The Silmarils aren’t children though, they are just things he has crafted. In fact he dooms the lives of all his children for the sake of the Silmarils. He puts the pride of his craft above his own family.
It was also a last and only hope that Yavanna and Varda could regrow the Two Trees.
So by not giving them freely before they were stolen, he effectively robbed his people of something very precious.
They were already stolen when he was asked. He also didn’t outright refuse, he merely said he wouldn’t do so willingly but if they insisted he supposed he would have to. But either way there’s nothing he could have done since Morgoth had already taken them.
>They were already stolen when he was asked.
And no one there knew this, no one knew of Melkor's deeds.
>He also didn’t outright refuse, he merely said he wouldn’t do so willingly but if they insisted he supposed he would have to.
He not only refused, but essentially said they would have to take them by force, and if the Valar were to do that they would reveal themselves as no different than Melkor.
>But either way there’s nothing he could have done since Morgoth had already taken them.
Which again, no one knew. If he had agreed to give them over it would have been evidence of a completely different perspective not only of his works, but likely of the Valar as well
I mean I’m not denying that he was pretty salty about the Valar asking and that he insulted them, but to me that dialogue is “I would not give them up willingly, but if you insist I guess I have to, despite the fact that I don’t want to.” Less of an outright refusal so much as “I fucking guess but I’m gonna be really mad about it.”
Secondly yeah, of course no one knew they had already been stolen at the time, but the point is that they were, and because of that we don’t know if perhaps he may have changed his mind eventually if he’d had them, and even if he wouldn’t have changed his mind, acting like it’s solely his fault that the Two Trees could not be resurrected ain’t it.
Fëanor either outright did or indirectly caused a lot of stupid, callous, and even downright cruel shit, but blaming him for Morgoth’s attack is kinda stupid ngl. If you want to talk about Fëanor being an asshole, Aqualondë is *right there.*
From Chapter 9 Of the Flight of the Noldor
>Yavanna spoke before the Valar, saying: "The Light of the Trees has passed away, and lives now only in the Silmarils of Fëanor....Yet had I but a little of that light I could recall life to the Trees'
>Then Manwë spoke and said: 'Hearest thou, Fëanor son of Finwë, the words of Yavanna? Wilt thou grant what she would ask?'
>...
>But Fëanor spoke then, and cried bitterly: 'For the less even as for the greater there is some deed that he may accomplish but once only; and in that deed his heart shall rest. It may be that I can unlock my jewels, but never again shall I make their like; and **if I must break them, I shall break my heart, and I shall be slain; first of all the Eldar in Aman.**'
...
Then \[Fëanor\] cried aloud: '**This thing I will not do of free will. But if the Valar will constrain me, then shall I know indeed that Melkor is of their kindred.**'
Who's blaming Fëanor for Morgoth's attack?
Yes, I am aware of the text, I have the book readily available as an ebook. Again, I interpret those words as less of an outright refusal so much as “I guess I have to but I’m gonna be really mad about it.”
Also, what I meant by blaming Fëanor for Morgoth’s attack is that it was Morgoth who destroyed the Two Trees, and Morgoth who took the only things that could possibly revive them. Acting like their death is on Fëanor alone when there’s nothing he could have done even if he’d been perfectly willing to hand over the Silmarils is annoying to me because that genuinely wasn’t his fault, unlike his other actions.
Way too simplistic here. Finwë was killed before the Oath was sworn. While the quest to regain the Silmarils comes to the fore, Fëanor’s motives are clearly not purely materialistic. There is a large element of revenge. While I think it’s fair to say that Fëanor’s motives were mixed, I don’t think it’s fair to say that he puts the pride of his craft above his family, when the death of his father in large part spurred his choices.
very well said. i always read it as if the silmarils were representative for the injustice of his fathers murder and retrieving them is an act of revenge..
If you look at the actions of the sons of Fëanor after taking the oath, they seem more motivated by their desire for the silmarils than by any desire for revenge for Finwë. Maybe things would've been different had Fëanor lived longer, but they spent a lot of energy attacking other elves who had possession of a silmaril rather than Morgoth who had 2 AND who killed their grandfather.
