shoulder, snake: his very ambitious first tattoo. instead of adhering too closely to the sort of milestones beor's people would associate with tattooing (largely because he was hardly a fresh adult, did not intend to have a child anytime soon, and couldn't think of a particularly noble past deed he would like immortalized on his skin.) he wanted a tattoo instead out of a kind of intense and sudden love for how they looked and his own developing ideas about the agency to "mar" his own body (see previous rant). he couldn't settle on an idea and just about drove the tattooer mad going back and forth and starting every conversation with a new concept. she eventually convinced him to let her pick from one of his better ideas, and she happened to like the heraldic device of the flowered serpent. he was thrilled with it but he had a single regret; he couldn't see it without a mirror and major contortions. his intention was to only get the one tattoo.
left arm, sun: following the idea that i feel he would be both obligated to visit the children and children's children and so on of balan, but also that he needs little excuse to disappear on an "important errand" a thousand miles away from nargothrond, it is a while until he decides to get another tattoo. he could have made the choice to mark the generations on himself, but he didn't start with baran and belen and it feels strange to decide to pick up the habit now. what breaks his streak is an offhand remark that beldir's daughter in law is starting to learn how to tattoo, and he doesn't think too hard about immediately volunteering to be practiced on. adanel's first attempts are recognizably a little aesthetically mismatched from the usual subjects the people of beor favor, and also embarrassingly bad in her opinion. the sun is the first tattoo she has done on someone who is not herself and she spent the whole time mortified at how lopsided it was.
left shoulder, portrait: adanel did not die of mortification after the first tattoo and finrod did not hate her because the sun was an oblong lump. he was delighted actually he loved it and he insisted that one day she would be renowned for her skill and he would be counted lucky to have such an example of her work. a self-effacing comment about how the work in question is hardly more than a couple wobbly lines results in a self-portrait of the artist so that none could dispute its creator. this might be his favorite tattoo.
ribs, top cat: after some time, and intent to prove that her skill has improved (and that her aesthetic sensibilities have been shifted in a more traditional direction) adanel attempts a mountain cat (so chosen because of its golden coloration and its silent approach, which she thinks will be an honorable comparison) this does not go as planned. she refuses to touch tool to his skin again until she can be sure she can make something she wont be ashamed to look upon.
left hand, dots: the ink of the tattoos is primarily soot, but the source of the soot is very specialized and important. by burning medicinally or spiritually beneficial plants, collecting the soot from the smoke on a metal dish, scraping and re-constituting the pigment with water, there is created an ink that not only provides lasting dark color, but also maintains the positive benefits of the plants used in its creation. all of this to say that he has been plagued for more years than he cares to count by an ache in his fingers and hand that is only exacerbated by a pen. each dot is a treatment for the pain and every so often another dot will join the line.
ribs, bottom cat: adanel can finally say, after years of hard work and persistent shame at her previous cat related failure, this one is fine. now please stop showing the first cat.
additional notes: all of his tattoos are on the left side of his body by both chance and also intentional choice. (chance only because it's his left hand that hurts) he started on the left and continued on the left and even a choice made without thought can take on meaning. he is left handed so his left side is his dominant or acting side. the hand he touches the world with is his left, the foot he begins walking with is his left, and so his left side is what affects change upon or "marks" the world. and by "marking" the world is marked in turn. it feels like a tidy justification for keeping them to his left side and so he sticks with it.
adanel: though her niece andreth is explicitly named as keeping some degree of counsel with finrod or even just talking to him at least once, i zeroed in on adanel instead. partly because as someone marrying into a completely different group of people there's more pressure than usual to get along and fit in and be accepted than there would be if she were closer to home and to her old family. and less welcome as someone not well-known. finrod, though he has tied himself to beor's house and their fates with his, is a bit of an eternal and unavoidable outsider, and them continuing to welcome him feels like less of an expectation and more of a hope. he is maybe not the most conventional choice to welcome her into a fold he is tenuously a part of, but welcome her he shall. and the friendship he maintains with her aunt helps to build what friendship he has with andreth later.
learning valuable life skills like looking into someones eyes and seeing everything thats wrong with them.
