmarils to them via their connection to their father in a way, especially since they swore it together. They still connect to each brother individually, but the whole net is also bound by their fea connections to Feanor and it holds more dominion over them the stronger that connection is. Curufin, I suspect has the strongest connection and is bound tightest. I waver on whether Maedhros could have ever broken his, but I'm not surprised Maglor could in the end. In this understanding he'd have broken his bond to Feanor when he threw the Silmaril away. In a very dark headcannon he's spiritually "bleeding out" through the shattered bond and eventually fades into echoes on the beach (but he might also simply be free).

In a way their story is a question on how much you can blame children for following their parents into terrible things. The fact they're all grown is offset by the binding of the Silmarils and the oaths, their will and independence is diminished compared to real adults in our world.

I think Thingol is bound because he never expected Beren to actually succeed, now his actual most precious "possession" (Luthien) has been traded for the Silmaril and to cope, the Silmaril MUST be special and treasured and that's the connection it feeds on.

Probably similar for Dior except it's about Thingol dying violently for it. I also always liked the idea (from Songbirds and Corvids) that Dior was treated a little like a fourth Silmaril by people he met and there's a connection there as well.

Now Elwing, on top of essentially her whole family (and world) being destroyed for the thing, which gives her Thingol and Dior's reason infinitely amplified, I assume the silmaril is providing her comfort and hope, maybe it has some inkling of itself being necessary for the elves' salvation in the end and can project that.

Now from all this I would conclude that the characters in our story are more tightly bound than we in our world or other characters in other stories. But Maedhros standing aside at Losgar f.e. shows that their choices can differ from one another in the same situation. They can bend, interpret and resist to a degree with enormous willpower and enough incentive, I don't think they're totally unfree.

I do think the second kinslaying made the third unavoidable, Elwing could probably not have given up the Silmaril (or trusted the Feanorions enough for appeasement) after that. Who knows if the oath works backward on people who kept the Silmaril from the brothers in the past. And the second kinslaying might have been unavoidable after the first. But I'm not sure, The Aurë entuluva series argues against that quite well I think. And I'm not sure about Alqualondë, and how free they were there. That's probably where a lot of room for interpretation is. And I really wish we could revel in these interesting questions together as a fandom rather than pursue the weird tribalism and strange creation of character-caricatures I see really often.

In any case, If you made it all the way down to here you can have my Morgoth headcannon as a bonus: the Silms show him Angbang porn and I think he plays flappy bird on them. Or LOL maybe, I could see that. He's really annoyed when one goes missing because he prefers the bot lane and now he can't play that one anymore.

thebdelliumlady

Hey OP, I hope you don't mind me jumping in. I loved your ideas and wanted to join in. Sorry in advance!

I agree that Feanor put himself into the Silmarils, (that's very Tolkein) but I have a different take on the what and why. I think it still works with your theory, though.

I think the Silmarils were Feanor's ultimate expression of his insecurity and abandonment issues. We know he had some big feelings about his mother's death and his father's second marriage. He was so hostile towards Fingolfin because he feared being overlooked and replaced. Being so young and having daddy make a whole new family clearly messed him up and Finwe was not equipt to deal with the psychological issues his eldest had. Not really his fault, given he was the first widower to remarry ever, but the damage was done.

So, Feanor grows up brilliant, talented, and deeply insecure that he will be overshadowed, left behind, and forgotten. The Silmarils are peerless, unmatched creations of perfection. They cannot be replicated, replaced, or outshone by anything. Feanor made something that everyone, even the Valar, had to take note of.

So that desperate, visceral need to be seen, acknowledged, valued, all that insecurity he carried around (and made everyone else's problem) got poured into the Silmarils. Because they are made of holy light, they can't be malevolent, but they are needy, ravenous for attention. Just like Feanor was deep down.

I think you were pretty spot on with this bit: "The Silmarils, like their maker, are compelling and persuasive, they want to be wanted and will find and cling to whatever connection they can make to their holders. I do think they're honest and won't straight up deceive. Plus they contain an arresting dose of divine loveliness."

But I think it's more than just wanting to be wanted. They inherited Feanor's need to be wanted. They got his soul-deep need to feel wanted, chosen, special and they will latch onto any connection they can make with a holder to get that. That's what makes them so damn hard to give up. They really, really, don't want their holder to let go and they are very good at convincing their holder not to.

They aren't evil, or trying to cause harm, but they will get what they need however they can. They are full of a hurting child's fear of abandonment and they react like a child. I think that's why the only one that survives the First Age is so chill with Earendil in their star gig.

I love your idea that the Oath is tied to Feanor and the connection he had with each son. Brilliant. I also think my daddy issues/insecurity theory works with it too.

