Do all elves have pointy enough ears for it to be a distinguishing trait? Do elves consider this important at all?
I argue no on both questions, given that when Tolkien described in a letter to a person unfamiliar with his mythos of hobbit ears being slight leaf-shaped, and 'elvish', that alone doesn't make all elven ears pointy enough to be that different from human years. Maybe for some elves, even a lot of elves, their ears may be pointy like a stereotypical leaf, but that doesn't mean all elves have pointy enough ears to make them completely distinguishable for men.
Case in point, in the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen, when Aragorn was in Lorien and Galadriel did her makeover on him, in Arwen's point of view, Aragorn was described as "more than any king of Men he appeared, and seemed rather an Elf-lord from the Isles of the West." Now one argue that this is a metaphor, and that Arwen did not mean this literally. But if the elven pointy ear thing was significant enough, I think Arwen would've just thought of the tales of the Numenorean kings of old rather than a Valinorean, Tol Eressean elf-lord.
Let's open the discussion.
Do all elves have pointy ears, or are they pointy enough to be a distinguishing trait? (2022 Update: NoME says NO)
- Points: 799
New Soul
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 11:26 am
From the Etymologies in The Lost Road: (my emphasis)
Las (1)
*lasse 'leaf': Q lasse, N lhass; Q lasselanta 'leaf-fall, autumn', N lhasbelin (*lassekwelene), cf. Q Narquelion [ KWEL ]. Lhasgalen 'Greenleaf', Gnome name of Laurelin. (Some think this is related to the next and *lasse 'ear'. The Quendian ears were more pointed and leaf-shaped than [?human].)
Las (2)
'listen'. N lhaw 'ears' (of one person), old dual *lasu - whence singular lhewig. Q lar, lasta- 'listen'; lasta 'listening, hearing' - Lastalaika 'sharp-ears', a name, cf. N Lhathleg. N lhathron 'hearer, listener, eavesdropper' (< *la(n)sro-ndo); lhathro or lhathrando 'listen in, eavesdrop'.
Las (1)
*lasse 'leaf': Q lasse, N lhass; Q lasselanta 'leaf-fall, autumn', N lhasbelin (*lassekwelene), cf. Q Narquelion [ KWEL ]. Lhasgalen 'Greenleaf', Gnome name of Laurelin. (Some think this is related to the next and *lasse 'ear'. The Quendian ears were more pointed and leaf-shaped than [?human].)
Las (2)
'listen'. N lhaw 'ears' (of one person), old dual *lasu - whence singular lhewig. Q lar, lasta- 'listen'; lasta 'listening, hearing' - Lastalaika 'sharp-ears', a name, cf. N Lhathleg. N lhathron 'hearer, listener, eavesdropper' (< *la(n)sro-ndo); lhathro or lhathrando 'listen in, eavesdrop'.
Last edited by Almarëa Mordollwen on Tue Jun 02, 2020 4:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
She/her. Almarëa - Rivendell / Jaena - Lone Lands (T.A.) and Gondor (F.A.) / Layna - Mordor
- Points: 1 590
Bard of Imladris
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 2:40 am
One possibility based upon that definition is that the elves had pointy earlobes, rather than a pointy top body of the ear as one would think. Humans don't have leaf-shaped ears because our ear lobes are not pointy.
- Points: 2 265
Elven Enchanter
Posts: 1451
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 2:15 am
Pointy earlobes would also be less noticeable than pointing tops of the ear.
However, not all human earlobes are shaped the same. Some are attached and others are free, which could be argued to be slightly pointy, though a bit on the rounded side of pointy.
However, not all human earlobes are shaped the same. Some are attached and others are free, which could be argued to be slightly pointy, though a bit on the rounded side of pointy.
Artanis / Éomund / Brandor / Zarâm
- Points: 302
Istari Savant
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed May 27, 2020 8:35 pm
That's the key, I think. Arwen with Aragorn is hardly the only time Tolkien takes one of his Men and describes them as seeming or being mistaken for an Elf.
There is a tendency in the fantasy reader community of sort refusing to take things subtly. If something is said to be big, it must be really big, beyond what would be reasonably expected. if someone is quickly, they must be inhumanely speedy. But unless there's another actual reason to think that, it's easier and simpler to keep those qualifications within the bounds of expected reason. And Tolkien doesn't mention Elves' pointy ears that much. I don't think there's a characteristic of Elves that he mentions that he ever mentions less. So it's not as if he's going out of his way to make sure the reader is taking very special note of this. Which means it's probably not that noteworthy. Shapes that can be described as pointy (especially when qualified as leaf-shaped) exist within the variety of human phenotypes. No real reason to escape that for this.
- Points: 159
Scholar of Gondor
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 9:26 pm
Nope. The main distinguishing features which Tolkien gives to Elves in his published writings are to do with their voices, and their eyes. Ears are never mentioned.
It's all in the books.
- Points: 2 032
Istari Steward
Posts: 1089
Joined: Thu May 21, 2020 3:10 pm
In Letter 27, in a description of hobbits, Tolkien mentions:
"A round, jovial face; ears only slightly pointed and ‘elvish’"
Now, elvish would not have been a useful word to describe hobbits if Tolkien meant his own version of elves, so we cannot say that this reference automatically means that Tolkien elves have pointed ears, only that hobbits do. But if Tolkien never mentions what elves' ears look like, and it was common knowledge that elvish ears were slightly pointed, then we could argue that common knowledge ought to be applied to Tolkien elves in absence of contrary evidence. Even then, I suspect, as Elenhir says, the ears would not be pointed in such an obvious way as to be a -distinguishing- feature. It would be a slight feature.
On a less important note, I think the example of Arwen and Aragorn is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Using elf-lord as a contrasting foil to human men has nothing to do with physical features, and everything to do with carriage, demeanor, and presence.