^ the unpainted drawing. i have been spending a lot of time drawing by the river which i think should explain the amount of springtime foliage. chokecherries are blooming today they smell so so good and theres so many of them. last year was a terrible chokecherry season in my area, this year conditions seem to be more favorable. :D i gave encouragements to them so hopefully in the summer i will get to make jam for my friends. i also had a chat with a duck yesterday i dont think she enjoyed it terribly but she did tolerate me long enough for pleasantries. also saw one million tiny tiny tiny fry hiding from the current behind a beaver dam in the river. and the damselfly and dobsonfly larvae are getting pretty big... soon there will be bugs bigger than gnats and small moths... exciting days to come at the river. also met a really rude clam. i dont wish to speak on that.
I’m gonna propose “I guess you haven’t read the silmarillion then :/” as a default response to anyone not understanding a reference to something obscure. even if it’s not remotely Tolkien related. I want to build up a perception that perhaps the sum total of human knowledge is contained in the silmarillion
This is why he is princess whumpina btw. Does anyone care about his 1 million tortures .....,. Not a single break for like 600 years its honestly very impressive
Concerning (things about) Hobbits: Meeting the Big Man
One of the most important characters in Lord of the Rings is someone you like and trust. You quote him often, remember him fondly, and rely on his word.
You don't know his name. Fanart is nonexistent; there’s no Ao3 tag, no breakout film portrayal, no Amazon money-milking series for this character. You know his voice, have memorised his words; you've probably never read any meta about him.
I'll bet I’m the only person you've seen on Tumblr who really talks about That Fucking Guy, and I hate that man with a cold academic passion. (I also love him. He's my blorbo. He could be yours.)
I think you shouldn't trust him as much as you do.
Here is why.
This book is largely concerned with Hobbits, and from its pages a reader may discover much of their character and a little of their history...
That is the first sentence of The Fellowship of the Ring.
The prologue of the Lord of the Rings is iconic. Swept away by the story, we forget we’re reading at all. It's understandable. Who can resist the overwhelming charm of the writer, and the bewildering excitement of being taken by the hand and invited into The Fellowship of the Ring.
But even people with deeper takes on Tolkien tend to miss the significance of the Prologue. It’s a place where critical reading abilities and political processors usually turn off entirely - fair enough, it's probably a relief.
Let's talk about the Narrator.
Meeting the Narrator: Time, Place, Person
The Prologue is narrated by a Mannish (Big Folk) Narrator, a modern human being, from an accessible academic standpoint. We are encouraged to think of him as Friendly Professor Tolkien, although you really do need to remember that he is clearly addressing us from within a fictional narrative world. He is a character. Even if he is Tolkien’s self-insert, intended to be read as Tolkien Himself, he is still a character who can be analysed and interpreted. This is a fictional character.
The Big Man deliberately addresses the reader as someone with a shared background, in what is presumably somewhere in the early-to-mid twentieth century. It is stated multiple times that you (reader) and Narrator are both Big Folk together - there is no chance that you, the Reader, are a scholar of another race.
It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours: far nearer to us than Elves, or even than Dwarves.
Pick out the “later estrangement” and park it for now.
The casting of the Narrator is a deliberate alignment with Professor Tolkien, and we are certainly intended to understand him as an academic, avuncular, rather unworldly male professor in the British Isles.
(Sidebar: for convenience I gender the Narrator as male. I think there's evidence for the Narrator being intended as male-by-default, which can be provided on request, and I personally feel the Big Man narrator is the translator/propagator of the silly convention of referring to modern humans as “capital-M Men.” )
The Prologue is written charmingly, a framing device of an academic translator giving the context of background information before presenting someone else’s text (the translated Red Book, etc). Later, this Prologue connects to the Appendices in The Return of the King, where the Narrator returns in his persona of the translator of the works. Our Narrator is certainly a strong, influential, deliberate character, with a specific and distinctive voice!
Anyway, whether or not you choose to picture the Big Man Narrator as Tolkien Himself doing a folksy Bit, OR as a character Tolkien created - Remember! The entire story is fiction and the Big Man Narrator is a created fictional character. Why would you assume he is telling the truth? Why assume that he is an expert? Where are his biases?
Look what the Big Man Narrator actually says. Look at what he chooses to tell, and what he finds unimportant. There are so, so many posts that pick over the fascinating bits of Concerning Hobbits, mining canon for more information, as if it is a pure source of truth. I suggest that the next time you do, you try this fun exercise.
Before we go into the Magic Thing, the narrator also notes AGAIN that hobbits exist today, but are shorter than they were;
They seldom now reach three feet; but they have dwindled, they say, and in ancient days they were taller.
