Tolkien Gateway - User contributions [en]

Talk:Galadriel

2013-11-26T01:52:33Z

95.22.63.145:

Does anyone else feel the asterisk for Aragorn's being a member of the Fellowship a bit irrelevant? I'm gonna delete it, someone can revert it if I'm wrong. --[[User:Quidon88|Quidon88]] 01:30, 5 January 2007 (EST)

:I also find it unneccessary. I'll go ahead and remove it (as I have several other minor edits I would like to perform on the page). --[[User:Narfil Palùrfalas|Narfil Palùrfalas]] 07:35, 5 January 2007 (EST)

== Where the death date comes from? ==

As far as I know, Galadriel is immortal. So where can you conclude her date of death? [[User:58.187.53.142|58.187.53.142]] 23:02, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:The infobox says "Passed into the West" and the article states "aged approx. 8,370 years when she took the Straight Road to Valinor". There is no statement of death. --[[User:Fleela|fleela]] 23:12, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::But the infobox says that :"Date of death" and "Age at death", those look like she died already, if my eyes don't betray me.

:::The infobox is a standard template used in many articles, hence the descriptive parenthetical phrase. --[[User:Fleela|fleela]] 23:58, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::::I think we should clear out the information from infobox since it can mislead the readers about her "death". Also, there's an asynchronism here when the lead section state she's aged approx. 8,370 years when she took the Straight Road to Valinor while the infobox says "approximately 7114 years". To have it out, I favor the information of 7114 rather than the number 8370 (in wikipedia version they calculate that "500 (FA) + 3400 (SA) + 3300 (TA) = apx. 7000". Merge the infomation in infobox to lead section is my solution. [[User:58.187.51.25|58.187.51.25]] 00:09, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::Actually it's 8374. Most people forget that [[Years of the Trees]] are 9.582 [[years of the Sun]] in lenght. There are several other errors in the quoted (wikipedia) calculation. -- [[User:Mithrennaith|Mithrennaith]] 19:18, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Right now Galadriel is using a Royalty infobox, but I think we should change it to be an Elf-specific infobox. As most Elves passed on to the Undying lands and did not die, we can use that in place of death. I'll double check the dates and fix the article, thanks for your input. --[[User:Hyarion|Hyarion]] 00:30, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::Galadriel should be using the Noldor infobox, which I'll put up after a rewrite (or someone can change it before the rewrite). Most of the Noldor Tolkien writes about ''did'' die at one point or another (almost the entire [[House of Finwë]], for instance); I'd say about 9/10. For Elves I suppose we could put Died/Passed West, but it's rather more annoying to have to explain on every article which they did (whereas here the few that survived to pass west are explained as such). On the other hand, since the elves that died in Middle-earth were usually reborn in Aman, we could probably think up a variation on "departed mortal lands", etc. Personally, I'm contented with the way it is. --[[User:Narfil Palùrfalas|Narfil Palùrfalas]] 06:17, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::I believe I put down the age. That was based on the dates calculated for the ages plus a hundred or so years to make her old enough for what she did during the Exile of the Noldor. I'm not sure why I added "14". Also, I was thinking, for the Elves passing west is very much like death (only they don't. . . die. They skip the step of being disembodied and going through Mandos). With proper word choice we might be able to work out something. --[[User:Narfil Palùrfalas|Narfil Palùrfalas]] 06:21, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

==Going East==
The article fails in elaborating all the differences in the story of Galadriel. When did she leave Aman, how did she leave, where did she meet Celeborn? Also it completely lacks information about Galadriel and Celeborn passing east into Eriador before the end of the FA. --[[User:Thalion|Thalion]] 14:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

== Different versions ==
Isn't the section about the different versions of the legends a bit confusing? It seems to mix several sources into one.
As far as I know, there are more or less three different versions. The one of "Concerning Galadriel and Celeborn" found in UT, in which they were the kings of Eregion instead of Celebrimbor, with Amroth as their son. A later one, that comes right after this one in UT, and that clearly rejects their parentage with Amroth, and says nothing about them ruling Eregion (roughly speaking, the "canon" version that appears in the main section of the article and is coherent with all the published works). And the last one, that makes Celeborn a Telerin Elf (thus contradicting LotR and The Road Goes Ever On), in which Galadriel sails from Aman separately but nothing is told about what happened to her in Middle Earth thereafter.
Shouldn't these be given as separate, contradictory versions, instead of as a single, amalgamated one?