"A round, jovial face; ears only slightly pointed and ‘elvish’"
Now, elvish would not have been a useful word to describe hobbits if Tolkien meant his own version of elves, so we cannot say that this reference automatically means that Tolkien elves have pointed ears, only that hobbits do. But if Tolkien never mentions what elves' ears look like, and it was common knowledge that elvish ears were slightly pointed, then we could argue that common knowledge ought to be applied to Tolkien elves in absence of contrary evidence. Even then, I suspect, as Elenhir says, the ears would not be pointed in such an obvious way as to be a -distinguishing- feature. It would be a slight feature.
On a less important note, I think the example of Arwen and Aragorn is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Using elf-lord as a contrasting foil to human men has nothing to do with physical features, and everything to do with carriage, demeanor, and presence.
- Points: 198
New Soul
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 12:14 pm
The only other thing I can find worth bringing up is a bit from Morgoth's Ring in the Laws and Customs Among the Eldar:
"The Eldar grew in bodily form slower than Men, but in mind more swiftly. They learned to speak before they were one year old; and in the same time they learned to walk and to dance, for their wills came soon to the mastery of their bodies. Nonetheless there was less difference between the two Kindreds, Elves and Men, in early youth; and a man who watched elf-children at play might well have believed that they were the children of Men, of some fair and happy people. For in their early days elf-children delighted still in the world about them, and the fire of their spirit had not consumed them, and the burden of memory was still light upon them.
This same watcher might indeed have wondered at the small limbs and stature of these children, judging their age by their skill in words and grace in motion. For at the end of the third year mortal children began to outstrip the Elves, hastening on to a full stature while the Elves lingered in the first spring of childhood. Children of Men might reach their full height while Eldar of the same age were still in the body like to mortals of no more than seven years. Not until the fiftieth year did the Eldar attain the stature and shape in which their lives would afterwards endure, and for some hundred years would pass before they were full-grown."
Ears are still never mentioned but he says that one race can easily be seen as the other, at least in their youth. The differences being their mind's development, body's growth rate, and the tendency of the elves' more fair appearance. There is even a piece of art by Tolkien of Beleg having a beard, so... lol
Personally I'd just give in and say they do have pointy ears because it is what the world has decided and there is no one now to confirm it either way.
"The Eldar grew in bodily form slower than Men, but in mind more swiftly. They learned to speak before they were one year old; and in the same time they learned to walk and to dance, for their wills came soon to the mastery of their bodies. Nonetheless there was less difference between the two Kindreds, Elves and Men, in early youth; and a man who watched elf-children at play might well have believed that they were the children of Men, of some fair and happy people. For in their early days elf-children delighted still in the world about them, and the fire of their spirit had not consumed them, and the burden of memory was still light upon them.
This same watcher might indeed have wondered at the small limbs and stature of these children, judging their age by their skill in words and grace in motion. For at the end of the third year mortal children began to outstrip the Elves, hastening on to a full stature while the Elves lingered in the first spring of childhood. Children of Men might reach their full height while Eldar of the same age were still in the body like to mortals of no more than seven years. Not until the fiftieth year did the Eldar attain the stature and shape in which their lives would afterwards endure, and for some hundred years would pass before they were full-grown."
Ears are still never mentioned but he says that one race can easily be seen as the other, at least in their youth. The differences being their mind's development, body's growth rate, and the tendency of the elves' more fair appearance. There is even a piece of art by Tolkien of Beleg having a beard, so... lol
Personally I'd just give in and say they do have pointy ears because it is what the world has decided and there is no one now to confirm it either way.
- Points: 799
New Soul
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 11:26 am
I think it's possible (and reasonable) to conclude all of the following:
1. Tolkien intended his elves to have slightly pointed/leaf-shaped ears.
2. This was not their most distinguishing feature (as @geordie rightly says, eyes and voices are far more remarked upon).
3. The very large, highly pointed ears that you find in some D&D art, or some fan art, are a substantial exaggeration.
1. Tolkien intended his elves to have slightly pointed/leaf-shaped ears.
2. This was not their most distinguishing feature (as @geordie rightly says, eyes and voices are far more remarked upon).
3. The very large, highly pointed ears that you find in some D&D art, or some fan art, are a substantial exaggeration.
She/her. Almarëa - Rivendell / Jaena - Lone Lands (T.A.) and Gondor (F.A.) / Layna - Mordor
- Points: 1 590
Bard of Imladris
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 2:40 am
That definition of the Lost Road seems to conflict enough with Morgoth's Ring's description that men who watched elf-children at play could've thought they were human beings. In terms of children, I'm going to assume that ears are one of the most seen body parts, and its lack of mention is significant enough to show either that in childhood, elves' ears are not at all that easy to distinguish from humans.
Do we know what year that section of the Lost Road was created, and when the more substantial description of Morgoth's Ring was written? I ask this because I see the mention of "Gnome." Tolkien's ideas changed as the years went by, so the years are important to cross-examine. I also want a year date on when he sent that letter remarking on what a hobbit's ears looked like.
@Celebrin That's not very Tolkien-like to give in to what the world has decided based on a lack of evidence. Back during Tolkien's day, much of the world had a much different idea on what elves and dwarves looked like. I would've thought that Tolkien would try to stray away from all the noticeable features of a stereotypical elf in Tolkien's day, though I'm not entirely sure what the stereotype for elves was in Tolkien's day. I do know for certain that he hated the dwarven depiction in Snow White.
Tolkien's lack of mentioning of elven ears is significant. Because we know that when Tolkien wants to illustrate a distinguishing characteristic, he writes it. For Hobbits, if I remember correctly the hairy feet are mentioned quite a few times, for instance. At the same time, he's not exclusive in terms of whether he focuses on internal or external characteristics. Hobbits, for one, have the combination of both external and internal characteristics Tolkien focuses on whether through description or through direct commentary from people like Gandalf and others. Just like how Tolkien's mentioning of the internal majesty and grace of the elves is elaborated on, his lack of mention in prose regarding distinguishing external body parts is equally important.
