View Single Post
Old 08-24-2003, 11:22 AM   #28
Findegil
King's Writer
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,694
Findegil is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Sting

I have taken some time to ponder what Aiwendil said. He is right that my proposal has the virture, that with it in mind we must not change the text at all in respect to the mechanical monsters.
But that would mean to make a dicission and not comumicat it to the reader of the planed version of the "Translations from the Elvish". You have done similar things before. And mostly I was okay with it, but in this case I suggest that you should make at least once the nature of the monsters clear for the reader.
When I understood rightly the purpose of the project, than the supposed reader of your work isn't one how had read already the complet HoME series. (For such a reader the discussions her in the forum are much more intersting than the final results.) But a reader how reads in your work lets say for the second time time about the fall of Gondolin (only knowing the Sil '77), will not, as I think, out of the text as it stood in the HoME II get a clear understanding of the nature of the monsters. (Remember that these Group of very well read Tolkin enthusiast has needed more than 2 years of discussion to find such a clear understanding.)
When we now let the text stand as it was in the FoG we will leave the reader only with the same questions that we had asked 2 years ago. I don't think that's the way to go. I must admiss that I have overdone it in my last post. Thier I tried to use a clear definition and remind the reader of it in any occassion when the monsters occured. As Aiwendil remarked that is clearly a stylistic change and I my self must say, that I see know that it is even highly questinable if the result would be "good style".
So there we go again. I will try to rework it more in line with Aiwendils suggestions:
FG-D-01b Deleting from Maeglin's advice to Morgoth.
Quote:
From the greatness of his wealth of metals and his powers of fire he bid him make {beasts}[things] like snakes and [streams of fire like ]dragons of irresistible might that should overcreep the Encircling Hills and lap that plain and its fair city in flame and death.
As explained above I see still the need of clearty here. I changed "beasts" to "things" becuase I think even if we can with some liberty call the machines "monsters", "dragons" and "serpants", "beasts" is to specific becuase it is an abstarct word for animals. That means it does not call some special picture into the mind of the reader, it only reminds him of the animal like character. I view of my argument above that must be avioded at least for the type 1 monsters. "things of Iron" is at least once used in the text so we can use the implications of that word here to the benfit of clearty. The addition of "straems of fire" is in this place needed to distinguish them from the type 1 monsters and it servers to link them to the Dagor Bargorlach in accordance to my proposal.

FG-D-02d Devising of the dragons.
Quote:
Yet these years are filled by M[orgoth] in the utmost ferment of labour, and all the thrall-folk of the Noldo[r] must dig unceasingly for metals while M[orgoth] sitteth and deviseth fires and calleth flames and smokes to come from the lower heats, nor does he suffer any of the Noldo[r] to stray ever a foot from their place of bondage. Then on a time M[orgoth] assembled all his most cunning smiths{ and sorcerers}, and of iron {and flame} they wrought a {host of monsters}[mass of things] such as have only at that time been seen and shall not again be till the Great End. {Some}[They] were all of iron so cunningly linked that they might flow like slow rivers of metal or coil themselves around and above all obstacles before them, and {those} were filled in their innermost depths with the grimmest of Or[k]s with scimitars and spears[. And the Dragons with scales like]{; others of} bronze and copper[, with their]{ were given} hearts and spirits of blazing fire, [were mustered to]{and they} blast{ed} all that stood before them with the terror of their snorting or trample{d} whatso escaped the ardour of their breath{;}[. Morgoth and his sorcerers wrought] yet other{s were} creatures of pure flame that writhed like ropes of molten metal, and they brought to ruin whatever fabric they came nigh, and iron and stone melted before them and became as water, and {upon}[with] them {rode}[moved] the Balrogs{ in hundreds}; and these were the most dire of all those {monsters}[creations] which M[orgoth] devised against Gondolin.
I skipt my own additions, but again I replaced "monsters" by "things" for the (at least by my) desiered clearty. (Can we gramaticaly corect speak of "a host of things"? I don't think so but I do not know for sure, and I would like "host" more than "mass".)

FG-D-03a Description of the enemies.
Here my argument was not gainsaid, and I will stick to it.

FG-D-04b
Quote:
… but the stoutest were in dread seeing those dragons of fire and those serpents of {bronze and }iron [?and the host of bronzecolured dragons]…
When we will stick to the "dragons of fire" we have, in my view, to re-introduce the type 2 monsters to distinguish the 3 typs. Other wise the Gondolimdrim would in the mind of the reader be terrified by "normal" type 2 dragons, which in the original text is clearly not intended.