Round World version of the legendarium

2013-11-25T23:38:15Z

95.22.63.145:

The '''Round World''' version is one of the variants of [[J.R.R. Tolkien]]'s [[Legendarium]], published in the final volumes of ''[[The History of Middle-earth]]''. In this version, the setting of his legendarium is more realistic and less mythological: the Earth was always round, and [[Arda]] was the name for the whole solar system instead of just the Earth.

In the Round World version the [[Sun]] and the [[Moon]] were not the fruit of the [[Two Trees of Valinor|Two Trees]], but actually preceded their creation. The significance of the Trees and the [[Silmarils]] was that they preserved the light of the Sun before it was tainted by [[Morgoth|Melkor]] when he ravished [[Arien]].

Similarly, the [[stars]] were not created with the [[Awakening of the Elves]], but the occulting clouds were removed to reveal them.

While this version emerged in the late stage of Tokien's legendarium, he never entirely decided which version—Flat or Round—to choose as 'real', and while Tolkien was eventually more inclined to use the realistic version, it was never as complete as the Flat World version, and so the latter was chosen by [[Christopher Tolkien]] for the published ''[[The Silmarillion]]''.<ref>{{MR|Myths}}</ref>
It may be noted, however, that in the final version of the Ainulindalë Tolkien returned to the flat-world model, after having written a round-world version of this story <ref> J.R.R. Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien (ed.), Morgoth's Ring, "Part One. Ainulindalë"</ref>. Likewise, the later "Annals of Aman" and "Grey Annals" explicitly mention the creation of the Sun and Moon after the destruction of the Trees <ref> J.R.R. Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien (ed.), Morgoth's Ring, "Part Two. Annals of Aman"</ref><ref> J.R.R. Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien (ed.), The War of the Jewels, "Part One. The Grey Annals"</ref>
Beside this, references to the seas being first "bent" after the Fall of Númenor survived in Lord of the Rings.<ref name="house">{{FR|Bombadil}}</ref><ref>{{App|Eriador}}</ref>

The Round World version can be deemed by [[Tolkienists]] as the definite 'actual' story behind the text; the text of the [[Quenta Silmarillion]] then, can be seen as just the legends based on the 'reality', written by the ancient people of [[Middle-earth]].

{{references}}
[[Category:Concepts]]

Round World version of the legendarium

2013-11-25T20:03:14Z

95.22.63.145:

The '''Round World''' version is one of the variants of [[J.R.R. Tolkien]]'s [[Legendarium]], published in the final volumes of ''[[The History of Middle-earth]]''. In this version, the setting of his legendarium is more realistic and less mythological: the Earth was always round, and [[Arda]] was the name for the whole solar system instead of just the Earth.

In the Round World version the [[Sun]] and the [[Moon]] were not the fruit of the [[Two Trees of Valinor|Two Trees]], but actually preceded their creation. The significance of the Trees and the [[Silmarils]] was that they preserved the light of the Sun before it was tainted by [[Morgoth|Melkor]] when he ravished [[Arien]].

Similarly, the [[stars]] were not created with the [[Awakening of the Elves]], but the occulting clouds were removed to reveal them.