Do we know what year that section of the Lost Road was created, and when the more substantial description of Morgoth's Ring was written? I ask this because I see the mention of "Gnome." Tolkien's ideas changed as the years went by, so the years are important to cross-examine. I also want a year date on when he sent that letter remarking on what a hobbit's ears looked like.
@Celebrin That's not very Tolkien-like to give in to what the world has decided based on a lack of evidence. Back during Tolkien's day, much of the world had a much different idea on what elves and dwarves looked like. I would've thought that Tolkien would try to stray away from all the noticeable features of a stereotypical elf in Tolkien's day, though I'm not entirely sure what the stereotype for elves was in Tolkien's day. I do know for certain that he hated the dwarven depiction in Snow White.
Tolkien's lack of mentioning of elven ears is significant. Because we know that when Tolkien wants to illustrate a distinguishing characteristic, he writes it. For Hobbits, if I remember correctly the hairy feet are mentioned quite a few times, for instance. At the same time, he's not exclusive in terms of whether he focuses on internal or external characteristics. Hobbits, for one, have the combination of both external and internal characteristics Tolkien focuses on whether through description or through direct commentary from people like Gandalf and others. Just like how Tolkien's mentioning of the internal majesty and grace of the elves is elaborated on, his lack of mention in prose regarding distinguishing external body parts is equally important.
- Points: 198
New Soul
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 12:14 pm
I'm not one to get crazy into this lore stuff. Tbh I've only even read the books through one time and I never got through all of the Histories even. BUT, I like this thought on WHY there is so little information on their ears. Could Tolkien have very well been ashamed of their pointed ears and thus not even bringing them to the reader's attention? Could it have something to do with whether pointy ears were attractive at the time? Were they a flaw in their majesty? With hobbits undoubtedly having pointed ears, and with them being described at we'll say plump, did Tolkien purposely avoid comparing the two races on purpose? OR were hobbits given pointy ears to be we'll say cuter because elves had them and thus made pointy ears attractive? Perhaps he did not wish to say and his mind was conflicted over the subject, and possibly even more so after watching Snow White. Did CS Lewis lay down some witty banter about pointed ears and Tolkien had no retort? Is all this the reason hobbit ears are only 'slightly' pointed?
I'd agree with Ducky that hobbit ears being described as 'elvish' does not reflect on his elves at all after reading the definition of "elf" in the dictionary.
elf
noun, plural elves [elvz] .
(in folklore) one of a class of preternatural beings, especially from mountainous regions, with magical powers, given to capricious and often mischievous interference in human affairs, and usually imagined to be a diminutive being in human form; sprite; fairy.
a diminutive person, especially a child.
a mischievous person, especially a child.
I even like that it says "mischievous interference in human affairs" when hobbits themselves have no interest in such activities. Hobbits themselves could be a defiance of stereotypes and the definition of what an elf is, and thus Tolkien's elves as well of course. And he couldn't call them both elves as they were so different.
I have no answers but I'll leave all these questions haha My mind just wandered.
I'd agree with Ducky that hobbit ears being described as 'elvish' does not reflect on his elves at all after reading the definition of "elf" in the dictionary.
elf
noun, plural elves [elvz] .
(in folklore) one of a class of preternatural beings, especially from mountainous regions, with magical powers, given to capricious and often mischievous interference in human affairs, and usually imagined to be a diminutive being in human form; sprite; fairy.
a diminutive person, especially a child.
a mischievous person, especially a child.
I even like that it says "mischievous interference in human affairs" when hobbits themselves have no interest in such activities. Hobbits themselves could be a defiance of stereotypes and the definition of what an elf is, and thus Tolkien's elves as well of course. And he couldn't call them both elves as they were so different.
I have no answers but I'll leave all these questions haha My mind just wandered.
- Points: 1 590
Bard of Imladris
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 2:40 am
When I was reading the Nature of Middle Earth, my eyes came to a certain quote. As I don't want to create a new thread on this, since it is in regards towards the differences between Elves and Men, I will be posting this relevant quote in this old thread.
With the publication of The Nature of Middle Earth in 2021 came a lot of new information about elves. Here is a quote in the "Notes on Órë" chapter (I have bolded the relevant part):
"[...] nor do we need to consider whether Elvish minds differed in their faculties and their relation with their bodies.
The Elves thought there was no fundamental difference in the given faculties; but that for reasons of the separate history of Elves and Men they were differently used. Above all the difference of their bodies, which were nonetheless of the same structure, had a marked effect: the human body was (or had become) more easily injured or destroyed, and was in any case doomed to decay by age and to die, with or without the will to do so, after a brief time."
Here Tolkien states that the big difference between human and elf bodies are the relative fragility of the human body, even they were "nonetheless of the same structure." There is no word like "mostly," its a pretty definitive statement.
Based on this, I conclude that elves have no pointier ears than humans and that this quote implies that ear-shape is not how one would distinguish between and elf and a man. That the distinguishing should more focus on our mortality.
With the publication of The Nature of Middle Earth in 2021 came a lot of new information about elves. Here is a quote in the "Notes on Órë" chapter (I have bolded the relevant part):
"[...] nor do we need to consider whether Elvish minds differed in their faculties and their relation with their bodies.
The Elves thought there was no fundamental difference in the given faculties; but that for reasons of the separate history of Elves and Men they were differently used. Above all the difference of their bodies, which were nonetheless of the same structure, had a marked effect: the human body was (or had become) more easily injured or destroyed, and was in any case doomed to decay by age and to die, with or without the will to do so, after a brief time."
Here Tolkien states that the big difference between human and elf bodies are the relative fragility of the human body, even they were "nonetheless of the same structure." There is no word like "mostly," its a pretty definitive statement.
