Talk:Dior Eluchíl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Middle-earth Wikiproject This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.

[edit] = his status

Hi! Dior was immortal for the reasons I have stated in this article, which if researched will prove to be true. Thanks

Was Dior mortal? —Tamfang 02:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This question has always baffled me, and was never answered to my satisfaction. On the one hand, the published Silmarillion is clear that after their respective deaths, both Beren and Luthien were re-embodied as mortals. Naturally, we would expect the son of such a union to be mortal as well. However, it would be odd for Thingol to accept a mortal as his heir, and ruler of an elven kingdom, without at least a passing comment - and none to that effect is given. There is more contradictory evidence - Dior's daughter, Elwing, is counted as half-elven, but the marriage of Dior and Nimloth is not counted among the unions of men and elves.
All that being said, it's an utterly moot point - Dior was slain in his early 30s, so the ultimate status of his mortality was never revealed. Note that prior to the second age, there do not seem to have been the same strict "rules" in place as later - both Míriel and Luthien lay themselves down to die, against the custom of the Eldar (the first incident being a point of immense debate); and the judgement of the disposition of the half-elven was only given at the end of the first age. I would suppose that prior to that ruling, figures such as Dior, Eärendil, and Elwing existed in a state of limbo. --Peter Farago 17:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
This quote from "The Lost Road and Other Writings" seems to be the most definitive:

Then Manwë gave judgement and he said: 'To Eärendel I remit the ban, and the peril that he took upon himself out of love for the Two Kindreds shall not fall on him; neither shall it fall upon Elwing who entered into peril for love of Eärendel: save only in this: they shall not ever walk again among Elves of Men in the Outer Lands. Now all those who have the blood of mortal Men, in whatever part, great or small, are mortal, unless other doom be granted to them; but in this matter the power of doom is given to me. This is my decree: to Eärendel and to Elwing and to their sons shall be given leave each to choose freely under which kindred they shall be judged.

I read this to mean that anyone with mortal blood was to be counted as mortal, barring any intercession by Manwë himself. Manwë was never appealed to to intercede in the issue of Dior, so we may presume that were he not slain, he would have aged and died in due course. That being said, the elves of Doriath may not known this, and counted him among their kind regardless. --Peter Farago 17:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
More evidence that Dior was mortal: "Laws and Customs among the Eldar" says they reach maturity around age 50; but Dior managed to sire three children in his thirty-odd years. —Tamfang 00:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question of Style: "In-Universe" / "Fiction As Fact"

Hello everybody,

I would like to suggest that the tag labelling the article as too "in-universe" in its description be removed; and I will possibly do it myself in the near future (removed it 4th of October), unless someone makes a convincing point against the following:

When an article about a figure of fiction starts out by defining them as such, the frame of caution (if you will) within which the following information is to be read is already established. To further emphasise the fact that the character is fictional, and hence diverges from non-fictional characters in certain ways, would not only be useless, but also ponderous, and have a detrimental effect on the flow of language.

The inclusion of an external point of reference is crucial to the article only if a) the character in question has to be considered from such a point in order to be fully appreciated or morally interpreted, or if b) the character has been further adopted into literature (or other media) by re-interpretation and re-evaluation on a remarkable scale.

Dior, as many other characters from the Silmarillion, has as such no external value, as Tolkien clearly (and outspokenly) rejected any moralistic interpretation of his characters. He is a character from an modern epic about whom we are given very little, besides genealogical, information. As opposed to e.g. characters from the Iliad, about whose historicity we might argue, or who have been adapted into other art forms (cf. Idomeneus), Dior only exist within the context of his invention; therefore, he is only relevant within the Silmarillion mythology. An opening statement to his fictionality is perfectly sufficient. Trigaranus 12:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't fully agree with all of this, but you might want to raise it on the talk page at the guide to writing about fiction to get more feedback. Meanwhile, I'll make some edits based on what I think people want to see to get more out-of-universe. Carcharoth 13:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
A good example is the need to mention the book he appears in. Look closely at the old version before I edited it. No mention (apart from the category at the bottom) of The Silmarillion. That is what people mean by avoiding an in-universe style. Ground the writing in the real-world objects people find this character in. Carcharoth 13:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, lovely! Thanks, Carcharoth. Looks quite alright like this! Trigaranus 16:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)