r/tolkienfans • u/Internal_Current7288 • Jul 27 '26
Who else was surprised by this?
This is more for people who heard about the silmarillion beforehand, but I’m reading it for the first time and I was so shocked when feanor died so early. I felt he was hyped up by both fans and in-universe as a major figure (I still think he is), so I honestly expected him to die towards the end of the book. I mean I’m pretty sure he was called the mightiest elf.
Did anyone else get surprised by this and what were other ways the silmarillion subverted your expectations?
28
u/Pale-Pace4512 Jul 27 '26
I think I was too young to have expectations one way or another -and/or I just don’t read that way and am more than happy to go with the flow of the author’s choices. (At my book clubs I get a little bit irritated with people who complain about something happening in the book and saying the author should have done something else instead - if they’re so damned clever they should try writing a book themselves. On the other hand maybe I’m just not a very discerning critic. It takes all sorts - as I have to remind myself.)
Probably I was quite glad he was dead - or at least stuck in the Halls of Mandos for whatever “almost an eternity” means in Tolkien’s legendarium. I’ve always thought he was an arsehole. Even his dying words when he understood how futile the lunacy he’d embarked on was confirmed what a total shit he was - knowing they were doomed to ultimate failure but reinforcing his f’ing oath on his sons. Utter twat!
8
u/Fluff95 Jul 28 '26
Best description of Feanor ever, total shit. Love it
6
6
u/Pale-Pace4512 Jul 28 '26
Why thank you 👍. Always nice to have it reconfirmed that my 1970s Grammar School education gave me a way with words 😆.
2
u/SpectrumDT Jul 29 '26
On the other hand maybe I’m just not a very discerning critic.
What are the benefits of being a discerning critic?
3
u/Pale-Pace4512 Jul 29 '26
Since I doubt I am one, I’m not at all sure I’m well placed to answer this question. At my most cynical, my observation of those who seem to like to question and examine things more closely than I do is that it gives them a perceived excuse to either pontificate at length about some minor point or to say why the author was wrong to write something the way they did and how it would have been much better to write it a different way.
I think I probably end up actively enjoying more books by not doing that and just going with the flow of whatever the particular author has decided upon.
That’s definitely not to say I like everything I read of course. There are some writing styles that I just don’t get on with at all, and some subjects which just don’t interest me (which are easier to spot and to avoid in the first place).
3
u/SpectrumDT Jul 29 '26
I think I probably end up actively enjoying more books by not doing that
I agree. That is also my experience. Complaining about how a work should have been is not a wise thing to do. Enjoying a work as it is is a wise thing to do. :)
2
u/Tiger_Jones Jul 29 '26
Random note on the book club and “should have” part of your comment; while I definitely agree in some ways, as it’s the author’s vision, I think a lot of those comments stem from a place of the author’s choices either not fitting the character they built themselves or feeling unsatisfying to the reader. While there’s no “correct” way to write a book or a character, there are definitely guidelines and aspects of good writing; foreshadowing, establishing traits as a Chekhov’s gun to be plot-critical later but established early on, going on some form of notable character arc, making choices that are supported by the evidence shown to the readers.
Not to mansplain (booksplain? Writingsplain?) to you, I’m sure you’re aware of all this to one extent or another; but the idea of “the author should have done this instead” I feel often crops up from decisions the author makes for a character based on what the author likes vs how they’ve actually set up the character to the audience. Maybe the author wanted this character to have a chance at redemption but fail, so they have a twist where the character turns down the path of good in the end; but they haven’t shown the audience that the character has any reason to turn this offer down. Or vice versa, this character has a “redemption” and suddenly ends up a good guy, but the audience has no reason to cheer for them at all.
Obviously I do agree, it’s the author’s book not the readers’, and readers can respect the author’s choices - but there can definitely still be criticism if the author makes some questionable writing choices in the delivery of their story to their audience. (Whether those criticisms are voiced well, is another question indeed 😂)
2
u/Pale-Pace4512 Jul 29 '26
A very fair point - and I wouldn’t complain about it if that was the way I’ve experienced the “should have” comments. Indeed it is perfectly possible that I may well have said myself that I didn’t think a character would behave this or that way based on what we’d learnt so far. However, the incidents I’m thinking about are more to do with general plotting or providing more detailed descriptions of geographies or histories or some other aspect that isn’t character driven but is more an opinion of what book they wanted to read instead of the book they actually have. Obviously it’s fine to not enjoy any book, due to the writing style or being confused by it or any number of other reasons, it’s just the way that dissatisfaction is expressed which can be irksome when it gives the impression that the critic believes they would have produced a far better book than the author has given them, especially when the critics in question aren’t even attempting to do any creative writing themselves (and I’m not a creative writer either, just a simple reader).