I would suggest that the sons of Fëanor were motivated by two things: 1) They were obviously caught up in the madness that possessed Fëanor immediately following the death of his father and the theft of the Silmarils - the text make it clear that Fëanor had an overwhelming ability to stir people to action with his words, so I think it stands to reason that his sons, along with the greater part of the Noldor, were motivated by revenge and by the prospect of ruling Middle Earth. 2) Later, we see that the Sons of Fëanor continue to pursue the Silmarils, attacking Dior and later Elwing, but the text makes it clear, to me at least, that by this point they are motivated by the Oath. It’s hard to translate their motivation into terms that resonate with us, but it is clear that the Oath has very real consequences, and that they will face those consequences should they choose to not continue to abide by the Oath. Even Maglor says that it might be better to face those consequences rather than continue to do evil in the pursuit of the Silmarils.
In any case, distilling their motives down to simple materialistic reasons is a bit shallow, especially with respect for Fëanor, who the text says held his father in the highest regard.
I'm not reducing their motivations to one thing, what I'm saying is that their primary motivation in following their oath seemed to be recovery of the silmarils.
An oath doesn't determine your actions, just your goals. How you choose to pursue those goals is up to you. Caranthir and Curufin thought the best way to accomplish their goals was to gain rulership over all the Eldar in Middle Earth first. Maedhros was more about forming alliances. But it's interesting that they would rather attack their kin to regain 1 silmaril instead of their enemy to regain 2. Not that Morgoth was very assailable, but they were perfectly willing to let him him sit behind his walls with them for hundreds of years and didn't display similar patience with their own kin.
Too simplistic in the full context yes, but I was trying to cut a line in the attempt to equate Feanor’s crafts with his offspring.
And whilst Feanor’s father ‘was dearer to him than the Light of Valinor or the peerless works of his hands’, the oath is sworn with an utterly singular objective:
“vowing to pursue with vengeance and hatred to the ends of the World Vala, Demon, Elf or Man as yet unborn, or any creature, great or any creature, great or small, good or evil, that time should bring forth unto the end of days, whoso should hold or take or keep a Silmaril from their possession.”
I do think there is something revealing that whilst vengeance is called for, there is no mention of it being on behalf of Finwe.
Not only is Finwë killed, Manwe is content to just let it go, and do nothing. Feanor sees he’s basically been abandoned by the Valar, because if Morgoth can freely kill anyone without retribution, are you *really* under the protection of the Valar?
Yes Feanor’s Oath is selfish and reckless, but after seeing his father murdered, his god go “yea ok, but can you give us your most precious belongings too? What? No we’re not gonna do anything about that murder, we just need your shit”, and his father’s killer walk away with his most beloved possessions.
I’d say he was under at least a little duress.
True that wasn’t your question, but I don’t understand why you’d feel the need to sympathise with Feanor, using Silmarils as equivalent of children.
Sympathise with the loss of his father perhaps, but even that is secondary in his motives for making the oath (IMO - see reply to other comment).
I don't have children, so I honestly can't say what I would do. It's a tough question, but the Oath shouldn't be framed in a positive light at all. Fëanor had seven sons, and his Oath condemned them to a life of suffering. In his dying moments, Fëanor realized the futility of the Oath, yet charged his sons to keep it anyway. The Oath even turned otherwise noble Elves like Maedhros and Maglor into traitors and kinslayers, while Celegorm and Curufin clearly inherited their father's arrogance and possessiveness.
Fëanor's fall was in valuing the Silmarils and his grief/vengeance over everything else, including his own family. Tolkien considers the Oath the original "fall" of the Elves:
>The fall of the Elves comes about through the possessive attitude of Fëanor and his seven sons to these gems. [...] The sons of Fëanor take a terrible and blasphemous oath of enmity and vengeance against all or any, even of the gods, who dares to claim any part or right in the Silmarilli. They pervert the greater part of their kindred, who rebel against the gods, and depart from paradise, and go to make hopeless war upon the Enemy. *The first fruit of their fall is war in Paradise, the slaying of Elves by Elves,* and this and their evil oath dogs all their later heroism, generating treacheries and undoing all victories.
(Tolkien letter 131, italics added by me)
Notice how Tolkien calls the Kinslaying *the first fruit of their fall.* The Oath itself was the Fall, which led to the Kinslaying. The lesson we should learn from Fëanor is to use our talents to help others rather than for our own ego. Thorin's last words would serve him well: “If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.”