Based on this, I conclude that elves have no pointier ears than humans and that this quote implies that ear-shape is not how one would distinguish between and elf and a man. That the distinguishing should more focus on our mortality.
- Points: 1 140
Master Torturer
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 2:10 am
I think it's debatable whether "of the same structure" should be read to refer to fine detail like ear shape, or if it's a more general statement. I'm assuming we're talking about relatively subtle points, not spiky tubes jutting out and away from the head, like you see in some fantasy art. As Elenhir noted upthread, subtly pointy ears can be found in the Primary World human population (and also among Secondary World Hobbits). I assume few people would interpret the NoMe statement you quote to mean that there are no observable phenotypic differences between the average Human and Elvish appearances—Elves tend to be taller, if nothing else. I don't think NoMe precludes them also tending to have somewhat pointier ears.
Loremistress Emerita | she/her
- Points: 1 590
Bard of Imladris
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 2:40 am
@Eldy Dunami Thanks for responding Eldy! One important question that I have is that we now know that ears are different for everyone, and I've heard of studies that indicate that they are more unique than fingerprints. So to say that there would be an average ear shape would be akin to saying that there's an average fingerprint. While one can make various generalizations about what they could took like, it would sound pretty contradictory.
If the NoME quote was by itself, and Tolkien was consistent in being vague on structural matters, then your opinion would more likely be right. However, Tolkien does go into very specific detail on matters, like eye color for elves as well as height as you mentioned. If Tolkien was going to be that specific and wanted to make it clear that there was some sort of 'standard' for elven ears, then it would have been stated on the spot somewhere.
I'm not an expert on Tolkien's psychology on his strategy on imagining different beings in his work. But I believe he wanted his readers to enter into his world with a blank slate, with no pre-conceived notions on elves... but with conceived notions on themselves as humans, as much of his audience is human after all. Tolkien's elves were different than many of the elves people associated with during his time, but humans could be used as a frame of reference for us to more easily imagine these new people. I believe this is why he is specific on certain differences but silent on other aspects, because he wants the reader to infer that based on appearance, these people are similar to us except for such and such (hairy feet, grey eyes, mastery of weight distribution, height, etc.). It makes it easier on the reader, after all. From a narrative standpoint, it also eliminates stuff like, "when the Ainur presented themselves as one of the Children of Illuvatar, would they have looked more like elves or men?" because if the two have almost the same structure with exception to eye color, then its only a matter of proportions and ratios.
Please point out any contradicting info in the prior paragraph if I'm off-base there.
Ear structure for humans is such that each ear is different for everyone. The implication, for me as a reader BEFORE NoME, was that for elves it's the same, unless stated otherwise like Tolkien did for eyes and height. Ears are actually one of the more noticeable structures we can see on a human being (e.g. Honus Wagner, Liu Bei's nickname of "long ears", Buddha's exaggerated ears). To make it so that there is a "standard" ear shape for elves would therefore make that noticeable part of the body structure different than humans. It would be like saying that there is a standard fingerprint for elves.
There of course is the question, did people during Tolkien's realize how unique ear shape is to each human? It wouldn't surprise me because there was a lot of idiotic pseudoscience that supported illogical and harmful ideology in those days. Cause if they said that there were standards to ear shape, then I may have just wasted 30 minutes typing this response.
As an aside, if NoME were published earlier, Amazon would have probably saved ear prosthetic costs had they read that part of the text.
If the NoME quote was by itself, and Tolkien was consistent in being vague on structural matters, then your opinion would more likely be right. However, Tolkien does go into very specific detail on matters, like eye color for elves as well as height as you mentioned. If Tolkien was going to be that specific and wanted to make it clear that there was some sort of 'standard' for elven ears, then it would have been stated on the spot somewhere.
I'm not an expert on Tolkien's psychology on his strategy on imagining different beings in his work. But I believe he wanted his readers to enter into his world with a blank slate, with no pre-conceived notions on elves... but with conceived notions on themselves as humans, as much of his audience is human after all. Tolkien's elves were different than many of the elves people associated with during his time, but humans could be used as a frame of reference for us to more easily imagine these new people. I believe this is why he is specific on certain differences but silent on other aspects, because he wants the reader to infer that based on appearance, these people are similar to us except for such and such (hairy feet, grey eyes, mastery of weight distribution, height, etc.). It makes it easier on the reader, after all. From a narrative standpoint, it also eliminates stuff like, "when the Ainur presented themselves as one of the Children of Illuvatar, would they have looked more like elves or men?" because if the two have almost the same structure with exception to eye color, then its only a matter of proportions and ratios.
Please point out any contradicting info in the prior paragraph if I'm off-base there.
Ear structure for humans is such that each ear is different for everyone. The implication, for me as a reader BEFORE NoME, was that for elves it's the same, unless stated otherwise like Tolkien did for eyes and height. Ears are actually one of the more noticeable structures we can see on a human being (e.g. Honus Wagner, Liu Bei's nickname of "long ears", Buddha's exaggerated ears). To make it so that there is a "standard" ear shape for elves would therefore make that noticeable part of the body structure different than humans. It would be like saying that there is a standard fingerprint for elves.
There of course is the question, did people during Tolkien's realize how unique ear shape is to each human? It wouldn't surprise me because there was a lot of idiotic pseudoscience that supported illogical and harmful ideology in those days. Cause if they said that there were standards to ear shape, then I may have just wasted 30 minutes typing this response.
As an aside, if NoME were published earlier, Amazon would have probably saved ear prosthetic costs had they read that part of the text.