While this version emerged in the late stage of Tokien's legendarium, he never entirely decided which version—Flat or Round—to choose as 'real', and while Tolkien was eventually more inclined to use the realistic version, it was never as complete as the Flat World version, and so the latter was chosen by [[Christopher Tolkien]] for the published ''[[The Silmarillion]]''.<ref>{{MR|Myths}}</ref>
It may be noted, however, that in the final version of the Ainulindalë Tolkien returned to the flat-world model, after having written a round-world version of this story <ref> J.R.R. Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien (ed.), Morgoth's Ring, "Part One. Ainulindalë"</ref>. Likewise, the later "Annals of Aman" and "Grey Annals" explicitly mention the creation of the Sun and Moon after the destruction of the Trees <ref> J.R.R. Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien (ed.), Morgoth's Ring, "Part Two. Annals of Aman"</ref><ref> J.R.R. Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien (ed.), The War of the Jewels, "Part One. The Grey Annals"</ref>
Beside this, references to the seas being first "bent" after the Fall of Númenor survived in Lord of the Rings.<ref name="house">{{FR|Bombadil}}</ref><ref>{{App|Eriador}}</ref>
And the tale of the Elessar in Unfinished Tales (most likely written around the same time as the second edition of LoTR, in 1965) explains that the light of the first gemstone created in Gondolin was brighter than that of Galadriel's, since it captured the uncorrupted light of the "young Sun". This suggests that the Sun was first created in the First Age.<ref>{{UT|Elessar}}</ref>

The Round World version can be deemed by [[Tolkienists]] as the definite 'actual' story behind the text; the text of the [[Quenta Silmarillion]] then, can be seen as just the legends based on the 'reality', written by the ancient people of [[Middle-earth]].

{{references}}
[[Category:Concepts]]

Talk:Celeborn

2013-11-25T14:51:57Z

95.22.63.145:

== Imladris? ==

Is there evidence that Celeborn once ruled Imladris? That info was added by Linathiel. ~ [[User:Earendilyon|Earendilyon]] 03:21, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

:It is not specifically stated, only that he dwelt there, if memeory serves me. -- [[User:Ederchil|Ederchil]] 03:48, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::Celeborn never ruled Imladris. He dwelt there for some time during the second age, he again went to live there after Galadriel had sailed away into the West.--[[User:Legolas|Legolas]] 10:29, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree with Legolas, Imladris was founded by Elrond, sent by Gil-galad, and ruled by him ever since, until he passed overseas. It is never stated who ruled Imladris after that, one may suppose that his sons, who remained there for a time, did so, though Celeborn was of course their senior, in years, status and powers. But he had no inherent authority in Imladris, that was a Noldorin settlement under the High King and his lieutenant(s). -- [[User:Mithrennaith|Mithrennaith]] 19:58, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Deleted from the info-box. ~ [[User:Earendilyon|Earendilyon]] 06:32, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Maybe Linathiel simply thought realm = residence? -- [[User:Ederchil|Ederchil]] 09:09, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

==Opening sentence and infobox==
I know that this whole article should just be re-written, but in the mean time we should avoid making such bold statements of objectivity in the opening sentences. Under our new canon policy we can only really say that he was an elf of unknown/disputed origins who married Galadriel and lived for a time in Lórien. My main reason for prompting this discussion is because even using the [[Template:Teleri infobox|Teleri infobox]] is a conscious judgement on our part. Do we have a generic Elf infobox?--{{User:KingAragorn/sig}} 14:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

:I agree. We currently don't have a generic elf infobox, but we should have on for situations like this. --[[User:Amroth|Amroth]] 19:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

==Controversy==

About this line: "A Sindarin origin as Elmo's grandson has been the most widely accepted one of all but Celeborn as a Telerin prince seems a late development, and there is some dispute as to which is the more canonical."
It's explicitly said in "The Road Goes Ever On" that Galadriel "passed over the Mountains of Ered-luin with her husband Celeborn (one of the Sindar) and went to Eregion." (This passage is mentioned by C.Tolkien in Unfinished Tales as well)
Since everything that was published by Tolkien himself must be taken as more canon than any of his drafts or unpublished notes (no matter how late they are), shouldn't that mean that Celeborn is a Sinda in canon and there's no such controversy?
I mean, this is not as the subject of Amras, where all accounts were unpublished and thus the latest one is the "correct" one, isn't it?

