Glorfindel

[TenshinoHikari]

There is one thing that I feel must debated in all Tolkien communities. Is Glorfindel of Rivendell the same as Glorfindel of Gondolin? Tolkien never says for sure, though he did allude to the fact as stated in The Encyclopedia of Arda:

Quote:

The only real resource we have to answer this question is in The Peoples of Middle-earth (The History of Middle-earth Vol. 12): XIII Last Writings, Glorfindel. Christopher Tolkien dates the notes he gives here at 1972, the year before his father's death.

These notes clear up one question immediately: at the time of the writing of The Lord of the Rings, Glorfindel of Rivendell was not conceived as the same character as Glorfindel of Gondolin. Tolkien says, 'Its use [i.e. the name 'Glorfindel'] in The Lord of the Rings is one of the cases of the somewhat random use of the names found in the older legends ... which escaped reconsideration in the final published form...'.

Tolkien was far from happy with this state of affairs, however, and it seems that he intended to reconcile the problem by uniting the two strands of the story. In summary, the notes tell us that Glorfindel's spirit returned to the Halls of Waiting, but was after a time re-embodied by the Valar. He then returned to Middle-earth (either in the mid-Second Age, or as a companion of the Istari in the Third). For the full story of his return, refer to The Peoples of Middle-earth.

The question of Glorfindel's identity, then, brings us to a much wider, and highly relevant, question. Can we accept a writer's personal notes, whether written in preparation for a published work, or simply for personal satisfaction, as part of that writer's 'canon'?

I, personally, believe that they are the same. Much of Tolkien's work, including The Silmarillion was published post mortem because he'd never had the chance to finish it. Why, then, should his own personal notes not be considered canon? (However, I also prefer the story of Elrond and Elros that Tolkien later rejected...)  

[Falathrim]

Actually, Tolkien makes very explicit that they are the same; an entire essay is written on the matter. The debate is whether or not this should be accepted as canon, as it appears only in HoME. And that is something that can only be decided by the individual.  

[Glorfirith Annun]

They are the same!

Falathrim gave you evidence already... I guess. But I still wanted to say something!

Something meaningful anywayz... even if I failed.

I heart Glorfindel!  

[Onoj]

Glorfindel sucks! Lol wink  

[Luth!en]

When I watched Fellowship of the Ring I was so dissapointed to see that Glorfindel was not in it, and that Arwen, who is scarcely in the books at all, had tooken his role.
Dont get me wrong, I do love Arwen, but personally I love Glorfindel better.  

[Laurewyn]

Makes me wonder... If it had been Glorfindel instead of Arwen... would he just end up being another sideshow bishi and fangirl magnet like Figwit? Probably.  

[Boolean Julian]

I would like to think that they are the same, but I just don't know.
It's very difficult to say which of Tolkien's personal notes should and should not be considered canon. Tolkien was constantly changing his ideas, so it is impossible for all of his notes to be canon. Ultimately, HoME, the Sil and UT were all edited by Christopher Tolkien, and so really the generally acceptedd version of most stories is simply what he deemed to be the best, or most consistent.
Posthumous works are always tricky whee  

[Starlit Jewel]

TenshinoHikari: I believe that they're the same person, not least because of the letter that Falathrim is talking about. I agree though; it's up to the reader.

Laurewyn: Yes, now that you mention it, I do wonder... I suppose that as Glorfindel remains a book only character, we literates can almost keep him to ourselves so to speak... it's nice not to have the character constantly oogled over by fangirls, like Legolas... I truly liked him in the books, I really did, but with all these fangirls fawning over him and saying "hE's SOOOO hawt!" I soemtimes think... 'Bah!' But I'll always like book-Legolas... and Figwit was just there for the fans I think. 2 lines... lol

smile

P.S: As a literate fangirl, I must say that I do like Glorfindel very much though... after all, Balrog slaying is a very brave occupation... wink  

[EmmaDeLauro]

queenxxbee

When I watched Fellowship of the Ring I was so dissapointed to see that Glorfindel was not in it, and that Arwen, who is scarcely in the books at all, had tooken his role.
Dont get me wrong, I do love Arwen, but personally I love Glorfindel better.

My favourite retort to all those who've only seen the movies is that Arwen, a relatively unimportant character in the grand scheme of LOTR is completely insignificant. PJ makes her out to be Aragorn's strength and that his life is tied to hers, and all that junk. I know that whole die of depseration idea, but still, come on, did you really care about Arwen when you read the books?  

[Laurewyn]

Perhaps PJ was trying to make the trilogy more "appealing" to audiences that like female heroes as well. As much as I agree about Liv's role being too extreme, I can see how he had to "Hollywood-ize" the roles a bit to make the box office. It is very difficult to include a character for a miniscule portion of a film and then leave him/her out of it the rest of the way. Why not just leave out Arwen? Well, we have to remember the Eowyn-Aragorn dilemma as well. An excuse coming from Aragorn that has no visual/storyline proof and breaks Eowyn's heart isn't very pleasing, if you follow me. Back to Glorfindel...  

[Ithilvalan]

Wait, wait, I thought Glorfindel of the House of the Tree died? It definitely says so in the Sils. Is he reincarnated or something?  

[Zurgi]

Glorfindel of the First Age dies, and Tolkien later states (not in LOTR, where the Glorfindel there refers to FA Glorfindel as his ancestor) that the second Glorfindel was a reincarnation of the first. I think it was in Letters that he said it...but I'm not sure. Haven't read it.  

[Ithilvalan]

Ah, thanks Zurgi.  

[Zurgi]

No problem, glad I could clear that up 3nodding  

[Rhaella]

Peoples of Middle-earth, HoME 12.

I think they're the same person. We can't forget this little tidbit:

Quote:

This difficulty, far more serious than the linguistic one, may be considered first. At any rate what at first sight may seem the simplest solution must be abandoned: sc. that we have merely a reduplication of names, and that Glorfindel of Gondolin and Glorfindel of Rivendell were different persons. This repetition of so striking a name, though possible, would not be credible. No other major character in the Elvish legends as reported in The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings has a name borne by another Elvish person of importance.