I could talk about this for hours. But since I have been distracted over and over and lost my remarks in this comment area twice already. (Closed the window because I could not remember why it was open, I will try to make this brief.)

I like your point. The graph is useful--although I would find it more instantly helpful in an outline style (word only), but maybe that is just because it is impossible for me to have both the words and a visible graph available on a screen at the same time. And it actually does have content--not use cute cartoons. Making it small enough to see the graphic, means too small to read it.

With absolutely minimal exposure to fandom discussions and none to Tolkien scholarship, what I got at first reading from The Silmarillion is what you outline above. I think in my case it came from years of arguing politics and a double major in literature and history. As you noted in beautiful detail in your longer version Attainable Vistas. History has authors! Full stop! This quasi-religious emoting we commonly see in a sentimental version of Tolkienism so common in both in fandom and in Tolkien scholarship makes me want to run in circles and pull my hair out.

A lack of robust scholarship meant it was left to the hobbyists of fandom to introduce some of these serious examinations into Tolkien's historiography. Much of early Tolkien scholarship consisted of interest on the part of a two groups: 1) Catholic scholars--is it good for the Church and the Faithful? and 2) the gatekeeper mentality and presumptious arrogance of mainstream scholars dissing Tolkien as writing children's stories that I encountered in my youth at UC Berkeley--early 1970s. Tolkien scholarship did not for a long while receive the serious discussion it deserved. Writers recognized he was a big deal as did publishers!

I love how you nail the two comparisons: almost identical actions are discussed as negative when performed by Feanor and heroic when performed by Fingolfin.

I adore this conclusion, love it so much!

As the data in the article shows, Tolkien was remarkably consistent in shaping the story according to Pengolodh's point of view, emphasizing the people and the places that would have mattered the most to him. This leads me to believe that Pengolodh's PoV--and bias--wasn't an embellishment but a narrative element of The Silmarillion that was very deliberately constructed and maintained and, therefore, deserves consideration when interpreting the text.

But then you knew you were kicking in an open door with me!

Was it deliberate, or was it one of those things in which he was so thoroughly steeped that it just took shape naturally? And where is he on the conflict between the historiographical and the moral concerns, since reading bias into a book like the Silm negates a good bit of its moral message?

On that last point, I think he was conflicted at times. One can see that in his letters--I'm not looking up that one priest in particular who asked questions that were very specific and caused Tolkien to do a little fast thinking to answer them (I'm not say back-pedaling--that is way too strong), but he was defensive about being a good Catholic and not pedaling godless atheism (whatever that meant in the context!).

Tolkien was devout! I know what that means growing up with a Catholic education in a practicing Catholic family. Religion was hardcore in my upbrining, although nothing like what one sees in this latter day religious fundamentalism/born-again Christian kind of protestantism that showed on the radar in this country in the mid-1970s. But it still had a rigid theological core of another sort. So being a serious Catholic was serious business for Tolkien and in an environment where his mother was persectuted and his life made much more difficult because of it. But his fiction was NEVER intended to be didactic. He wasn't writing any Pilgrim's Progress. Ever think about why he got so irate at the idea of his work having any attributes of allegory?

But your points about his scholarly background and his delving deep into Anglo-Saxon sources and the harking back to the great Northern epics and sagas in his work, not to even mention the barely conscious but absolutely pervasive literary influences of an education steeped in the Classics.

You say, "(One of my big dreams is to be able to make the parallels between A-S historiography and the Silm historiography.)" Don't tease me, girlfriend! I would read the hell out of that thing!

The awesome part is exactly as you say:

I always knew the Silm was biased--that's hardly an idea original to me, in scholarship or fandom, and it's one that I've been banking on for years now--but I had no idea that I'd ever be able to make such a strong and empirical case for it. . . . when the social scientist in me decided to start crunching numbers, I was honestly blown away by the results.

What can I say but thanks for sharing!

Sorry about my whining about my visual impairment and your graphic! Knock yourself out! You deserve the fun stuff where you can find it.

unconsidered review, the esprit de l'escalier will follow...

 i agree with almost everything you say, and yet...

  consider two quotes from Lotr, Galadriel gives a gift to Frodo 'the light of Eärendil, our most beloved star' , which Fëanor made. , and Gandalf taliking about looking in the palantir to see the 'unimaginable hand of Fëanor at work'

it seems to me that everyone thinks of Fëanor as an almost maia-like figure, whereas Fingolfin is just his younger brother, whom Fëanor himself threatened with a sword.

Pengolodh was probably, in context, trying to rebalance a bias that already existed. Fëanor's life and strange death are so extraordinary that after his death he would have been viewed more sympathetically, in a much more heroic way than he was when alive, as most people are.  

 Also, he had seven sons, sworn to be as fanatical as him, surrounded by courtiers with singers in their entourages, all eager to praise the father of their hosts. Fingolfin probably had to endure the glorification of his older brother, who had caused so many problems, for hundreds of years, and remember that he himself had sworn to follow his brother.

so the logical conclusion, having taken up the mantle of kingship, is to follow his brother into single combat with the Enemy. (starting from the premise of their absurd oaths)

poor Fingolfin... Fëanor demanded literally impossible things from him; he insisted on being obeyed and followed, then burned the ships. you do not have to be able to sift through propaganda to get to facts like that...

 though i still agree with your article, the Silmarillion IS written in a biased way, for the son of Fingolfin, but probably in response to all the old quenya songs going on about 'our glorious leader' making silmarils and riding out in single combat to get them back, as if he could defy the weather, or gravity, or the sea.

 Fingolfin must have brooded over the injustice of the way he was represented, knowing the contempt his brother, and his nephews had for him and his tedious siege, until finally he SHOWED them how insane both his brother's final act and the notion of defeating Morgoth with swords really were.

He swore to follow Fëanor, and he kept his oath.

  'but we will meet them in battle nonetheless' (not even in Tolkien, but a good line) ,

as the Vala persistently warn the elves, brute force will not succeed; evil is not defeated by good people doing evil things, that is how evil spreads. consider Saruman...

of course, 'the Music of the Ainur is as fate...' so none of the elves really have any choice, or even rational agency. they are not Free like humans. (irl snigger)

in conclusion then, yes, Pengolodh is biased, but i think traves remain of the pre-existing bias he was trying to rebalance. 

its worth remembering that Tolkien was trying to build the missing anglo-saxon legendarium, which was destroyed by the Norman Conquest of england in 1066, the consequences of which are still causing misery to this day. The defeated saxons, who live mainly in the east of england, still live in Essex, or East Saxony, etc, and the mere fact of coming from Essex 'means' that you are considered stupid, not only by the fascists who siezed the land, but in general.

The fascists call themselves the nasty party, and despise everyone who is not related to them. it is tiresome and irritating and i'm glad i come from the other side of Hadrian's Wall. 

bias and propaganda... what can we do ? be scientific, i suppose, and strive for the truth.