I believe the information from the published versions must come always first and the unpublished information from Tolkien's notes should be stated as alternatives (as in Controversy) later date or not. Therefore, Celeborn of Doriath, kinsman of Thingol should be 'accepted' as canon (for it is in the published books) and added to the main article and Celeborn of Alqualonde should be in the Controversy section. I don't understand the purpose behind this, making it so is misleading since Celeborn of Aman (Falmari) is a whole alternate history not only concerning him but Galadriel and the history of Lorien. And then Amroth must be accepted as their son as well. Besides, C. Tolkien suggests in Unfinished Tales, that the first original scenario (Celeborn and Galadriel meeting in Doriath) should be the 'right' version.

[[User:Amaranth|Amaranth]] 08:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
:In the matter of the Silmarillion, the "published version" is not a choice by Tolkien but a posthumous product and contains interpretations by Christopher. As such, the Silmarillion as a "published version" doesn't hold any more authority than portions of UT or HoMe. In some points TG has accepted the later history, such as the early death of [[Amras]] and [[Gil-galad]]'s parentage. I am not justifying it, just giving some explanation. [[User:Sage|Sage]] 10:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

:: I understand and I am not against the content itself, but the order of it. It is even clearly stated in the controversy section that the widely accepted version is the one in the Silmarillion yet the main article still presents the alternative version as the accepted one. Since there's a dispute over this part, the alternative content in the main article should be moved to Controversy section, and the version of Celeborn from the Silmarillion should be presented as the primary one. A swap in the order of the content is my suggestion. [[User:Amaranth|Amaranth]] 17:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
:::And I understand you didn't speak about removal of content but what we accept as primary content. That's what I talked about and our logic here. In [[Amras]] we accept his early death and we have a section about his (almost nonexistent) role in the published Silmarillion. In [[Gil-galad]] we accept Orodreth as his parent and include a section discussing his connection to Fingon in the published Silmarillion. We disregard that Tolkien didn't have a time to develop his legendarium according to his newer ideas but we accept them nonetheless. It seems that Celeborn follows the same pattern. The case of Celeborn is somewhat different as CT seems to have a preference to the earlier version. Can you quote his reasoning? [[User:Sage|Sage]] 19:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

:::It should be noted that our canon policy has changed last year (see [[Forum:Tolkien Gateway canon policy]]). --[[User:Amroth|Amroth]] 21:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

:I'm not here to argue which version is canon; "''1. It is not our place to decide what is canon and what is not. - [[Forum:Tolkien Gateway canon policy|Tolkien Gateway canon policy]]'' "

So you can't tell me 'we accept A or B as canon' according to this policy. I'm not trying to do that either. But I do not wish make this a personal debate, so that's not my point. My point is the right order of the content presented in the articles, disputable content from from later sources that my contain any inconsistency with the earlier versions should fall under their own category, not the other way around. This is to avoid confusion and inconsistency between versions. It's not suggesting which is more canon or the removal of the content from any other version. After reading The Silmarillion this article would confuse me unless I read HoME and UT.

''On the other hand, the making of Celeborn into a Telerin Elf of Aman contradicts not only statements in The Silmarillion, but also those cited already (p. 228) from The Road Goes Ever On and Appendix B to The Lord of the Rings [...] - C.Tolkien, Unfinished Tales''

Since we can't decide which one is more canon, I think these content should be under a category (as in the example of many other character articles) such as "Other Versions of the Legendarium."