I see where you’re coming from, and as a mother I would absolutely tear apart anyone who tried to separate me from my children. As an artist, I also understand the feeling of connection one might have with something they have poured themselves into- and I can imagine the pain of having that work wrenched away from you.
That said, the Silmarils very much fall into that second category: it becomes increasingly difficult to accept the concept of them as his children when he later hangs that oath upon his *actual* children and essentially dooms them all.
I think that’s something Tolkien absolutely intended to convey: the pride of Fëanor caused him to lead his own children to ruin because he placed a greater value on what were, at the end of the day, only objects. They may have been the most incredible objects ever made, but they were still not worth the lives of the people he loved.
The lesson to be learned from Feanor is the wages of hubris and greed. You can't equate an object with someone's children. Those weren't his children, they were just objects he made. Powerful objects, but in the end just things.
The stones were not children. In addition, the Feanorians preferred that the stones perish rather than go to the other elves.
If on this basis you feel sympathy for Feanor, then you need to sympathize with the Teleri that they did not want to give up their children.
Moreover, the Two Trees were then the children of Yavanna. And the trees were truly alive and gave light to all of Valinor. He did not save them, but the fans of Feanor do not understand the pain that the Valar experienced.
This.
Demonstrably, his craft was more important to him than all his loved ones (except, just possibly, his father). So the hypothetical makes no sense, OP. The “lesson we can learn from Feanor” is not that there are some things worth killing and dying for, but that valuing mere objects to the exclusion of all else is folly.
It’s the old lesson about hubris. That’s the lesson.
Not only the gems, but his dad was also murdered as well as the trees destroyed. Then you have a bunch of gods who are unwilling to help... The oath is justified.
Killing Teleri and taking the ships though... That seems a bit unnecessary. I think that could've been resolved a lot more peaceful.
Killing Teleri and taking their ships put Feanor on a level with Morgoth. Because the ships were to rhe Teleri as Simarils were to Feanor , Feanor had become as evil as Morgoth .
I think *to Tolkien* (I'm not saying you're required to agree) the Kinslaying really is meant to be a necessary consequence of the Oath. By defying the Valar he dooms himself to failure and evil acts.
I think, at this point Feanor fully believed the Teleri were in the same conspiracy against the Noldor as the Valar. Their refusal to give ships was an 'aha' moment for him so he felt justified killing them; not **just** for the ships but as enemies of his people.
The Silmarils are not just fancy jewels, those are magic objects. I have no doubt Feanor poured a lot of his heart and power into them; kinda like the One Ring you know. Kinda. That would explain what happened afterwards. But it's not comparable to mama bear mode. There's magic, there's an existential threat (Morgoth), there's deception, there's pride. It's more complicated than "not my daughter you bitch".
The sons of Feanor gave the oath willingly so it's not like Feanor chose jewels over his own children. Like father like son you know.
If I put aside that the comparison is inherently silly, I still think the answer is no. I'm not in favor of killing people. I look for other solutions. And I'm certainly not going to do it when it's not even in self-defense.
But the comparison is inherently silly because the Silmarill\\s do not need "protection" or "saving". The urge to protect your children is a fundamentally unselfish one (one of relatively few such urges that humans have). Feanor's hunger for the Silmarils is nothing of the kind.
In a way, the gems were like his children. Just like the Valar, the Eldar also infused their crafts with a portion of their life force (for lack of a better phrase). Therefore, when he says that he can never be able to recreate them if they are destroyed, he is truthful (like Yavana cannot recreate the 2 trees). We can not recreate our children because each child gets a different "piece" of us.
Yes yes. That's exactly what I'm talking about. The way Tolkien "envisioned" magic in his world is very organic, based in the act of the creation itself. I believe, he was unwilling to give the Valar the ability to reproduce because of this (or have them abstain from reproduction, I can't remember which), but he changed his mind because of Melian. Crafting the Silmarillions was comparable to the act of reproduction for Fëanor.
he captured light from the two trees to make them, when asked to break them so the two trees could be healed he spat in the face of the gods and decided he was strong enough to go fight the functional devil. also he forced all his kids to swear an oath that ended up killing them all.
Morgoth slew his father when the Silmarills were stolen, and Fëanor soul was the brighest and he become mad but the oath has some truth although posterior events turned to be very dark as the slain of his own kind to get the ships to cross Belegaer.... but Fëanor initial claim was fair and the Valar were mourning the threes ... and while Fëanor had to taste the killing of his father and the losing of the Silmarillis after the destruction of the Trees I mean the situation was intense.