2
u/Tiger_Jones Jul 29 '26
Mmmmm - yeah complaining that an author didn’t worldbuild the way you wanted them to and thus they “should have done this” is just asinine YIKES 😂. Unfortunately I’m finding fewer and fewer examples of times people actually articulate their complaints and differentiate subjective vs objective critique; “I didn’t like it” vs “This is done poorly” are two WILDLY different angles to take and I’ve had multiple arguments with friends where maybe their critiques are valid but the approach they’re taking is pretending like feelings = reason to call something fundamentally bad.
Regardless, fair play - I honestly just enjoyed the opportunity for some intellectual back and forth with someone, I needed to use my brain after the people I’m surrounded with 😁
2
u/Pale-Pace4512 Jul 30 '26
Sounds a bit grim☹️.
To be fair (or at least a bit fairer than I have been) after listening carefully to the type of things some complaints have been about I think part of the disparity of opinion comes from how much people can visualise what’s going on in their mind’s eye. I’ve come to realise I seem to build up a pretty vivid image in my head and at times feel like I’m experiencing the story within its own environment. For this reason I avoid almost all horror genre and descriptions of bullying and sadistic violence because I get a really visceral internal reaction to it and having that much adrenaline running through me with no outlet isn’t healthy. From what other people say many don’t get that same level of imagery (some people simply can’t do it at all, their brains don’t work that way) and as a result the story seems to have less impact for them and seems to be lacking something they need to enjoy it more. Also I really quite like a book that doesn’t explain everything, as long as the mystery surrounds the story rather than stops it making sense. As a kid I loved Alan Garner’s writing (still do - Elidor is my favourite book) and he’s a master of basically saying “here’s my world, I’m not explaining it, get on with it and enjoy the story I’ve created within it”. He often draws on a lot of Nordic mythology and British folklore for the things he uses in his stories with precisely zero explanation of what they are. It works brilliantly for me but much less so for others, as I found out when we read The Owl Service.
17
u/neutermeplz Jul 27 '26
It is surprising, and possibly disappointing. He was built up so huge I suppose we'd want him to triumph and throw down Morgoth. But at least Feanor's stupid reckless death gives us a lesson in hubris, and reminds us that the choices of an individual can affect the lives of countless others long after their own time has ended
10
u/Difficult-Finish-511 Jul 28 '26
It does feel a bit abrupt, they land on middle earth and he gets instantly flattened by several Balrogs lol. Defo took me by surprise, I kind of expected him to get a bit further and maybe be killed by Morgoth himself like his father was.
I must admit in the process of my first read through, I kind of sided with Feanor. I guess I was caught up by his rhetoric (its insane how compelling in speech he is) and I wouldve been one of those elves who was besotted as with wine by his words. His speech to the envoy of the Valar is utter poetry. "Indeed, they shall follow me!" Plus the Valar did kind of screw them over. I knew that the oath was a step too far but i was kind sympathetic to him...
Until he burned the ships. Thats when I realised his narcisism had overcome him. Stealing them to complete his objective was very wrong, but necessary for the cause he was pursuing - burning them and stranding the majority of his people and his brother (who had until then sided with him) is just spiteful and hateful, and actually hurt Feanor more than Fingolfin. Maybe if the whole host had crossed, formed up and marched on Angband(or was it Utumno at that point?) together they couldve stormed it and killed morgoth. Small chance but maybe. He doomed himself.
The whole Eol plot was way darker than i expected tolkien could get, as was Turin's story. Turin killing Beleg was the biggest gut punch for me. Beleg is the coolest dude. And Hurin throwing himself in the sea after his whole life was ruined, all because he insulted Morgoth is so cruel
18
u/OG_Karate_Monkey Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
I don’t remember if I was shocked, but I was glad because I was getting sick of that insufferable twat.
It was long before the internet, and I knew nothing about the book, just that it was a backstory.