- Points: 1 140
Master Torturer
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 2:10 am
You'll get no substantial disagreement from me on this point. I'm agnostic as to whether Elves, to use the same turn of phrase as in my previous "tend[ed] to have somewhat pointier ears," which I don't think is the same as saying they had more of a "standard ear shape" than Humans. If I had read that NoMe quote in a vacuum, I would not have come away with the impression that Elves tending to have pointier ears was even a possibility, but of course that's not the sum total of what Tolkien wrote on the topic. @KingODuckingham already quoted the "[Hobbits'] ears [were] only slightly pointed and 'elvish' " line from Letter 27, and @Almarëa Mordollwen the comment in The Etymologies, in the entry for LAS(1), that "Quendian ears were more pointed and leaf-shaped than [?human]." I don't think either of these close the book on the matter, either, given that Tolkien's conception of his Secondary World and its inhabitants evolved over time (and its debatable whether Letter 27's use of the adjective elvish was meant to apply to his own Elves), but I think they should nonetheless still be taken into consideration.
Loremistress Emerita | she/her
- Points: 1 590
Bard of Imladris
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 2:40 am
@Eldy Dunami Thanks for the response again, I really respect you and I appreciate you bringing up prior posts that were in this thread.
I will point out, however, that the NoME quote, while not being the sum total, is nevertheless one of the last things Tolkien said about the topic of structural differences between Men and Elves, if I am correct in assuming that the essay is dated around the same time as the Shibboleth (1968). The statement also sticks out because in many of the other qualities on Elves, Tolkien has a tendency to use "seldom," "mostly," and other words, leaving room for exceptions. Hence why this sentence stuck out like a sore thumb to me, and if I did read it in a vacuum, I also would come away with the same impression.
I haven't looked specifically on the dating for the LAS and Duckingham's quote, but according to Michael Martinez those both predate the Lord of the Rings, Duckingham's quote well before American readers could conceptualize what a hobbit actually was. Martinez already has arguments against both of those quotes on the middle-earth.xenite.org. The LAS one being (what I would argue) the weaker of the two counterarguments of Martinez', and you pretty much pointed out the debate in terms of whether 'elvish' meant Tolkien's elves or the publisher's views on elves. If it has not already been pointed out already, but technically we don't know what the word after "than" was, which seems nit-picky but didn't Tolkien tend to use the word "Men" instead of "Humans" when discussing humanity (e.g. Of the Coming of Men into Beleriand)? Or was that in itself a later thing? He's a linguist after all, so such things need to be thought of in terms of that quote.
What was the estimated writing year for that LAS quote? And was it only in the Lost Roads, or was it in the mainstream books of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, where Tolkien had has biggest opportunity to point out the differences between elves and men?
In terms of ears being used as an identifier, according to this BBC article (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2017 ... lly-unique), it was starting in the 1950s that earprints were used by forensic scientists at crime scenes. That's pretty significant because that was after The Hobbit's publishing date but before the Shibboleth's date.
By the time of the year 1968, there was much more known about the human body than there was when The Hobbit was published, the historian part of me thus weighs the NoME quote more heavily given that it was presumably created after The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. As you point out, the book was never closed on ears because his conceptions evolved over time. It just so happens that the NoME quote seems to be the last word on the subject (that we know so far).
I will point out, however, that the NoME quote, while not being the sum total, is nevertheless one of the last things Tolkien said about the topic of structural differences between Men and Elves, if I am correct in assuming that the essay is dated around the same time as the Shibboleth (1968). The statement also sticks out because in many of the other qualities on Elves, Tolkien has a tendency to use "seldom," "mostly," and other words, leaving room for exceptions. Hence why this sentence stuck out like a sore thumb to me, and if I did read it in a vacuum, I also would come away with the same impression.
I haven't looked specifically on the dating for the LAS and Duckingham's quote, but according to Michael Martinez those both predate the Lord of the Rings, Duckingham's quote well before American readers could conceptualize what a hobbit actually was. Martinez already has arguments against both of those quotes on the middle-earth.xenite.org. The LAS one being (what I would argue) the weaker of the two counterarguments of Martinez', and you pretty much pointed out the debate in terms of whether 'elvish' meant Tolkien's elves or the publisher's views on elves. If it has not already been pointed out already, but technically we don't know what the word after "than" was, which seems nit-picky but didn't Tolkien tend to use the word "Men" instead of "Humans" when discussing humanity (e.g. Of the Coming of Men into Beleriand)? Or was that in itself a later thing? He's a linguist after all, so such things need to be thought of in terms of that quote.
What was the estimated writing year for that LAS quote? And was it only in the Lost Roads, or was it in the mainstream books of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, where Tolkien had has biggest opportunity to point out the differences between elves and men?
In terms of ears being used as an identifier, according to this BBC article (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2017 ... lly-unique), it was starting in the 1950s that earprints were used by forensic scientists at crime scenes. That's pretty significant because that was after The Hobbit's publishing date but before the Shibboleth's date.
By the time of the year 1968, there was much more known about the human body than there was when The Hobbit was published, the historian part of me thus weighs the NoME quote more heavily given that it was presumably created after The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. As you point out, the book was never closed on ears because his conceptions evolved over time. It just so happens that the NoME quote seems to be the last word on the subject (that we know so far).
- Points: 1 140
Master Torturer
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 2:10 am
Thank you so much for your kind words, @Rivvy Elf! I enjoy reading your Lore posts as well, especially the recent ones since this subforum needs the boost. 
This is not to say I like every change Tolkien made! NoMe in particular is full of lots of what we might call, to paraphrase TV Tropes, late-installment weirdness that I don't think fits well with the rest of his work. For example, one of the last things Tolkien wrote about Melian is that she (possibly) first met the Elves in Cuiviénen as the leader of a delegation of six Maiarin messengers, the other five being the future Istari. If we attempt to synthesize this with her established role in the First Age, we're left with a confused picture where Melian is sent to Middle-earth to help Elves, then returns to Valinor for some reason, only to later leave on her own and settle down in Beleriand until "serendipitously" meeting one of the leaders of the Elvish migration, which had suffered not inconsiderable hardship in her absence. It's weird, I don't think it fits well, and so I chose to leave it out of my "personal Silmarillion."