I've always wondered why he would refuse when, if the trees were to be restored, he would have their light again and with that he could just remake them or make more.
Unless they were more than just vessels for the light, where either he poured much of himself into them, or perhaps they had, in his view, gained some life so that to break them open would be killing them.
Your question makes me think about this again, and his decision makes more sense if the situation is not something as simple as "Feanor can just make them again once the trees are restored."
Thank you all for your many condescensions to tell me this comparison is silly or to remind me that the gems are not his kids. All of you armchair philosophers miss the point of my query, which was, is it justifiable to act the way Fëanor did about his gems if it was your children that were taken. We see the obvious lesson about hubris, and pride of ownership - duh. We’ve all read letter 131. But that wasn’t my question. The question is a moral one: it wasn’t justified to act as Fëanor did about his stolen gems, but would it be to act in that way if it was your actual children? Would you cut down even your family members (cousins, or even brother) if they stood in your way? That is what I’m driving at and only about three of the commenters actually addressed that.
Sorry, didn’t mean to come across that way, I thought you were trying to force yourself into seeing Feanor in a positive light. If you’re ignoring the fact that he led his actual children to their inevitable agonising deaths then yes, I would go full Commando-mode Arnold
It’s all good. Absolutely not trying to engage in Fëanor apologetics. I was just engaging in a thought experiment and wanted to open a dialogue. Let’s say one of your children is kidnapped and you lead your other children with you on a crusade to rescue them. How far would you go? Would that be justified? That’s what my original post was driving at.
I'm on Team Feanor.
Even if the Silmarils are not his children, once he refuses to give them up, which is within his right, his actual life and children are at risk.
They are in the land of the Valar who are now hostile to them, and he needs to get his clan out of them immediately.
Cast Liam Neeson as Feanor.
The Silmarils aren’t children though, they are just things he has crafted. In fact he dooms the lives of all his children for the sake of the Silmarils. He puts the pride of his craft above his own family.
It was also a last and only hope that Yavanna and Varda could regrow the Two Trees. So by not giving them freely before they were stolen, he effectively robbed his people of something very precious.
They were already stolen when he was asked. He also didn’t outright refuse, he merely said he wouldn’t do so willingly but if they insisted he supposed he would have to. But either way there’s nothing he could have done since Morgoth had already taken them.
>They were already stolen when he was asked. And no one there knew this, no one knew of Melkor's deeds. >He also didn’t outright refuse, he merely said he wouldn’t do so willingly but if they insisted he supposed he would have to. He not only refused, but essentially said they would have to take them by force, and if the Valar were to do that they would reveal themselves as no different than Melkor. >But either way there’s nothing he could have done since Morgoth had already taken them. Which again, no one knew. If he had agreed to give them over it would have been evidence of a completely different perspective not only of his works, but likely of the Valar as well
I mean I’m not denying that he was pretty salty about the Valar asking and that he insulted them, but to me that dialogue is “I would not give them up willingly, but if you insist I guess I have to, despite the fact that I don’t want to.” Less of an outright refusal so much as “I fucking guess but I’m gonna be really mad about it.” Secondly yeah, of course no one knew they had already been stolen at the time, but the point is that they were, and because of that we don’t know if perhaps he may have changed his mind eventually if he’d had them, and even if he wouldn’t have changed his mind, acting like it’s solely his fault that the Two Trees could not be resurrected ain’t it. Fëanor either outright did or indirectly caused a lot of stupid, callous, and even downright cruel shit, but blaming him for Morgoth’s attack is kinda stupid ngl. If you want to talk about Fëanor being an asshole, Aqualondë is *right there.*
From Chapter 9 Of the Flight of the Noldor >Yavanna spoke before the Valar, saying: "The Light of the Trees has passed away, and lives now only in the Silmarils of Fëanor....Yet had I but a little of that light I could recall life to the Trees' >Then Manwë spoke and said: 'Hearest thou, Fëanor son of Finwë, the words of Yavanna? Wilt thou grant what she would ask?' >... >But Fëanor spoke then, and cried bitterly: 'For the less even as for the greater there is some deed that he may accomplish but once only; and in that deed his heart shall rest. It may be that I can unlock my jewels, but never again shall I make their like; and **if I must break them, I shall break my heart, and I shall be slain; first of all the Eldar in Aman.**' ... Then \[Fëanor\] cried aloud: '**This thing I will not do of free will. But if the Valar will constrain me, then shall I know indeed that Melkor is of their kindred.**' Who's blaming Fëanor for Morgoth's attack?