This continues and reinforces the framing of “hobbits still exist now,” and sounds rather as if the Big Man has interviewed modern hobbits (“they say,”) which we’ll also park.
We move on, parking "it's assumed you're a Man, receiving information from a Mannish professor", the "future estrangement" and "diminished hobbits are available for interview."
The Magic Thing
I was provoked into writing this by a fun Tumblr post pointing out that "hobbits are said to 'not study magic' - does that mean that they don't HAVE magic?" which went off into a separate and funnier reblog chain.
I want to analyse this again, noting that this is information received from Big Man.
Let’s examine the “hobbit magic thing” noting that we are being TOLD all of this by a CHARACTER.
Here’s how the passage about "hobbit magic" starts.
Hobbits are an unobtrusive but very ancient people, more numerous formerly than they are today;
In our time, we’ve just been told, hobbits still exist, but had a population drop and are vanishing. To the point where a reader is not expected to have ever heard of them. Chillingly, in typical mid century British academic fashion, the Big Folk Narrator assumes that the reader is also British; when he later mentions that the remaining hobbits only live in the British Isles, it’s a little alarming. There’s a species of humans native to these islands, so rare and so politically silent that you’ve never seen or heard of them.
Hello?!
for they love peace and quiet and good tilled earth: a well-ordered and well-farmed countryside was their favourite haunt.
We are told here that Hobbits are going extinct because they cannot readily survive due to, essentially, habitat destruction. (we feel the Narrator’s annoyance about the Industrial Revolution spoiling the “peace and quiet” strongly here, more strongly than the buried implications for indigenous people).
They no longer have any land. Not only have they lost the Shire, they have no towns, small villages or even farms. “Was” is very much past-tense, and they “haunted” land in the past, ghosting lightly and leaving no traces of their presence, rather than living there. so in our modern day there’s certainly no Shire, no Bree (mixed human/hobbit town) and no Michel Delving, which in its time was a market town with above-ground buildings and a museum. For context, it takes a decent amount of work for the British Isles to lose towns, especially on the level of development that Hobbits had - famously anachronistic, they have waistcoat buttons and watermills and good china and museums and smoking habits, while all the rest of medieval-ish Middle Earth is not as developed.
It’s hard to lose all that, without any trace at all, in crowded countries. Wholesale loss always means that Something Happened.
They do not and did not understand or like machines more complicated than a forge-bellows, a water-mill, or a hand-loom, though they were skilful with tools.
“Do not and did not” is further reinforcement of a still-living people. (I love the “understand or like” thing, which is charming - the implication that hobbits are perfectly capable of UNDERSTANDING machinery in textile factories, but would hate it.)
Something that makes the Big Man nuanced as a character is that he obviously adores hobbits, and studies them because he likes them. The fondness and admiration comes through, even as he is showing his own privilege and bias.
To me, the way this passage about machinery is framed - lumping together those machines as “about the level of technology hobbits are comfortable with” - is something that someone standing post-Enlightenment, probably post-Industrial Revolution, would do. The implication I take from this passage is that this is a modern writer describing the current status of modern hobbits; a mid-century British scholar, a self-insert of Tolkien.
This sense of time matters, because of everything else he says, and the temptation people will have to excuse the Big Man narrator as “a product of his time.” This isn’t a medieval writer looking back on Middle Earth. It’s a highly educated man writing in the 1940s: computers existed, there were several Disney films out, women had the right to vote, and feminist essays were published from Tolkien's own workplace.
Even in ancient days they were, as a rule, shy of ‘the Big Folk’, as they call us,
We then proceed to see, across three books, examples of hobbit behavior in “the ancient days”, which may serve as an example of this shyness. Several different relationship with Big Folk are outlined, in which fairly chirpy hobbits, characterised by their ready emotional availability, cohesion, and incredible abilities to build relationships and form massive political alliances, seem to do well on the strength of that. Hobbit shyness may involve glaring ferociously at Big Folk for a moment, but within a few days they are sitting on your lap, and then it’s all over. With this evidence in our memory, casting a coy “shyness” as the reason for their avoidance of “us” becomes uncomfortable.
and now they avoid us with dismay and are becoming hard to find.
The Narrator is handwaving, in avuncular fashion, why the Reader has never seen a hobbit in their lives, and needs to be lectured, from first principles, on a living indigenous people of the British Isles. Do marinate on it for a moment, though. The tone of a professor or a parent, whimsically explaining to Victorian children why you don’t see the Tooth Fairy - she hides! Teehee.