It's not my intention to say you or anyone else are wrong to take a maximalist anti-pointiness stance due to NoMe, but for my part, I think focusing too much on when Tolkien said something risks missing out on a lot of the best parts of the legendarium. Of course, others are free to disagree, and even those who might take a similar stance as me won't necessarily agree on how much is "too much." Plenty of people dislike the changes Tolkien contemplated in Myths Transformed (many of which he seemed to take for granted in later texts found in NoMe) because of how disruptive they are to the earlier mythology. I don't, but in fairness, that's more because I like MT than because of any grand principles about chronology and interpretation.
I'll also note that an idea postdating The Lord of the Rings does not always guarantee consistency with that work—e.g., the idea that Elves and humans descended from Elves were beardless is contradicted by both Círdan (though Tolkien attempted an explanation there) and the bearded statue of a king of Gondor at the crossroads in Ithilien. In the ear case, I can't think of anything in LOTR that would be contradicted by non-pointiness, but I'm unconvinced that LOTR is best understood in light of ideas Tolkien had twenty years after finishing the book. Sometimes this retrofitting works, sometimes it doesn't, but I think it's always worth considering what Tolkien had in mind when he wrote it. All of which is to say (in far too many words) that I don't think NoMe's dating inherently makes it more important.
I did not know just how unique ears are, so I appreciate the link! You learn new things every day on the Plaza!
This is a fair point, and I suppose people who prioritize the date of composition when trying to piece together a single, internally consistent version of the legendarium would be justified in taking a strong anti-pointiness stance. As it happens, though, I'm no longer one of those people, having moved away from that school of thought a number of years ago. While I've had as much fun as anyone sifting through all of Tolkien's iterations on a given topic and deciding which one to treat as "true" when building my mental conception of Arda, I've come to see this as an enjoyable but largely arbitrary hobby. As far as capital-L Lore goes, I think it's more valuable to look at the legendarium as an evolving body of work whose changes are a strength, not a weakness.Rivvy Elf wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 8:56 pmI will point out, however, that the NoME quote, while not being the sum total, is nevertheless one of the last things Tolkien said about the topic of structural differences between Men and Elves, if I am correct in assuming that the essay is dated around the same time as the Shibboleth (1968).
This is not to say I like every change Tolkien made! NoMe in particular is full of lots of what we might call, to paraphrase TV Tropes, late-installment weirdness that I don't think fits well with the rest of his work. For example, one of the last things Tolkien wrote about Melian is that she (possibly) first met the Elves in Cuiviénen as the leader of a delegation of six Maiarin messengers, the other five being the future Istari. If we attempt to synthesize this with her established role in the First Age, we're left with a confused picture where Melian is sent to Middle-earth to help Elves, then returns to Valinor for some reason, only to later leave on her own and settle down in Beleriand until "serendipitously" meeting one of the leaders of the Elvish migration, which had suffered not inconsiderable hardship in her absence. It's weird, I don't think it fits well, and so I chose to leave it out of my "personal Silmarillion."
It's not my intention to say you or anyone else are wrong to take a maximalist anti-pointiness stance due to NoMe, but for my part, I think focusing too much on when Tolkien said something risks missing out on a lot of the best parts of the legendarium. Of course, others are free to disagree, and even those who might take a similar stance as me won't necessarily agree on how much is "too much." Plenty of people dislike the changes Tolkien contemplated in Myths Transformed (many of which he seemed to take for granted in later texts found in NoMe) because of how disruptive they are to the earlier mythology. I don't, but in fairness, that's more because I like MT than because of any grand principles about chronology and interpretation.
I'll also note that an idea postdating The Lord of the Rings does not always guarantee consistency with that work—e.g., the idea that Elves and humans descended from Elves were beardless is contradicted by both Círdan (though Tolkien attempted an explanation there) and the bearded statue of a king of Gondor at the crossroads in Ithilien. In the ear case, I can't think of anything in LOTR that would be contradicted by non-pointiness, but I'm unconvinced that LOTR is best understood in light of ideas Tolkien had twenty years after finishing the book. Sometimes this retrofitting works, sometimes it doesn't, but I think it's always worth considering what Tolkien had in mind when he wrote it. All of which is to say (in far too many words) that I don't think NoMe's dating inherently makes it more important.
The Etymologies were written in 1937–38, just before Tolkien began work on The Lord of the Rings. Being, well, a highly technical work of etymology, they are not to be found within any of Tolkien's narrative fiction.Rivvy Elf wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 8:56 pmWhat was the estimated writing year for that LAS quote? And was it only in the Lost Roads, or was it in the mainstream books of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, where Tolkien had has biggest opportunity to point out the differences between elves and men?
I did not know just how unique ears are, so I appreciate the link! You learn new things every day on the Plaza!
Loremistress Emerita | she/her
- Points: 1 590
Bard of Imladris
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 2:40 am
@Eldy Dunami oh you're most welcome. It's just nice that I can finally write some content here in lore. Hopefully others will do so too.Eldy Dunami wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:58 pm Thank you so much for your kind words, @Rivvy Elf! I enjoy reading your Lore posts as well, especially the recent ones since this subforum needs the boost.
Yeah, ears are awesomely unique. I've actually been noting interesting ears from talk-show hosts on television (those who have short hair as I can clearly see their ears). There's scenarios where you can see three different people debating on a topic... but their ears are all different! Not something one would focus on if not prompted.Eldy Dunami wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:58 pmI did not know just how unique ears are, so I appreciate the link! You learn new things every day on the Plaza!
Not really much of a response to continue the debate on Elvish Ears. Your points make sense. I'll just respond to certain interesting things you said.
