The Silmarils and the Arkenstone

[artaxastra]

I've seen a couple of people speculating that the Arkenstone is a Silmaril. My first reaction was, "Bzuh? How could that be? The Silmarils were destroyed at the end of the First Age, except for the one that's become Earendil's star. No way one could be the Arkenstone

Comments

[artaxastra]

I think Tolkien had recurring themes as an author (don't we all?) and this is probably an example of that, rather than deliberate intention. But! Maybe?

[dbalthasar]

I like the idea myself (even though, from a Doylist perspective, I suspect that Tolkien is reusing an idea rather than making a connection, if that makes sense?) - I find the Silmarils fascinating, and I have trouble believing that such... chancy... things ever truly vanish unless they are contained - redeemed? - like the one on the prow of Vingilot.

[artaxastra]

I suspect you're right that he's actually just reusing ideas, but within the rules of his world, you're right that risky things rarely just disappear unless redeemed.

[shadowvalkyrie]

Great explanation! I love this theory and can't think of anything that would contradict it. Not to mention how well it would fit with Tolkien's general love of things that possess a will of their own, want to be found and call to people. And there's this epic sense of objects enduring over eras, being lost and found again... I love it!

[artaxastra]

I think it does fit very well with his themes, yes. It could be!

[settiai]

*nods*

I was very intrigued by the theory the first time that I heard it, mostly for the reasons that you've laid out here. I doubt that Tolkien completely intended that to be the case (like others have said, he most likely would have said something somewhere, so it's probably a case of him reusing the idea), but there's absolutely nothing with the theory that I've thought of that would make it impossible. And based on the way some things have been playing out in the movies, I highly suspect that at least one of the people involved in the writing is subscribing to the theory.

[artaxastra]

I agree it probably is that he's reusing the idea, but it fits so well with his themes that it makes sense.

[marici]

Possibly the involvement of a generous and good-hearted Hobbit defangs the Simaril, foreshadowing Frodo's ability to do the same to the Ring? In the books, Bilbo chooses specifically because it's the one piece valuable enough to ransom for all the wagons of gold the besiegers want and takes it specifically to give away, to make peace. That kind of intentional selflessness tends to shut down the artifacts of evil in Tolkien's mythology.

[artaxastra]

That really does. And the Silmarils weren't created evil or for dominion. This curse rests most on the House of Feanor, and on those who have killed for them, like when the dwarves murdered Thingol for the Silmaril. Hobbits have no part in the curse.

[artaxastra]

Oh is there? I haven't seen that deleted scene. I don't suppose you have a link? That's really, really interesting!