They avoid us with dismay.
Behind this airy statement, what happened? Massive betrayals, the loss of their land and political power, loss of the conditions they need for their survival, massive loss of their people, and a total breakdown in trust. Humans and hobbits, in the prologue and main story, are shown as natural allies; close kin who understand each other well; humans are shown owing a tremendous amount of their own political influence to hobbits, and even cold/reserved humans end up liking them after a conversation. Hobbits are especially shown for being loyal friends who do not break down under war; noted for retaining cohesion and resisting corruption; who, under unimaginable conditions, will still resist harming or betraying friends.
Hobbits and humans have clearly had some significant breakage of our kinship since the events of the LotR cycle. The Big Man knows this.
Earlier in the essay, when the Big Man told us that “hobbits are closest to (us)” he gave us a lot of additional information, didn’t he? He refers to “later estrangement.” (He also tells us clearly, in that subtext of that sentence, that no hobbit will ever read the book in our hands, no hobbit will ever be addressed as a reader, no hobbit will enter academia, no hobbit will be able to fill in the gaps that the Big Man waves his hand over. Certainly no hobbit scholar contributed to the Big Man’s translation of the Red Book. They’re not just going, they’re functionally GONE. This is what I mean!) Anyway, even the Big Man notes that there was “an estrangement.” Something that has caused them to flee from contact with us in dismay.
whatever happened in that estrangement probably doesn’t reflect well on the Big Folk. A species facing extinction and hiding, dismayed and estranged, from their closest kin, is not having a pleasant time on this earth. Especially when we understand that they’re basically trapped in the crowded and inhospitable British Isles (and still managing to hide from us to the point of the public not being aware of their existence!)
The Big Man Narrator isn’t interested. This is the point where you ought to start wondering about academic bias on the part of the Big Man Narrator. He's fond of hobbits, and has interviewed/met them, but would never treat one as a colleague.
[…]They possessed from the first the art of disappearing swiftly and silently, when large folk whom they do not wish to meet come blundering by; and this art they have developed until to Men it may seem magical.
so hobbits have an inherent ability of being invisible/undetectable, which they still practice today (teehee, that’s why it’s okay that you’ve never spoken to one) and which is pretty damn effective. Effective enough that people in modern times are completely fooled, effective enough that it still counts as “disappearing,” and the elusiveness of hobbits is so perfect as to conceal their existence from the general public. Effective enough that the few adults who DO discuss hobbits could conceivably think it could be magic. The Narrator has probably rolled his eyes over a rival’s paper about “Slipping Into The Shadow-Realm: how hobbits shift space and time to conceal their vital signatures” (Sayers, 1934).
further, they’ve specifically developed this “art” - from what’s implied to be an instinctive/animal ability - to a higher skill, indistinguishable from magic. The “art” is SOMETHING material and quantifiable, if it was innate-and-continually-developed.
But Hobbits have never, in fact, studied magic of any kind,
Here is a point that’s been discussed on tumblr, and it is correct to note that “studied” is doing a lot of work. Especially when contrasted against the previous sentence, with the interesting term “art”. “It isn’t science/magic, it’s an instinctive art”.
To me - remembering that this is intended to be a mid-century British academic speaking to us - it resonates with how romanticism of marginalised cultures was treated by academia, in the generation the Big Man Narrator would’ve studied in - full of romantic, unexamined, politically revealing statements like, “The Celts are skilled in the art of music, but have never properly studied it.”
What I’m saying here is that we should not assume the Big Man is a good judge of the difference between “art” and “study,” especially since the next bit reads:
and their elusiveness is due solely to a professional skill that heredity and practice, and a close friendship with the earth, have rendered inimitable by bigger and clumsier races.
Hobbit invisibility is an “art” through “heredity,” but also a “professional skill” refined through “practice.” It has been “developed” until it is mistaken for “magic,” but against this, we are told that hobbits “have never studied magic of any kind.” In the cleavage point here, we can see the definition of “study” that The Big Man is working with. This definition is possibly what makes something “magic” or not. Have you seen this before?