Now I actually like this weirdness because in my "personal Eastern Silmarillion," it becomes a point of drama and contention. As in, after Cuiviénen disappears, there will be very angry Avari wondering why Thingol and Melian couldn't move their realm to Cuiviénen and create a girdle of protection around it. Particularly because Melian knows where it is and instead of getting into a staring contest for years and years, they could have spent that time moving back. Thingol did argue that elves could go back (spoiler: though they didn't).Eldy Dunami wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:58 pm This is not to say I like every change Tolkien made! NoMe in particular is full of lots of what we might call, to paraphrase TV Tropes, late-installment weirdness that I don't think fits well with the rest of his work. For example, one of the last things Tolkien wrote about Melian is that she (possibly) first met the Elves in Cuiviénen as the leader of a delegation of six Maiarin messengers, the other five being the future Istari. If we attempt to synthesize this with her established role in the First Age, we're left with a confused picture where Melian is sent to Middle-earth to help Elves, then returns to Valinor for some reason, only to later leave on her own and settle down in Beleriand until "serendipitously" meeting one of the leaders of the Elvish migration, which had suffered not inconsiderable hardship in her absence. It's weird, I don't think it fits well, and so I chose to leave it out of my "personal Silmarillion."
Aaah I forgot to point out that I'm actually of the same view, but that I see it as depictions focusing TOO much on pointy elven ears and not enough on what makes them... elves. The ears are simply too distracting for me. It would be like if you replaced Superman's ears with elephant ears. Their pointiness distracts me on what makes elves unique from humans, Liketheirabilitytotalkreallyreallyfastandunderstandwhattheysaid, mastery of weight displacement on snow, excellent hearing/eyesight, having perfect memory, poking fun at humans for their over-reliance on written history, and the consequences of living so long with such a good memory.Eldy Dunami wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:58 pmIt's not my intention to say you or anyone else are wrong to take a maximalist anti-pointiness stance due to NoMe, but for my part, I think focusing too much on when Tolkien said something risks missing out on a lot of the best parts of the legendarium. Of course, others are free to disagree, and even those who might take a similar stance as me won't necessarily agree on how much is "too much." Plenty of people dislike the changes Tolkien contemplated in Myths Transformed (many of which he seemed to take for granted in later texts found in NoMe) because of how disruptive they are to the earlier mythology. I don't, but in fairness, that's more because I like MT than because of any grand principles about chronology and interpretation.
So I'm for eliminating the standarization of pointy ears and making it easier for people like me to look into what makes an elf special.
Needless to say, I roll my eyes when I hear the term "knife-ears" as a derogatory term. I think "blabbermouth tome" would be a more fitting derogatory term.
Does Amazon have the rights to that too? If not, tsk tsk, applying pointy ear info to elves they don't have the rights on. Could've saved a bunch of money on prosthetics.Eldy Dunami wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:58 pmThe Etymologies were written in 1937–38, just before Tolkien began work on The Lord of the Rings. Being, well, a highly technical work of etymology, they are not to be found within any of Tolkien's narrative fiction.
- Points: 1 140
Master Torturer
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 2:10 am
Cheers, @Rivvy Elf! 
It seems we have fairly similar stances. I've thought some more about this topic since my last post—mostly because of this thread, though also a result of watching and discussing ROP—and found myself drifting towards the anti-pointiness side, but I think you're right that there are more important distinguishing features of Elves. It's something I still need to think about more. I've read and enjoyed a lot of fic featuring very human-like Eldar, and I really don't care for the ultra-sanitized, sanctified version of the Elves in NoMe, being quite fond of the dumpster fire Eldar (especially Noldor) of earlier "Silmarillion" texts, but I'm increasingly sympathetic to the idea that Elves should be meaningfully distinct from humans to a greater degree than I've really cared about before. Or, well, "should" might be a strong word, but I'm coming to think of it as a missed opportunity not to explore this. But I'm still in the early stages of sussing this out, since Elves honestly are not one of my main interests in the legendarium (my fangirl heart is mostly split between Númenor and the Orcs ).
Your "personal Eastern Silmarillion" is quite intriguing from this brief description! Is this related to Outlaws of the Inland Sea? I read the FAQ in the first post of your CoLP thread and thought it sounded really neat, but unfortunately I always have a massive backlog of things to watch/read and I didn't feel up to adding yet another longfic to the list.
It seems we have fairly similar stances. I've thought some more about this topic since my last post—mostly because of this thread, though also a result of watching and discussing ROP—and found myself drifting towards the anti-pointiness side, but I think you're right that there are more important distinguishing features of Elves. It's something I still need to think about more. I've read and enjoyed a lot of fic featuring very human-like Eldar, and I really don't care for the ultra-sanitized, sanctified version of the Elves in NoMe, being quite fond of the dumpster fire Eldar (especially Noldor) of earlier "Silmarillion" texts, but I'm increasingly sympathetic to the idea that Elves should be meaningfully distinct from humans to a greater degree than I've really cared about before. Or, well, "should" might be a strong word, but I'm coming to think of it as a missed opportunity not to explore this. But I'm still in the early stages of sussing this out, since Elves honestly are not one of my main interests in the legendarium (my fangirl heart is mostly split between Númenor and the Orcs ).Your "personal Eastern Silmarillion" is quite intriguing from this brief description! Is this related to Outlaws of the Inland Sea? I read the FAQ in the first post of your CoLP thread and thought it sounded really neat, but unfortunately I always have a massive backlog of things to watch/read and I didn't feel up to adding yet another longfic to the list.
To the best of my knowledge, based on the initial reporting from trade publications in 2017 as well as some of the showrunners' most recent interviews, Amazon only has the rights to The Lord of the Rings.