FG-D-05a Flexible dragons pressed into service.
Here now things of iron occure in the Text as written and should stand.

FG-D-06a Hollowness of the iron beasts.
Quote:
Then the engines and the catapults of the king poured darts and boulders and molten metals on those ruthless {beasts}[things], and their hollow bellies clanged beneath the buffeting, yet it availed not for they might not be broken, and the fires rolled off them. Then were the topmost opened about their middles, and an innumerable host of the {Orcs} [Orks], the goblins of hatred, poured therefrom into the breach; …
As I explained above, I don't think, we can use "beasts" even if "serpents" is retained. And when we change the text for the reason of clearty we should do it as clear as we can, so "things" is beter than let say "serpents".

FG-D-07b The great-footed dragons prepare to attack Gondolin.
Quote:
Now then the plan that they made was to hold what they had won, while those serpents of bronze [colour] and with great feet for trampling climbed slowly over those [things] of iron, and reaching the walls there opened a breach wherethrough the Balrogs might {ride upon} [come with] the dragons of flame: yet they knew this must be done with speed, for the heats of those drakes lasted not for ever, and might only be plenished from the wells of fire that Melko had made in the fastness of his own land.
The only changes left her are the insertion of "coulured" which I think is necessary when we talk about animals and the following addition of "things" to distinguish the to know far seperated kind of "monsters".

FG-D-08b Breaking of the Walls.
Quote:
… one of those brazen snakes heaves against …
Since here we deal only with one kind of monsters that has been discribed as animals in all occassion in the text before this. So I think, we can use the "brazen snakes" as a pictural discription with out any addition.

FG-D-09b Imprisonment of the Noldor.
Quote:
... they bound and led back and flung in the iron chambers amid the dragons of iron, that they might drag them afterward to be thralls of {Melko} [Morgoth].
If "dragons" is retained here that will awake in me the picture of women and childrend eaten up by the "monsters". So I suggest the change to "things" But I might by wrong and it is clearly a stylistic change that is not necessary. So I could also life with the original text.

FG-D-10 At the gate.
Quote:
Fire-drakes are about it and monsters of iron fare in and out of its gates, …
No change is realy necessary to the original text.

FG-B-02c Balrogs shoot arrows of fire.
Here I already did what Aiwendil suggested: let it stand as fare as possible.

FG-B-03e Rog's men attack
Quote:
... but the men of Rog leapt even upon the coils of the serpents and came at those Balrogs and smote them grievously, for all they had whips of flame and claws of steel, and were in stature very great. They battered them into {nought} [retreat], {or} catching at their whips [and] wield[ing] these against them{,} {that they tore them even as they had aforetime torn the Gnomes}; and [that ]the {number of} Balrogs {that prished}[were defeated] was a marvel and dread to the hosts of Morgoth[.]{, for ere that day never had any of the Balrogs been slain by the hand of Elves or Men.}
Then Gothmog Lord of Balrogs gathers all his demons [and troops] that were about the city and ordered them thus: a number made for the folk of the Hammer and gave before them, but the greater company rushing upon the flank contrived to get to their backs, higher upon the coils of the drakes and nearer to the gates, so that Rog might not win back save with great slaughter among his folk.
I made use of Aiwendils suggestions in the "FoG 4" thread. But I kept the change from "monsters" to "troops" in the addition to the second paragraph for the reason explained in my last post.
I am still not happy with loosing "that they tore them even as they had aforetime torn the Gnomes" completly. But I could only think of a chnage of the verb, since Aiwendil is right that the skin of the Balrogs was to risky addition. But the only change I cold come up with would be to "that they {tore}[tortured] them even as they had aforetime {tore}[tortured] the {Gnomes}[Noldor]". May be some one else has a better replacment for "tore"?

FG-B-03.05b
Quote:
Then that house of the Hammer fared about smiting and hewing the astonied bands of Morgoth till they were hemmed at the last by an overwhelming force of the Orcs[,] and the Balrogs [loosed]{and} a fire-drake{ was loosed} upon them.
As I said before the fire-drake is not clearly recoginsed as a type 3 monster. But since it is one, I found the mentioning of at least one Balrog necessary. So I tried to re-establish the Balrogs by an rather risky change. What I produced serves two purposess: The Balrogs of the original text are retained (so in supposedly much lesser number and diffrent role) and the fire-drake is more linked to the type 3 monsters of my proposal.

I still think that in some occassions in the further attack type 3 monsters will be discriebed in a way that they could be confussed with type 2 monsters. But that will have to wait for a closer look into the text.

Respectfully
Findegil
Findegil is offline   Reply With Quote