The point I am making here is that the Big Man is speaking to us from the position of a “coloniser.” There are some worldbuilding implications to unpack from this. One is that the Big Man is speaking from a place where magic can be studied, not even requiring hereditary aptitude (if hobbits were excluded from magic by physiology, This Fuckin Guy would’ve said it) but that it is an academic practice. Hobbits are not just nearly-extinct and terrified out of contact with humans; they are fully excluded from academia (they do not translate or contribute to translations of their histories; they do not study) and if they cannot formalise their practices in acceptable study as the Big Man defines it, it cannot be magic. This is exactly the tone in which majority cultures dismiss other practices of culture/medicine/science, by stating it is NOT a form of science, because it is not practiced with the academy, because it is definitionally not allowed in the academy.
We can then go to a higher level of political analysis and reading, and ask: who benefits from a definition of “magic” that includes (academic study) but excludes (hobbit arts)?
You can certainly do some delightful worldbuilding answers for yourself, and say that “perhaps magic is spells, material changes, great works as performed by Elvish or Maiar Ringbearers, etc.” But if we look at the political stuff I’ve just pointed out, why not examine the definition and who it serves and why? Given that we’ve seen this pattern before - colonisers deliberately bundle, define and dismiss marginalised practices as primitive, animalistic, instinctual and unschooled, as part of the PURPOSEFUL WORK of colonisation - I read the Big Man definition as: “Magic is formalised by the bigger races and defined by excluding the practices of the smallest race.”
Who does this benefit? Well, the Bigger Races could in some ways. Magic must be studied, hobbits don’t study, hobbits don’t have magic, hobbits are The Only Unmagical Humans - despite having practices indistinguishable from magic - this could be something. Big Men would have some reason to define “magic” to exclude hobbits. Normally this is done in order to take resources or drain resistance from marginalised people, but as hobbits have had virtually no remaining resources or resistance since long before the Industrial Revolution, you could open this up to other worldbuilding implications - maybe, Big Men didn’t really MIND hobbits going extinct.
An interesting point here is to re-read sections of this work with different interpretations of who the Big Man is. Where are his biases? Who is he as a character?
I personally read him as a friendly, Tolkienesque academic who likes hobbits, follows his linguistic interests, and is too blinded by his bias to think about their political position. He seems unaware of the horrors he's talking about. Perhaps that's down to innocence.
A character crying out to be analysed.
Landless and Dismayed
That sums up a lot of information that can be mined from one of the very first paragraphs of the Fellowship of the Ring. But here's another message to toy with - hobbits exist in the modern space; landless, estranged, fleeing from us in dismay. Quite likely to have been betrayed.
Hello! I'm sorry,, I know I keep asking random questions lol, but I'm really curious about your thoughts on the Quenya ban; both within the narrative and [most of] the fandom's reaction (deeming it cultural violence, etc.). Thank you!
Ooooh the Quenya ban lol, that can of worms.
I honestly don't think this is a particularly complicated thing to explain & the fact that it has become complicated in fandom is a result of the highly individualist lenses deployed - which I will tackle in another post bc this is long as it is lol.
Re. the ban itself - there's a few bits of important political context to why Thingol makes the decision he does, chiefly the Kinslaying & its cover-up, the military might & political tendencies of the Noldor and the rumours that circulate before the discovery of the Kinslaying, which are only reported to Thingol by Cirdan. I'm putting the whole of this under the cut but the TL;DR of my thesis is that:
a) a careful reading of the text indicates that the Quenya ban's primary target is fellow Sindar, not the Noldor
b) a contextualised reading will recognise that it occurs in the context of the Noldor asserting their rights to the lands of Beleriand because of the might of conquest by sword
c) that this might of conquest by sword is not innocent, but is drenched in the blood of the First Kinslaying, and therefore might generate some pause amongst the Sindar, because if the Noldor are willing to seize what they're entitled to by force and by bloodshed - an attitude they haven't departed from viz. their assertion of entitlement over the lands of Beleriand which were previously occupied by the Sindar - what might become of them if they refuse the Noldor what they feel entitled to in the future?
d) a close reading indicates that Thingol's wording is very diplomatically and politically considered, despite his emotional response, that still seeks to maintain diplomatic ties with the Noldor while demonstrating a show of strength & power that soothes Sindar anxieties aroused by the news of the Kinslaying & its implications for them
e) the Quenya ban is pretty much bog standard political grandstanding and sabre-rattling that every single state & territory does as part of its repertoire of diplomatic tools and elevating it to "cultural" violence is ridiculous, because Thingol does not actually have material and structural power over the Noldor & therefore the capacity to enforce it in any serious way, outside of the power he holds over the Sindar as their still sworn liege lord. Tbqh I think it really muddies the water re. understanding what cultural violence, oppression & genocide (as I've sometimes seen it put in this fandom) is & how it works, but that's going into part II of this.