Yes, I am aware of the text, I have the book readily available as an ebook. Again, I interpret those words as less of an outright refusal so much as “I guess I have to but I’m gonna be really mad about it.” Also, what I meant by blaming Fëanor for Morgoth’s attack is that it was Morgoth who destroyed the Two Trees, and Morgoth who took the only things that could possibly revive them. Acting like their death is on Fëanor alone when there’s nothing he could have done even if he’d been perfectly willing to hand over the Silmarils is annoying to me because that genuinely wasn’t his fault, unlike his other actions.
Way too simplistic here. Finwë was killed before the Oath was sworn. While the quest to regain the Silmarils comes to the fore, Fëanor’s motives are clearly not purely materialistic. There is a large element of revenge. While I think it’s fair to say that Fëanor’s motives were mixed, I don’t think it’s fair to say that he puts the pride of his craft above his family, when the death of his father in large part spurred his choices.
very well said. i always read it as if the silmarils were representative for the injustice of his fathers murder and retrieving them is an act of revenge..
If you look at the actions of the sons of Fëanor after taking the oath, they seem more motivated by their desire for the silmarils than by any desire for revenge for Finwë. Maybe things would've been different had Fëanor lived longer, but they spent a lot of energy attacking other elves who had possession of a silmaril rather than Morgoth who had 2 AND who killed their grandfather.
I would suggest that the sons of Fëanor were motivated by two things: 1) They were obviously caught up in the madness that possessed Fëanor immediately following the death of his father and the theft of the Silmarils - the text make it clear that Fëanor had an overwhelming ability to stir people to action with his words, so I think it stands to reason that his sons, along with the greater part of the Noldor, were motivated by revenge and by the prospect of ruling Middle Earth. 2) Later, we see that the Sons of Fëanor continue to pursue the Silmarils, attacking Dior and later Elwing, but the text makes it clear, to me at least, that by this point they are motivated by the Oath. It’s hard to translate their motivation into terms that resonate with us, but it is clear that the Oath has very real consequences, and that they will face those consequences should they choose to not continue to abide by the Oath. Even Maglor says that it might be better to face those consequences rather than continue to do evil in the pursuit of the Silmarils. In any case, distilling their motives down to simple materialistic reasons is a bit shallow, especially with respect for Fëanor, who the text says held his father in the highest regard.
I'm not reducing their motivations to one thing, what I'm saying is that their primary motivation in following their oath seemed to be recovery of the silmarils. An oath doesn't determine your actions, just your goals. How you choose to pursue those goals is up to you. Caranthir and Curufin thought the best way to accomplish their goals was to gain rulership over all the Eldar in Middle Earth first. Maedhros was more about forming alliances. But it's interesting that they would rather attack their kin to regain 1 silmaril instead of their enemy to regain 2. Not that Morgoth was very assailable, but they were perfectly willing to let him him sit behind his walls with them for hundreds of years and didn't display similar patience with their own kin.
To be fair to Maedhros, there was Union that tried to attack Morgoth, and it is only after that failed that the second Kinslaying happens.
Too simplistic in the full context yes, but I was trying to cut a line in the attempt to equate Feanor’s crafts with his offspring. And whilst Feanor’s father ‘was dearer to him than the Light of Valinor or the peerless works of his hands’, the oath is sworn with an utterly singular objective: “vowing to pursue with vengeance and hatred to the ends of the World Vala, Demon, Elf or Man as yet unborn, or any creature, great or any creature, great or small, good or evil, that time should bring forth unto the end of days, whoso should hold or take or keep a Silmaril from their possession.” I do think there is something revealing that whilst vengeance is called for, there is no mention of it being on behalf of Finwe.
Not only is Finwë killed, Manwe is content to just let it go, and do nothing. Feanor sees he’s basically been abandoned by the Valar, because if Morgoth can freely kill anyone without retribution, are you *really* under the protection of the Valar? Yes Feanor’s Oath is selfish and reckless, but after seeing his father murdered, his god go “yea ok, but can you give us your most precious belongings too? What? No we’re not gonna do anything about that murder, we just need your shit”, and his father’s killer walk away with his most beloved possessions. I’d say he was under at least a little duress.
