# Talk:Galadriel

Wikipedia is not a catalogue of all Tolkien's notes, or we would have tens of thousands of very long pages covering all his hastily-scribbled, crossed-out, overwritten, and smudged pencil writings. It is straightforwardly WP:UNDUE to write extensive paragraphs on a late note that he put to paper long after the publication of The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings. Such material is (possibly) worth a quick footnote; it does not deserve a lengthy and seemingly ever-lengthening paragraph in the main text. If it's going to be in the text at all, it must be brief. This applies, by the way, to every such note, draft, and amendments to drafts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Now some (rather vague) critical commentary has been inserted in the narrative section: it's out of place there, and compared to the standard of WikiProject Middle-earth 'Analysis' sections, it's pretty weak stuff: "the draft proposal would make a big mess and anyway it never got done, sigh." That sort of commentary weakens the article and loosens its fabric, i.e. it makes it worse. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I think the fact that more than one scholarly analysis has been done on it justifies a brief mention of how it works, though. Particularly when said scholarly analyses relate to whether or not Galadriel is unstained and a Marian figure, a question that has been discussed in other cites.
Incidentally, "Telerin Celeborn" is not exactly one late note, but appears in quite a lot of texts about him from c. 1968 onward ("Eldarin Hands, Fingers, and Numerals", Letters 347 and 353, the "Shibboleth"). CJRT also mentions that unstained Galadriel was "doubtless" his father's intention (UT p. 232), and comments on it as well in his commentary to the "Annals of Aman" in HoME X, p. 128 (the note where Finrod and Galadriel fight against the Noldor at Alqualondë, which CJRT relates to the unstained Galadriel version). I think that puts it somewhat ahead of most hastily-scribbled drafts (even though it is one), if his son considered that in this case the reason it was never achieved was death rather than JRRT changing his mind back again. Double sharp (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Anyway, I'm happy with the article's current state, with one short paragraph summarising the main points of "unstained Galadriel" and one more about those two scholarly analyses. We can discuss it further, if you think anything else should be changed. :) Double sharp (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm not very happy with it, and especially not with the process: the discussion should be before the second edit, not many edits later. All critical discussion, which includes Christopher Tolkien's comments, is out of place in the narrative. Rather than cluttering the main narrative with Tolkien's late-in-life struggles to change one vital plank of the Middle-earth story after another, only to realise on reflection that pulling out that Spillikins stick would cause the whole edifice to collapse (let me give 20 examples...), such things should go either in a footnote or (possibly, on a good day, with a following wind) as a small note near the bottom of the analysis section. Putting minor asides at the top of the narrative is guaranteed to be hopelessly confusing for the first-time reader: and let's recall that encyclopedia articles must not be in-universe fanspeak, but accessible to all, which means people new to the subject. Our job as editors is to tell the plain tale of each article, clearly and comprehensibly, without complicated rabbit-holes of extended narrative that lead nowhere. If there is a place for asides at all, it is late in the article, out of the way, clearly marked as aside material. That principle has definitely been violated here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Who says he realised on reflection that that would make the entire edifice collapse? CJRT only said that it would require revision of the narrative, but that JRRT intended to do it anyway. In fact, Lakowski's article actually points out that the earlier Galadriel statements in the "Shibboleth" etc. are inconsistent with LOTR, and suggests that "unstained Galadriel" was actually JRRT's way of dealing with that!
This is not like "The Problem of Ros", where JRRT admitted himself that it doesn't work. Insofar as Telerin Celeborn is concerned, we have the evidence that every text from c. 1968 onward that talks about Celeborn's ancestry calls him a Teler (and there are quite a few of them). And insofar as "unstained Galadriel" is concerned, we have CJRT's own word for it that JRRT was outright going to change everything to make it work. This is quite significant in this case, because when discussing Celebrimbor in HoME XII CJRT noted that his father often felt bound by published material: whereas in this case, altering Galadriel was both "doubtless" JRRT's intention and also violated statements published in RGEO. If anything this seems a bit more like the Round World issue: a case where most fans, academic or otherwise, don't like it, but CJRT himself admitted that it keeps occurring time and time again in late texts.