1 - The Kinslaying: at the point where Thingol insitutes the ban, he has just received information that the Noldor committed a Kinslaying where, and I quote canon, "a great part of their [Teleri] mariners that dwelt in Alqualonde were wickedly slain." Lots of ways that can be read but "great part" suggests the death toll is not insignificant, and based on my calculations re how large the Teleri fleet would have had to have been to carry Feanor's people + all the Noldor cargo across, that's an estimated 1000 - 2000 deaths at least. This puts this on par with some of the most notable pogroms of the contemporary Indian history, for context.
I realise this sounds incendiary to say (and to be clear I don't think they're 1:1 in terms of intent), but I think it's worth saying because I do think that we gloss over what these deaths mean & how they would have been received by the Elvish mind. Bear in mind that till that moment, the most violent act and Elf had ever committed against another Elf was to threaten the other with death. Thingol doesn't have this context, where the possibility of such violence occurring is a spectre haunting them all. Thingol and his people live in a land where Elf on Elf violence is unimaginable because the very possibility of it has never haunted them until this moment, when they are confronted by the existence of a mass slaughter that's been kept secret from them for fully 67 years since the rising of the sun and the ~30 years before that. Moreover, it's not a mass slaughter of unrelated Elves. It's specifically a subsection of Elves who were his people, who left under his brother, but who nevertheless as a result would have had kinship ties with the Sindar of Middle Earth (and I use kinship here in the sense that we would, of families with blood or marital ties viz. uncles, aunts, cousins, brothers, sisters, parents, children etc). It is not merely shared ethnicity, though that is part of it, but familial ties.
If we were to imagine the Sindarin reaction to such news, I think we could agree that their response would have been shock, horror, grief, anger (latter two straight up named in Thingol's response to the news) and also, I think, fear and paranoia: Elves who have killed kin once, have been willing to lie about it and appear otherwise unrepentant, may very well choose to kill again if denied what they see as their entitlements. There is no reason for the Sindar to believe themselves safe from the Noldor if they refuse them desired aid - unless they can demonstrate their willingness to retaliate if need be, and demonstrate a show of strength. There is no reason for the Sindar to identify with the Noldor as kin and therefore safe, because the Noldor have already disidentified from considering them kin, in having killed the Teleri for their ships.
2 - The military might & general political approach of the Noldor so far: crucial to this aspect of showing strength is the fact that the Noldor very much do look on themselves as the military saviours of the Sindar, for having pushed back Morgoth's forces at a time when they were besieged and having delivered Cirdan's people, especially, from total annexation by the Orcs. They look down on Thingol as a two-bit king with little control (Maedhros' infamous a king is he who holds his own continues: "Thingol does but grant us lands where his power does not run.") Tolkien himself explicitly points out what Thingol's worry is:
Now King Thingol welcomed not with a full heart the coming of so many princes in might out of the West, eager for new realms
i.e. Thingol knows perfectly well that the Noldor are hungry for new territory, that they've already claimed territory where the Sindar used to occupy - which they fled only because of Morgoth's assault - and that they do look down on him as a ruler, rather than see him as equals. This is reflected very much in his response to the first diplomatic sally by the Noldor:
elsewhere there are many of my people, and I would not have them restrained of their freedom, still less ousted from their homes. Beware therefore how you princes of the West bear yourselves; for I am the Lord of Beleriand, and all who seek to dwell there shall hear my word.
This is a basic diplomatic response of reassertion of both power and territoriality, but also specifically in aid of ensuring the continued freedom of the Sindar outside of Doriath rather than their annexation under the Noldor & their military might. As inward political symbolism, it is a demonstration to Thingol's people that he will continue to look after their interests and will continue to lobby for them and represent them politically, even if they don't live within his borders - and crucially, that he isn't bending the knee to the Noldor and taking them as overlords just because of their military might, and therefore, that neither are they obligated to do so; the Sindar can and will remain a separate and independent peoples in the face of what seems to be a superior occupying force, barring a couple of hold-out territories.