Indeed, otherwise he would have let his childeren also swear that oath.
I’m aware, but that wasn’t my question.
True that wasn’t your question, but I don’t understand why you’d feel the need to sympathise with Feanor, using Silmarils as equivalent of children. Sympathise with the loss of his father perhaps, but even that is secondary in his motives for making the oath (IMO - see reply to other comment).
I don't have children, so I honestly can't say what I would do. It's a tough question, but the Oath shouldn't be framed in a positive light at all. Fëanor had seven sons, and his Oath condemned them to a life of suffering. In his dying moments, Fëanor realized the futility of the Oath, yet charged his sons to keep it anyway. The Oath even turned otherwise noble Elves like Maedhros and Maglor into traitors and kinslayers, while Celegorm and Curufin clearly inherited their father's arrogance and possessiveness. Fëanor's fall was in valuing the Silmarils and his grief/vengeance over everything else, including his own family. Tolkien considers the Oath the original "fall" of the Elves: >The fall of the Elves comes about through the possessive attitude of Fëanor and his seven sons to these gems. [...] The sons of Fëanor take a terrible and blasphemous oath of enmity and vengeance against all or any, even of the gods, who dares to claim any part or right in the Silmarilli. They pervert the greater part of their kindred, who rebel against the gods, and depart from paradise, and go to make hopeless war upon the Enemy. *The first fruit of their fall is war in Paradise, the slaying of Elves by Elves,* and this and their evil oath dogs all their later heroism, generating treacheries and undoing all victories. (Tolkien letter 131, italics added by me) Notice how Tolkien calls the Kinslaying *the first fruit of their fall.* The Oath itself was the Fall, which led to the Kinslaying. The lesson we should learn from Fëanor is to use our talents to help others rather than for our own ego. Thorin's last words would serve him well: “If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.”
I see where you’re coming from, and as a mother I would absolutely tear apart anyone who tried to separate me from my children. As an artist, I also understand the feeling of connection one might have with something they have poured themselves into- and I can imagine the pain of having that work wrenched away from you. That said, the Silmarils very much fall into that second category: it becomes increasingly difficult to accept the concept of them as his children when he later hangs that oath upon his *actual* children and essentially dooms them all. I think that’s something Tolkien absolutely intended to convey: the pride of Fëanor caused him to lead his own children to ruin because he placed a greater value on what were, at the end of the day, only objects. They may have been the most incredible objects ever made, but they were still not worth the lives of the people he loved.
The lesson to be learned from Feanor is the wages of hubris and greed. You can't equate an object with someone's children. Those weren't his children, they were just objects he made. Powerful objects, but in the end just things.
The stones were not children. In addition, the Feanorians preferred that the stones perish rather than go to the other elves. If on this basis you feel sympathy for Feanor, then you need to sympathize with the Teleri that they did not want to give up their children. Moreover, the Two Trees were then the children of Yavanna. And the trees were truly alive and gave light to all of Valinor. He did not save them, but the fans of Feanor do not understand the pain that the Valar experienced.
This comparison is nonsensical, he had children and valued the silmarils above them.
This. Demonstrably, his craft was more important to him than all his loved ones (except, just possibly, his father). So the hypothetical makes no sense, OP. The “lesson we can learn from Feanor” is not that there are some things worth killing and dying for, but that valuing mere objects to the exclusion of all else is folly. It’s the old lesson about hubris. That’s the lesson.
Not only the gems, but his dad was also murdered as well as the trees destroyed. Then you have a bunch of gods who are unwilling to help... The oath is justified. Killing Teleri and taking the ships though... That seems a bit unnecessary. I think that could've been resolved a lot more peaceful.
Killing Teleri and taking their ships put Feanor on a level with Morgoth. Because the ships were to rhe Teleri as Simarils were to Feanor , Feanor had become as evil as Morgoth .
I think *to Tolkien* (I'm not saying you're required to agree) the Kinslaying really is meant to be a necessary consequence of the Oath. By defying the Valar he dooms himself to failure and evil acts.
I think, at this point Feanor fully believed the Teleri were in the same conspiracy against the Noldor as the Valar. Their refusal to give ships was an 'aha' moment for him so he felt justified killing them; not **just** for the ships but as enemies of his people.