Loremistress Emerita | she/her
- Points: 1 590
Bard of Imladris
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 2:40 am
Cheers, @Eldy Dunami ! I'm glad this thread stuck around in your head! I also love the dumpster fire Eldar and enjoy creating Eldar that relate to readers in some way. I blame a lot of the ultra-sanitized, sanctified stuff to the fact that most elves just stick in their own elven community, greeting the same person for the last 1000 years, so on and so forth. If there were more Eols and Celebrimbors who actively hung out with dwarves, or humans, that's where things could get interesting from a writing perspective, even with the NoME elves. Orcs and Numenor have their appeal, and I definitely see great narrative potential with them.
Through a combination of having them rejecting the calling and spending most of the time focusing on the Eldar, Tolkien implicitly provides flexibility with the Avari, which helps a lot in driving some of the "background historical" events in my "personal Eastern Silmarillion." Though Outlaws of the Inland Sea is essentially how quite a lot of people fall out of society to become outlaws of a certain inland sea east of the Lonely Mountain, leading up to the Wainrider invasion that led to the deaths of King Ondoher and his sons, sprinkled and referenced throughout are events from my "personal Eastern Silmarillion."
Tolkien never explained how or why Cuiviénen disappears, which becomes canon in my fanfiction; nobody knows why it disappeared, causing a lot of emotional distress and despair. This unexplained event led to the Avari believing that everything in Arda, including the Undying Lands, will also suffer the same fate. So they disband their fiefdoms and enter a "dark age." Time passes, some guy by the name of Morinehtar shows up with a philosophy, then a critical event happens (and this was an actual historical event that unfortunately led to no elves appearing) that leads to the elves reappearing when historical Queen Dowager Mi Bazi is still the de-facto ruler of a kingdom that will later become the Eastern Empire. She becomes the First Emperor of the Eastern Empire (instead of the historical Qin Shi Huangdi founding the Qin Dynasty). This has big ramifications regarding the status of women. Elves are accepted into human society because they successfully stir hearts with their story of being permanently homeless until the literal end of the earth. Combine that with the teachings of Morinehtar and boom, reconciliation happens.
The main narrative's setting occurs about 1000 years after the founding of the Eastern Empire (and reconciliation of humans and elves), and yeah, there are quite a few references throughout the narrative to even things like Turin Turambar and Beren and Luthien, albeit under different names (Blacksword, Homeless and the Goddess). I do things like using the actual "Lantern Festival" as a celebration of light and a direct defiance to The Dark, reference Melkor temples, have both Mairon and Sauron being different gods (agricultural and destruction). But yeah, it'll be an epic tale that... might reach more than a million words and will take years to finish.
The polished in-progress version is on Fanfiction.net, while the plaza version has links to opening and ending themes that suit the mood. Main errors in the plaza version are linguistic errors. In Verbal Chinese, only one pronoun is used for humans, animals, and deities (ta). However, in written Chinese, pronouns are used to differentiate people, animals, and deities. So verbally in Chinese, you have to rely on context to understand who is saying what and doing what. Outside of dialogue, pronouns are clearly distinguished.
Anyways, enough of advertising that work. This work will probably be still in-progress by the time your massive backlog becomes just a backlog.
Through a combination of having them rejecting the calling and spending most of the time focusing on the Eldar, Tolkien implicitly provides flexibility with the Avari, which helps a lot in driving some of the "background historical" events in my "personal Eastern Silmarillion." Though Outlaws of the Inland Sea is essentially how quite a lot of people fall out of society to become outlaws of a certain inland sea east of the Lonely Mountain, leading up to the Wainrider invasion that led to the deaths of King Ondoher and his sons, sprinkled and referenced throughout are events from my "personal Eastern Silmarillion."
Tolkien never explained how or why Cuiviénen disappears, which becomes canon in my fanfiction; nobody knows why it disappeared, causing a lot of emotional distress and despair. This unexplained event led to the Avari believing that everything in Arda, including the Undying Lands, will also suffer the same fate. So they disband their fiefdoms and enter a "dark age." Time passes, some guy by the name of Morinehtar shows up with a philosophy, then a critical event happens (and this was an actual historical event that unfortunately led to no elves appearing) that leads to the elves reappearing when historical Queen Dowager Mi Bazi is still the de-facto ruler of a kingdom that will later become the Eastern Empire. She becomes the First Emperor of the Eastern Empire (instead of the historical Qin Shi Huangdi founding the Qin Dynasty). This has big ramifications regarding the status of women. Elves are accepted into human society because they successfully stir hearts with their story of being permanently homeless until the literal end of the earth. Combine that with the teachings of Morinehtar and boom, reconciliation happens.
The main narrative's setting occurs about 1000 years after the founding of the Eastern Empire (and reconciliation of humans and elves), and yeah, there are quite a few references throughout the narrative to even things like Turin Turambar and Beren and Luthien, albeit under different names (Blacksword, Homeless and the Goddess). I do things like using the actual "Lantern Festival" as a celebration of light and a direct defiance to The Dark, reference Melkor temples, have both Mairon and Sauron being different gods (agricultural and destruction). But yeah, it'll be an epic tale that... might reach more than a million words and will take years to finish.
The polished in-progress version is on Fanfiction.net, while the plaza version has links to opening and ending themes that suit the mood. Main errors in the plaza version are linguistic errors. In Verbal Chinese, only one pronoun is used for humans, animals, and deities (ta). However, in written Chinese, pronouns are used to differentiate people, animals, and deities. So verbally in Chinese, you have to rely on context to understand who is saying what and doing what. Outside of dialogue, pronouns are clearly distinguished.
Anyways, enough of advertising that work. This work will probably be still in-progress by the time your massive backlog becomes just a backlog.
- Points: 1 140
Master Torturer
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 2:10 am
Thank you for elaborating on your story and its setting, @Rivvy Elf! This sort of AU fanfiction is right up my alley, both as a reader and when playing around with my own ideas, so I find myself even more intrigued than before. We'll have to see how the backlog adventures go...
Loremistress Emerita | she/her