3 - The rumours already floating around amongst the Sindar, that Cirdan brings to Thingol's attention, that finally prompts the confession:
It was not long before whispered tales began to pass among the Sindar concerning the deeds of the Noldor ere they came to Beleriand. Certain it is whence they came, and the evil truth was enhanced and poisoned by lies; but the Sindar were yet unwary and trustful of words, and (as may well be thought) Morgoth chose them for this first assault of his malice, for they knew him not. And Círdan, hearing these dark tales, was troubled; for he was wise, and perceived swiftly that true or false they were put about at this time through malice, though the malice he deemed was that of the princes of the Noldor, because of the jealousy of their houses. Therefore he sent messengers to Thingol to tell all that he had heard.
Lots of implications packed into this single paragraph. Its important to keep in mind that these tales and rumours exist within the context of the Sindar speculating why the Noldor have come to Middle Earth when they did - especially since they first believe that they come as emissaries of the Valar to deliver them in the time of need (Ch. 13, The Return of the Noldor), only for a) another group of Noldor to turn up after having crossed the Ice, b) to be seemingly at odds with the first group and c) both groups largely tight-lipped about the Valar in a way that would be surprising for "emissaries". It becomes very easy for Morgoth et al to get a foothold in there by asking whether this is "deliverance" or "occupation". If it isn't deliverance, if the Noldor clearly aren't there at the behest of the Valar, and if this is occupation - why and how? Why are these princes at odds with each other? What happened to drive such a wedge between them?
Its in this context that the implied existence of the Kinslaying begins to circulate amongst the Sindar specifically outside of Doriath i.e. the Sindar existing in closest proximity to the Noldor. If the princes of the Noldor are not from the Valar, are an occupying force, are at odds with each other and have killed fellow Elves in the past, what does this mean for the Sindar? Are they about to become "collateral damage" in a Noldor civil war? Are the Noldor about to annex them in competitive pursuit of individual power? Have they got rid of one threat, only to be visited with an even more dangerous threat? What happens if they refuse the Noldor? What happens if they choose the "wrong" side in what seems (to them!) to be a simmering Noldor conflict that could break out at any moment? Does their king know about this and not care? Is Thingol kneecapped and unable to respond to this because he's surrounded by the Noldor on each side? Is Thingol hiding this from them? I imagine these might have been some of the questions and rumours that might have been floating around at the time.
Its a politically tense and fraught situation that requires an immediate and decisive response that both reassures the Sindar that Thingol is not impotent, but also which demonstrates to the Noldor that Thingol is not impotent as well - that he still commands power in these territories even if its not obvious to them - and therefore, that if they so much as think about repeating such an act here, it will invite retribution. I wrote a little about this previously and what it symbolises in more modern political terms: i.e. that the expulsion of Finrod et al is very clearly an expulsion of Noldor diplomats much as modern states will engage in sabre-rattling by expelling each others' diplomats before coming to the negotiating table and hashing out a middle ground.
In that context, the Quenya ban, has symbolic value as an act of embargo to denote escalations & a breakdown of diplomatic relations between their people. It is first and foremost, an outward means of displaying displeasure. But no less important is the fact that it demonstrates to the Noldor that Thingol commands the loyalty of the many Sindar who range through their lands, and on whom, presumably, the Noldor are still somewhat dependent on for a) agricultural supplies and supply chain logistics for their huge armies and b) navigation through the unfamiliar terrain of Beleriand.
Its the first step in escalation against what can easily be read as an act of hostility/deception on the part of the Noldor, demonstrating to them that Thingol wields not insignificant soft power that has the potential to kneecap the Noldor. It is executed in the face of a) the scope of Noldor military power, b) the seeming intent of the Noldor to occupy and rule lands without much interest in the sovereignty of local populations and c) the cover-up of what is clearly considered one of the most awful crimes in Elvish law - but not just one murder, but mass murder.
However, the Noldor are not the primary target of the Quenya ban.
In fact, given that the Kinslaying targeted Sindar kin in Valinor, it is a very measured response and its primary target is internal i.e. the Sindar. It is a reassertion of Thingol's authority, a reminder of his strength & that he means to resist Noldor dominance, but it is primarily a reminder of kinship and ethnic grouping, loyalties & of the violence that has been committed against kin - not just in the sense of Elvish kinship, but specifically in the sense of blood & marriage. It is therefore, also a caution about what it will mean to swear full fealty to the Noldor:
But Thingol was long silent ere he spoke. ‘Go now!’ he said. ‘For my heart is hot within me. Later you may return, if you will; for I will not shut my doors for ever against you, my kindred, that were ensnared in an evil that you did not aid. With Fingolfin and his people also I will keep friendship, for they have bitterly atoned for such ill as they did. And in our hatred of the Power that wrought all this woe our griefs shall be lost. But hear my words! Never again in my ears shall be heard the tongue of those who slew my kin in Alqualondë! Nor in all my realm shall it be openly spoken, while my power endures. All the Sindar shall hear my command that they shall neither speak with the tongue of the Noldor nor answer to it. And all such as use it shall be held slayers of kin and betrayers of kin unrepentant.’