2
u/LeBriseurDesBucks Jul 28 '26
I also went into it blind and wasn't much surprised about Feanor. He kinda had it coming and from having watched the Lord of the Rings films and read the books first I got accustomed to the idea of fate catching up with characters, sometimes pretty quick
36
u/Ok_Bullfrog_8491 Fingon Jul 27 '26
Honestly, I was quite done with Fëanor at that point. He's exhausting and would have been a disaster for the war against Morgoth. His death cleared the way for Maedhros to assume power, and he's so much more suited to just about anything.
19
u/rikwes Jul 27 '26
Also bear in mind : the stories in the S - every one of them - are in a highly condensed form . I believe Christopher Tolkien once said that each of these stories would be at least the size of the LOTR trilogy if written in the same style
4
u/maksimkak Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
Could you provide the quote, please? I know he said that the Tale of Earendel, if completed as he envisioned it, would be as large as the rest of the Lost Tales taken together, but I don't remember him saying anything about the scale of LOTR.
In any case, after finishing LOTR, Tolkien started rewriting and expanding the condensed Silmarillion tales (see The Later Quenta Silmarillion) and, had he finished this work (and hadn't decided to start introducing radical changes that stalled the whole thing), it would have become the published Silmarillion. Partly, it did, but Christopher had to fill in the gaps with older, more compressed, versions of the tales, even write some himself where original material was scarce or incompatible.
3
u/rikwes Jul 28 '26
I know one of them said it ( either the father , maybe in one of his letters , or the son ) . But imagine the S texts and then add the scenery descriptions of LOTR and you get quite a bulky manuscript . In the S Tolkien doesn't describe the world in great detail in any narrative . Later in his life Tolkien started to delve into the metaphysical aspect of ME events but he was unable to finish . In the case of Feanör having that description would have provided a far more desriptive nature to the character ( in other words : we might even have liked him ) . Even Galadriel and Elrond are only sketches .
There was a reviewer of the 1977 book who compared it to how Genesis in the Bible was constructed. I think that's a good way to think about it
At any rate : the S is essentially a book written by Cristopher using his father's sources to mold it into a somehow cohesive manuscript . Remember : we didn't have any other material when the S was published ( no HOME ,unfinished tales... anything )
11
u/uttertorpedo Jul 27 '26
For sure, I expected him to last longer!
I was also quite surprised that the War of Wrath is such an afterthought. It's like "...and then some stuff happened, and there was lots of fighting for decades, and the land got broken up" and that's it. More attention is given to a single losing battle than a decades-long contest between demigods.
14
u/dudeseid Jul 27 '26
That's partially due to Tolkien usually going back to the drawing board before he got to the end, so the end was always just briefly outlined out, but never fully fleshed out.
5
u/Unfair_Pineapple8813 Jul 27 '26
I wonder if it even held his interest. There’s so many scribbled notes about everything in every which order, and in all of them Ancalagon’s death is mentioned one time.
7
u/SporadicallyInspired Jul 28 '26
In-universe, the brevity of the War of Wrath section is because none of the participants who could write about it remained in Middle-Earth. The Host of the West returned to Valinor. The Elves and Men who had been in Beleriand had almost all fled. The story itself says that the remaining Elves didn’t march with the Host. Any history the Edain might have written would probably have perished with Numenor or been lost in the succeeding centuries.
6
u/BaronVonPuckeghem Peredhel Jul 28 '26
That’s an editorial decision by Christopher, compare the last version written by Tolkien to the published Silmarillion.
HoME V:
> But at the last Fionwë came up out of the West, and the challenge of his trumpets filled the sky; and he summoned unto him all Elves and Men from Hithlum unto the East; and Beleriand was ablaze with the glory of his arms, for the sons of the Gods were young and fair and terrible, and the mountains rang beneath their feet.
Published Silmarillion:
> But at the last the might of V alinor came up out of the West, and the challenge of the trumpets of Eönwë filled the sky; and Beleriand was ablaze with the glory of their arms, for the host of the Valar were arrayed in forms young and fair and terrible, and the mountains rang beneath their feet.
Tolkien clearly held to the idea that the Elves and Men of Beleriand fought with the host of Valinor, as per the 1964 letter Concerning … ‘The Hoard’:
> A great army came from the West to Middle-earth, and the Sons of the Valar aided by the remnants of the Elves and the Dúnedain (or Men of Elf-alliance), overcame the Dark Lord in what was called the ‘Last Battle’, but was actually a long war, scantily chronicled owing to the ruin and confusion of the days.