''Unfinished Tales consists of essays and stories composed after The Lord of the Rings which were generally consistent with The Lord of the Rings. The book reveals parallel traditions regarding the history of Galadriel and Celeborn, the nature of the Istari, and a few minor sub-plots. Although some people argue that the book is generally acceptable as canon, readers must bear in mind the fact that no true consistency exists between these unfinished tales and the earlier works. -TG '[[Canon]]'''

If we put these seperate contents in the same category throughout all other articles that have disputable backgrounds I believe this would make them clearer (and better organized) for all readers. --[[User:Amaranth|Amaranth]] 07:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

:I agree with Amaranth.--[[User:Morgan|Morgan]] 08:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

::As do I. --{{User:Mith/sig}} 12:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I notice that the [[Galadriel]] article narrates the newer version, therefore it's contradictory to this article. It sure will look strange to someone who wishes to read the couple's history. [[User:Sage|Sage]] 14:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

: Yes, her article contains both versions mixed together. I intend to revise it as well by seperating the information from different versions under "Other versions.." category. --[[User:Amaranth|Amaranth]] 14:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Celeborn

2013-11-25T14:42:33Z

95.22.63.145:

== Imladris? ==

Is there evidence that Celeborn once ruled Imladris? That info was added by Linathiel. ~ [[User:Earendilyon|Earendilyon]] 03:21, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

:It is not specifically stated, only that he dwelt there, if memeory serves me. -- [[User:Ederchil|Ederchil]] 03:48, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::Celeborn never ruled Imladris. He dwelt there for some time during the second age, he again went to live there after Galadriel had sailed away into the West.--[[User:Legolas|Legolas]] 10:29, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree with Legolas, Imladris was founded by Elrond, sent by Gil-galad, and ruled by him ever since, until he passed overseas. It is never stated who ruled Imladris after that, one may suppose that his sons, who remained there for a time, did so, though Celeborn was of course their senior, in years, status and powers. But he had no inherent authority in Imladris, that was a Noldorin settlement under the High King and his lieutenant(s). -- [[User:Mithrennaith|Mithrennaith]] 19:58, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Deleted from the info-box. ~ [[User:Earendilyon|Earendilyon]] 06:32, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Maybe Linathiel simply thought realm = residence? -- [[User:Ederchil|Ederchil]] 09:09, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

==Opening sentence and infobox==
I know that this whole article should just be re-written, but in the mean time we should avoid making such bold statements of objectivity in the opening sentences. Under our new canon policy we can only really say that he was an elf of unknown/disputed origins who married Galadriel and lived for a time in Lórien. My main reason for prompting this discussion is because even using the [[Template:Teleri infobox|Teleri infobox]] is a conscious judgement on our part. Do we have a generic Elf infobox?--{{User:KingAragorn/sig}} 14:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

:I agree. We currently don't have a generic elf infobox, but we should have on for situations like this. --[[User:Amroth|Amroth]] 19:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

==Controversy==

About this line: "A Sindarin origin as Elmo's grandson has been the most widely accepted one of all but Celeborn as a Telerin prince seems a late development, and there is some dispute as to which is the more canonical."
It's explicitly said in "The Road Goes Ever On" that Galadriel "passed over the Mountains of Ered-luin with her husband Celeborn (one of the Sindar) and went to Eregion." (This passage is mentioned by C.Tolkien in Unfinished Tales as well)
Since everything that was published by Tolkien himself must be taken as more canon than any of his drafts or unpublished notes, shouldn't that mean that Celeborn is a Sinda in canon and there's no such controversy?
I mean, this is not as the subject of Amras, where all accounts were unpublished and thus the latest one is the "correct" one, isn't it?

I believe the information from the published versions must come always first and the unpublished information from Tolkien's notes should be stated as alternatives (as in Controversy) later date or not. Therefore, Celeborn of Doriath, kinsman of Thingol should be 'accepted' as canon (for it is in the published books) and added to the main article and Celeborn of Alqualonde should be in the Controversy section. I don't understand the purpose behind this, making it so is misleading since Celeborn of Aman (Falmari) is a whole alternate history not only concerning him but Galadriel and the history of Lorien. And then Amroth must be accepted as their son as well. Besides, C. Tolkien suggests in Unfinished Tales, that the first original scenario (Celeborn and Galadriel meeting in Doriath) should be the 'right' version.