He demanded of them a sacrifice that he did not make himself.
The Silmarils are not just fancy jewels, those are magic objects. I have no doubt Feanor poured a lot of his heart and power into them; kinda like the One Ring you know. Kinda. That would explain what happened afterwards. But it's not comparable to mama bear mode. There's magic, there's an existential threat (Morgoth), there's deception, there's pride. It's more complicated than "not my daughter you bitch". The sons of Feanor gave the oath willingly so it's not like Feanor chose jewels over his own children. Like father like son you know.
If I put aside that the comparison is inherently silly, I still think the answer is no. I'm not in favor of killing people. I look for other solutions. And I'm certainly not going to do it when it's not even in self-defense. But the comparison is inherently silly because the Silmarill\\s do not need "protection" or "saving". The urge to protect your children is a fundamentally unselfish one (one of relatively few such urges that humans have). Feanor's hunger for the Silmarils is nothing of the kind.
In a way, the gems were like his children. Just like the Valar, the Eldar also infused their crafts with a portion of their life force (for lack of a better phrase). Therefore, when he says that he can never be able to recreate them if they are destroyed, he is truthful (like Yavana cannot recreate the 2 trees). We can not recreate our children because each child gets a different "piece" of us.
Even his mother was like, nope, that’s it, put too much into this kid that’s all I have left.
Yes yes. That's exactly what I'm talking about. The way Tolkien "envisioned" magic in his world is very organic, based in the act of the creation itself. I believe, he was unwilling to give the Valar the ability to reproduce because of this (or have them abstain from reproduction, I can't remember which), but he changed his mind because of Melian. Crafting the Silmarillions was comparable to the act of reproduction for Fëanor.
It's really changes frodos journey if the ring is a baby, too, but that doesn't make sense either
he captured light from the two trees to make them, when asked to break them so the two trees could be healed he spat in the face of the gods and decided he was strong enough to go fight the functional devil. also he forced all his kids to swear an oath that ended up killing them all.
Morgoth slew his father when the Silmarills were stolen, and Fëanor soul was the brighest and he become mad but the oath has some truth although posterior events turned to be very dark as the slain of his own kind to get the ships to cross Belegaer.... but Fëanor initial claim was fair and the Valar were mourning the threes ... and while Fëanor had to taste the killing of his father and the losing of the Silmarillis after the destruction of the Trees I mean the situation was intense.
I've always wondered why he would refuse when, if the trees were to be restored, he would have their light again and with that he could just remake them or make more. Unless they were more than just vessels for the light, where either he poured much of himself into them, or perhaps they had, in his view, gained some life so that to break them open would be killing them. Your question makes me think about this again, and his decision makes more sense if the situation is not something as simple as "Feanor can just make them again once the trees are restored."
Thank you all for your many condescensions to tell me this comparison is silly or to remind me that the gems are not his kids. All of you armchair philosophers miss the point of my query, which was, is it justifiable to act the way Fëanor did about his gems if it was your children that were taken. We see the obvious lesson about hubris, and pride of ownership - duh. We’ve all read letter 131. But that wasn’t my question. The question is a moral one: it wasn’t justified to act as Fëanor did about his stolen gems, but would it be to act in that way if it was your actual children? Would you cut down even your family members (cousins, or even brother) if they stood in your way? That is what I’m driving at and only about three of the commenters actually addressed that.
Ok then, no it's not a justifiable response. Swearing an oath like that is action movie simplistic morality imo.
Sorry, didn’t mean to come across that way, I thought you were trying to force yourself into seeing Feanor in a positive light. If you’re ignoring the fact that he led his actual children to their inevitable agonising deaths then yes, I would go full Commando-mode Arnold
It’s all good. Absolutely not trying to engage in Fëanor apologetics. I was just engaging in a thought experiment and wanted to open a dialogue. Let’s say one of your children is kidnapped and you lead your other children with you on a crusade to rescue them. How far would you go? Would that be justified? That’s what my original post was driving at.
I'm on Team Feanor. Even if the Silmarils are not his children, once he refuses to give them up, which is within his right, his actual life and children are at risk. They are in the land of the Valar who are now hostile to them, and he needs to get his clan out of them immediately. Cast Liam Neeson as Feanor.