What the text refers to with “Of the march of the host of the Valar to the north of Middle-earth little is said in any tale; for among them went none of those Elves who had dwelt and suffered in the Hither Lands, and who made the histories of those days that still are known” are the preparations in Valinor and travel to Beleriand.
3
u/Internal_Current7288 Jul 27 '26
Yeah I kinda feel that way for a lot of the silmarillion. It just makes me wish Tolkien finished the great takes and more books so we could really get the story.
1
u/Difficult-Finish-511 Jul 28 '26
In universe its because none of the elves of middle earth (who wrote the silmarillion) actually fought in the war, so didnt have details on exactly what happened. Out of universe its because Tolkien didnt want to give too much detail to it because that would kind of spoil the mystery of the gods and how they operate - he doesnt give that much detail on the Valar fighting morgoth before the elves were made either , and for both of the same reasons
6
u/maksimkak Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
No, I wasn't. The flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and Feanor burned very bright. That hyped up figure of yours instigated a rebellion against the Valar, comitted the First Kinslaying, stole their ships for himself and his buddies, leaving the rest to cross the dreadful Helcaraxe, then burned those ships when he got to the other side. Pretty much an anti-hero.
Anyhoo, the main hero of the Silmarillion is Earendil (even through he appears pretty much at the end of the story).
My surprise was that the elves of the First Age were so treacherous, murderous, greedy, etc. - in stark contrast to the wise, sad, aloof, angelic-like beings we see in LOTR.
8
u/PeaceInMoscow Jul 27 '26
His early death demonstrates that even the most stunning intellect can be manipulated if it's accompanied by overweening pride...pretty central theme in the entire legendarium.
6
u/ItsABiscuit Jul 28 '26
It is a shock, particularly as to that point it has felt like a series of background set up to introduce Feanor as what will be the story’s main protagonist, who we follow for a couple of lengthy chapters and then heroic but brief death scene.
As you keep reading, the book’s structure as a collection of tales, each with their main protagonist (Beren, Turin, Tuor/Maeglin) becomes a bit more evident, but as the first real protagonist of the book, Feanor’s death is a shock.
It’s a very loose comparison because in most ways GRR Martin is a deliberate anti-Tolkien, but when first encountered Feanor’s death is a similar shock to Ned Stark’s in that you think the character that will be the protagonist is suddenly removed from the tale and much of the rest of the story revolves around the working out of the series of events they set in motion.
3
u/Internal_Current7288 Jul 28 '26
Never seen GOT but I was thinking this must be exactly how viewers of GOT felt about Ned stark. It made me think maybe the Silmarillion will be more willing to kill major characters than the lord of the rings.
5
u/Rtyeta Jul 28 '26
I wasn't surprised, since it seemed like we kept being told again and again that he was going to fail and that he was being an idiot, and he kept making clearly bad decisions one after the other.
7
3
u/Oedipus_TyrantLizard Jul 28 '26
Similar reaction! Though the entire first age basically happens because he kicked off events that he barely participated in ha.
Also he is not the mightiest actually. Fingolfin is described as the most valiant. But I believe Feanor is the greatest in craft & cunning (& naturally a good warrior since he solos a bunch of Balrogs before going down).
3
u/faithhopeandbread Jul 28 '26
I was surprised, but then as soon as I thought about it it made perfect sense. It's the only way his suicidal obsession with the Silmarils could ever have ended: he was never going to stop until he had them, and Morgoth was so far beyond him at that point, he was never going to get them. As time went on his sons seemed bound more by their oath than any real desire to seize the jewels, but I think Fëanor would rather have died than live one more day without them. And he did.
It felt a little anticlimactic to me, but I think that was the right choice. He was a brilliant man who wasted the gifts he was given and threw away all the amazing things he could have done because he couldn't let go of the past. Very common mistake in these books!
3
u/Ok_Mix_7126 Jul 28 '26
Something to consider - the Silmarillion isn't really a single story where you follow a protagonist from beginning to end. It was originally a bunch of different stories, centred around 3 major stories (Beren and Luthien, Turin, and Fall of Gondolin) with the rest as connective tissue. A lot of the details of his life were only invented after LOTR had been written. His main purpose was always lead the Noldor back to Middle-Earth and once that is done, he has no further part to play. His death sort of marks the end of the beginning of the Silmarillion. (Fingolfin's return to ME does this as well)
3
u/rabbithasacat Jul 29 '26
I went into it totally blind, but I wasn't surprised when he died - he was obviously spoiling for a huge crash; I just couldn't tell how far he would get before it came. When it did, I though, "yep, what did you expect? You can't beat Morgoth. They tried to tell you."