And we are talking precisely about a change that has significant ramifications for the analysis: the extent to which Galadriel is a saintlike figure depends precisely on whether or not she was part of the Revolt of the Noldor, and that point was precisely made in published scholarship. CJRT also alludes to it in the UT notes by saying that unstained Galadriel arose from philosophical considerations.
I'm open to putting "unstained Galadriel" in a new section after the main RGEO narrative has been securely presented. But this is not a complicated rabbit-hole that leads nowhere, but the matter of a firmly decided-on late revision whose reasoning has been discussed at length in the scholarly literature. That's precisely why I strongly believe "unstained Galadriel" deserves mention in a way that "Galadriel was Elrond's estranged wife" and "Galadriel was Celeborn's second wife" do not. Double sharp (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Well the Round World is the biggest and most disastrous Spillikins stick of them all, and we have it relegated to a separate article, so at least the reader knows to pour a stiff gin and to practise their yoga breathing before starting. A separate (and *brief*) "Unstained Galadriel" section would certainly be an improvement, for the same reason. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I made such a section, by moving out the existing paragraph to be its own tiny section (+ one sentence stating that JRRT died the following month). Do you think that helps? Double sharp (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
P.S. it also occurs to me that we are mixing versions to some extent, by referring to the Shibboleth in "Characteristics" while still using the pre-1968 version with Sindarin Celeborn. In the Shibboleth, Celeborn is already a Teler. In fact pretty much everything in "Characteristics" (except for the LOTR reference in the last paragraph) comes from the period where Celeborn is Telerin – even the discussion on Númenórean linear measures in UT (where Galadriel's height is given) calls Celeborn "a Linda of Valinor".
I've tried to add a brief sentence about this in "Characteristics". Actually I'm starting to think that the real big difference is not so much "Sindarin Celeborn" vs "Telerin Celeborn", but about "pre-1973 vs 1973 Galadriel". Lakowski does not make any split at 1968, so maybe there's an argument (if we're going to have all this info in "Characteristics" as primary) that the main Celeborn story given should actually be the "Shibboleth" Telerin Celeborn. Double sharp (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, I think I have solved this in a brief rewrite of the Celeborn material in the First Age section. I'd plead Lakowski as a precedent for making the major breakpoint between versions in August 1973 rather than anytime earlier. Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
OK, I think I managed to shovel all the important version-switching into one section. (There was also a matter of Galadriel's Ban, likewise analysed by Lakowski, and previously mentioned in the article without a point that this is also part of the problematic late-change complex.) Feel free to cut what I have down if you feel it appropriate: currently it has only (1) the matter of Celeborn's ancestry, (2) the unstained Galadriel, and (3) the problematic Ban, of which (2) and (3) are analysed in secondary sources and (1) is sort of needed to allow (2) to make any sense. I guess the problem is hard to avoid when part of Downey's analysis (citing Lakowski) is dependent on the 1967–1971 conception of a Ban. Double sharp (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Well now you've done all that, it still looks way undue to me. Let's leave it for now and revisit it if there are any other issues or comments (or if I come back here in half a year's time and am still equally horrified by it). If there is any sign of this kind of splurge happening on any other articles, we'll have to think of a better solution, such as an article on Tolkien's late changes to his legendarium. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: Well, there's a lot of late changes (CJRT mentioned so in the foreword to HoME XII); but other than the Round World and the Galadriel material, I can't think of things that have been covered much in RS. At the moment anyway. Should that change, we may resume this discussion indeed before editing mainspace. :) Double sharp (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Let's hope not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a section "Late changes"; but is it known when she was first conceived?  I ask because I was struck by Strider's remark at Weathertop that Elrond probably knows more about Lúthien than anyone else in Middle-earth.  Lúthien died before Elrond was born, but Galadriel knew her in Doriath; and Aragorn is no stranger to Galadriel.  So was Galadriel not yet imagined (or fully formed) when the Weathertop chapter was written? —Tamfang (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tamfang: Indeed not. Her first appearance was in notes for the "Lothlórien" chapter.
(In-universe, thank you for another supporting argument for Telerin Celeborn. :D) Double sharp (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)