[[User:Amaranth|Amaranth]] 08:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
:In the matter of the Silmarillion, the "published version" is not a choice by Tolkien but a posthumous product and contains interpretations by Christopher. As such, the Silmarillion as a "published version" doesn't hold any more authority than portions of UT or HoMe. In some points TG has accepted the later history, such as the early death of [[Amras]] and [[Gil-galad]]'s parentage. I am not justifying it, just giving some explanation. [[User:Sage|Sage]] 10:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

:: I understand and I am not against the content itself, but the order of it. It is even clearly stated in the controversy section that the widely accepted version is the one in the Silmarillion yet the main article still presents the alternative version as the accepted one. Since there's a dispute over this part, the alternative content in the main article should be moved to Controversy section, and the version of Celeborn from the Silmarillion should be presented as the primary one. A swap in the order of the content is my suggestion. [[User:Amaranth|Amaranth]] 17:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
:::And I understand you didn't speak about removal of content but what we accept as primary content. That's what I talked about and our logic here. In [[Amras]] we accept his early death and we have a section about his (almost nonexistent) role in the published Silmarillion. In [[Gil-galad]] we accept Orodreth as his parent and include a section discussing his connection to Fingon in the published Silmarillion. We disregard that Tolkien didn't have a time to develop his legendarium according to his newer ideas but we accept them nonetheless. It seems that Celeborn follows the same pattern. The case of Celeborn is somewhat different as CT seems to have a preference to the earlier version. Can you quote his reasoning? [[User:Sage|Sage]] 19:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

:::It should be noted that our canon policy has changed last year (see [[Forum:Tolkien Gateway canon policy]]). --[[User:Amroth|Amroth]] 21:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

:I'm not here to argue which version is canon; "''1. It is not our place to decide what is canon and what is not. - [[Forum:Tolkien Gateway canon policy|Tolkien Gateway canon policy]]'' "

So you can't tell me 'we accept A or B as canon' according to this policy. I'm not trying to do that either. But I do not wish make this a personal debate, so that's not my point. My point is the right order of the content presented in the articles, disputable content from from later sources that my contain any inconsistency with the earlier versions should fall under their own category, not the other way around. This is to avoid confusion and inconsistency between versions. It's not suggesting which is more canon or the removal of the content from any other version. After reading The Silmarillion this article would confuse me unless I read HoME and UT.

''On the other hand, the making of Celeborn into a Telerin Elf of Aman contradicts not only statements in The Silmarillion, but also those cited already (p. 228) from The Road Goes Ever On and Appendix B to The Lord of the Rings [...] - C.Tolkien, Unfinished Tales''

Since we can't decide which one is more canon, I think these content should be under a category (as in the example of many other character articles) such as "Other Versions of the Legendarium."

''Unfinished Tales consists of essays and stories composed after The Lord of the Rings which were generally consistent with The Lord of the Rings. The book reveals parallel traditions regarding the history of Galadriel and Celeborn, the nature of the Istari, and a few minor sub-plots. Although some people argue that the book is generally acceptable as canon, readers must bear in mind the fact that no true consistency exists between these unfinished tales and the earlier works. -TG '[[Canon]]'''

If we put these seperate contents in the same category throughout all other articles that have disputable backgrounds I believe this would make them clearer (and better organized) for all readers. --[[User:Amaranth|Amaranth]] 07:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

:I agree with Amaranth.--[[User:Morgan|Morgan]] 08:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

::As do I. --{{User:Mith/sig}} 12:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I notice that the [[Galadriel]] article narrates the newer version, therefore it's contradictory to this article. It sure will look strange to someone who wishes to read the couple's history. [[User:Sage|Sage]] 14:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

: Yes, her article contains both versions mixed together. I intend to revise it as well by seperating the information from different versions under "Other versions.." category. --[[User:Amaranth|Amaranth]] 14:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)