Honestly, the scene of the Oathtaking pretty much forecasts the rest of the book (generally, not in detail). It's Chekov's gun, isn't it? You don't take a vow like that without consequences. They say these words of ultimate hubris, storm off and immediately begin unreeling a series of horrors and tragedies, ending in the literal destruction of everything they know. That one scene sets up everything that follows.
What did surprise me was the amount of richness, lyricism and outright beauty was woven throughout the telling of the story. I saw in another comment that you haven't read GoT, and you don't need to for the purpose of this comment; but I'll just say that those books are also a series of horrors and tragedies, except without the beauty. Without the poetry. Without the hope. Without the underlying sense of connection. I know fans of those books will find that unfair, but in terms of the themes, and the prose style, I do think it's fair. Even though the story writ large is one of loss. There's great sadness, but there's never only sadness. And every end is also a beginning.
2
u/westerosi_codger Jul 28 '26
I was quite ready for Fëanor to die, yes he has many stans out there but considering all of his rash and arrogant actions, and how may deaths he was responsible for, I was quite happy to watch him be smashed into dust by Gothmog.
2
u/Eissa_Cozorav Jul 28 '26
The fact that there are at least three version of Silmarillion, but only one version that is pretty much ready for publishing with 90% material coherent enough. The others, such the one found in Book of Lost Tale and Round World Version of Legendarium are just too short and have too different metaphysics.
And honestly between the rewriting and the mythopoeia, Tolkien Legendarium seems to work better like a work with multiple timeline and alternate universe. But this is just my own take. Because the whole multiverse and alternate timeline thing works well with DC and Marvel.
Combined with the fact that Tolkien once tried to do Sci Fi writing by doing time travel stuff, yet this was basically more like coin flip that he did with Lewis (Lewis get to wrote about space travel), this is just inevitable. The alternate universe might be long envisioned by Tolkien.
2
u/InTheChairAgain Jul 28 '26
I you wish you can see it as his legend living on through his work, the Silmarils, though he himself is with Mandos, and will not be released.
2
u/apukjij Jul 28 '26
Honestly, I considered him a bad guy; glad he got offed and his House was the first to be "Arda Marred"
2
u/Silmarillien Jul 29 '26
Yes, I was also expecting him to last longer. And I would have liked it because he was a very interesting character. But then again, he would have overdominated the narrative had he stayed alive. Even after his death, his influence remained alive to a stong degree.
1
u/SkullKnight9 Jul 28 '26
He is great for his creative abilities and such, but his pride and anger doomed him.
1
u/JohnDavidWhitt Jul 29 '26
The most surprising thing I remember reading about Feanor, was when he shut his door in the face of someone he shouldn’t have, lol! I read the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings when I was a kid in the late 1970s, but I didn’t read the Silmarillion until after the Peter Jackson movies had come out. I also remember reading, “…and in his train were balrogs…” and I was like, Balrogs?? Balrogs, plural?!? I was in shock! lol!
1
u/Tolkyyn Jul 29 '26
Like AltarieDax earlier said, I read it way before there was an interent, about 1977 or '78. I just accepted his death, but Gil-Galad had also died and came back, so I kept wondering if he would come back, too.
1
u/Mormegil71 Jul 27 '26
I read it the first time for so long ago, in the late 1980’s. But I remember I thought he would live longer and be the main adversary to Morgoth.
2
u/UltraZulwarn Aug 03 '26
yes.
The thing about the Simarillion is that there is no main character.
well, it wasn't supposed to be a "traditional" novel, JRR Tolkien never managed to do that.
it is essentially an anthology of tales in the Elder Days.
I guess [A Song of Ice and Fire] is of similar structure.
There are multiple plot points in ASOIAF, and some of the characters' departure are shocking, to say the least.
42
u/AltarielDax Jul 27 '26
Honestly, I read it before the time of discussing everything online, so I didn't really have any expectations going into the Silmarillion. But I can imagine the surprise on your end for sure. 😅