Which son seems to have the most desperate urge to prove himself to Feanor? Curufin, the one who was basically called his minime from birth. That is a lot to prove and I always felt he grew up very insecure about living up to his father's legacy to a level his brothers didn't. His literal name, his identity, was wrapped up in being just like his father. Of course, he would have issues and the Oath/Silmarils would be able to latch onto that.

All in all, I loved your nuanced take and just wanted to add/share.

a-grecian-urn

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts!

I agree wholly with your view on things and I totally think our two interpretations work together well. My thoughts were along the same lines when I considered why the Silmarils want to be wanted so desperately. I also feel like you can see his specific fears of abandonment in the way the Silmarils work: Persuasion and loveliness so they are always wanted most (from feeling replaced by his father), Fea-bonding to cling to and hold a fea tight (from his mother fading), the two things he probably feels he failed at most.

Along those lines I'd honestly also not be surprised if Maedhros was similarly bound to Curufin. If we follow popular interpretations of his relationship to both his parents then something made from the will to bind fea (and family, and especially mothers) together and to him and to be perfect (and meet all expectations) would be very seductive

I btw really like the idea that in a way by your interpretation Earendil and Elwing are fostering a "child" of the house of Feanor as Maglor and Meadhros are kidnap-fostering-whatever their children. It's not at all the same obviously, but still an interesting parallel.

thebdelliumlady

I think you're right about Maedhros being bound so tightly. Though I think he felt the constraints and resented it in a way Curufin did not. Maedhros has so much desperation to do right and then after The Nirnaeth Arnoediad, I think he just gave into the Oath because he had failed at everything else. Before that, he seems to resist far more than some of his brothers. I think Nirnaeth Arnoediad broke him and Maedhros gave in to the seductive promise of a purpose and a chance to do something right, even if he had to do a lot of terrible things to do it. If he could reclaim the Silmarils, then all the death and failure and misery would mean something. It had to mean something and that's what got him.

I love the implications of Elwing and Earendil almost child-swapping with Maedhros and Maglor. The parallels are there. I also think it tracks with our theory that the time when Maglor and Maedhros were being murder dads was the one time in the story where they almost seem at peace. It's not perfect, but they were able to fuck off and be weird in a non-homocidal way with those kids for quite some time after going all Atilla the Hun on half of Beleriand.

They could have just yeeted Elrond and Elros at the nearest reasonably responsible Sindar encampment with a note pinned on their tunic and called it a job well done, but they didn't. There's no indication they were using them as pawns or leverage in any way. I think the urge to look after those kids sort of blotted out the call of the Oath/Silmarils for a time. Elwing and Earendil traded their most precious treasure for the Feanorian's and that balanced the scales for a while.

It's also why Maglor could let the last Silmaril go. It couldn't offer him anything he wanted. He was already breaking away when Maedhros convinced him to go after them. Then, after Maedhros' fiery swan dive, there is literally nothing Maglor wants that the Silmaril can give him. It's just a reminder of everything he's lost.

I'm going to go scream about this for a while now.

a-grecian-urn

I agree about Maedhros, I'm guessing his very real love and connection to Fingon offered a way of counterbalancing the Silmarils' call while it was there.

But while I do see the Silm and Elros/Elrond being paralleled I think this can only 'even the scales' as it were from an in-character viewpoint. If we zoom out to our level there's obviously a huge difference between two actual children being taken from their parents and objects that connect like children to whatever holder being withheld. Honestly, the Silmaril kind of having a child-that-needs-to-be-loved psi-lure and people starting wars over it would be right at home in a GRRMartin Sci-Fi story, it's very Starlady or And Seven Times Never Kill Man. The only difference is of course that the ending wouldn't be nearly as wholesome :D

Another interesting parallel of course is that "Child that is considered closest to their parent/firstborn/most powerful feels dispossessed by later children and unloved and their creative talent becomes corrupted and wreaks havoc on the world" fits Satan/Melkor about as well as Feanor, so I'm not surprised it's him that actually holds the Silms most of the time.

Also something that's personally funny to me is that they are obviously created as a result of Melkor's Arda Marred, with the highest beauty coming from the worst pain as Eru said. And then one becomes a star and they're said to be instrumental in bringing light back at the End of the world. "Ad astra per astera" (Through hardships to the stars) is literally true in Middle Earth!

The Silmarils, The Oath and Free Will

One of the most interesting issues we have to consider when reading the Silmarillion and evaluating its characters' actions is how much the presence of the Silmarils and the Oath interfere with their ability to make choices. In many ways fandom discourse also appears to separate along this line.