Now, we can take a very high-minded approach to this and suggest that Thingol should have seen the Noldor as allies in a fight against Morgoth. I want to stress, Thingol does just that BUT ONLY re. Fingolfin & Finrod's people: in our hatred of the Power that wrought all this woe our griefs shall be lost. He explicitly takes time to recognise that Morgoth is the originator of all these griefs. What he does not do is absolve the sons of Feanor of the Kinslaying - and frankly, neither does he have reason to.
Every instance of their recorded actions so far shows a disdain for the Sindar, a clear sense in their minds of "us" and "them" which they then attempt to enforce on Finrod et al in "choosing" the "right" side of their heritage. Between their high-handedness, clear drive for domination of territory and their willingness to conceal the Kinslayings, their actions only kind of hammer home a kind of entitledness driven by the might of the sword. The ethnic divide between the Noldor and the Sindar is born first and foremost out of the Kinslaying & its continued at least 67 year cover up. The us and them existed at the point at which the Noldor seized the ships at the end of a sword, came to Beleriand and then suggested they had the right to the various lands because of the might of their sword - something that containts the implicit threat of slaughter if not obeyed with.
The Quenya ban reinforces this divide, but it exists only in the context of the Kinslaying. It is not unprompted retaliation, but a considered reassertion of both authority and a reminder of kinship. At the end of the day, its primary actionable target is not the Noldor but fellow Sindar. It calls for, primarily, disidentification from the Noldor and Sindar unity, for the development of a Sindar national identity that stands oppositional to the Noldor identity. It does pre-emptively threaten those who are too close to the Noldor with the accusation of disloyalty - and there's a lot to be said about the classic "pick a side" rhetoric on display here & Thingol strategically using it in this moment against the Northern Sindar whom he distrusts, which is rarely if ever said :) - but at the same time, to do a reparative reading for a hot second, since we're VERY fond of reparative readings elsewhere: it equally serves as a warning that to get too close to the Noldor will eventually force them to choose between their kin & their sworn affiliation, and that when the time comes to make such a choice, they may no longer be in a position to refuse the Noldor and be free from being implicated in another devastating crime against people even more nearly related. And you know, in that regard, Thingol pretty much was right!
As for whether or not this is cultural violence or suppression or "genocide" (as I've seen it put sometimes): no it is not. To be very blunt, the fact that we are debating this is frankly ridiculous & I highly recommend everyone read the text more closely before running their mouths. Thingol himself recognises the limits of his power and only targets his fellow Sindar in this ban. The Noldor are only targeted insofar as he bans them from entering his realm, which he is perfectly entitled to do as absolute monarch of his realm, especially considering, you know, the murders. If we were to take any kind of political analogue, it would be the relationship between Edo Japan and its ban on foreigners, except through very specific channels & only with specific states e.g. the Dutch traders, during the European age of sail - i.e. a regional power putting in protectionist measures against clearly conquering powers with significant military might. Thingol does not hold structural power over the Noldor, except insofar as he can command the soft power of Sindar unity & kinship. The Noldor recognise it; Thingol recognises it. His ban is even phrased in a way which recognises it (and therefore pre-empts humiliation if the Noldor fail to comply). There is nothing Thingol can do to make the Noldor toe the proverbial line and the fact that the Noldor do end up giving up Quenya is solely because they have to communicate with the Sindar they depend on - and they were doing this anyway because this is what the Silm says about language use in the context of the Mereth Aderthad (F.A. 20):
it is told that at this feast the tongue of the Grey-elves was most spoken even by the Noldor, for they learned swiftly the speech of Beleriand, whereas the Sindar were slow to master the tongue of Valinor
(h/t to folks at the House of Mirdain discord for finding the exact reference)
So the Quenya ban really must be understood in terms of diplomatic and political symbolic value, than anything that has material enforcement. Because again. Both the Noldor and Thingol know that in a game of force alone, the Noldor would win.
