View Single Post
Old 08-27-2003, 06:46 AM   #33
Findegil
King's Writer
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,694
Findegil is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Sting

Posted by Maédhros:
Quote:
I think that the most important thing is to keep going foward and to finish or revision of part 3 and 4, so that we could go on to 5. Then, when we have the whole tale, we can discuss all parts of the texts where the Mechanical Monsters appear and discuss each and every one of them separately.
That would mean doing it all again later. As far as I have observed the project, it hadn't worked in that way, rather the oposit. And I at least found that a better way to do it.

Posted by Aiwendil:
Quote:
Why then insist not only on retaining the three-fold distinction, but in fact on making it as explicit as possible? It was, after all, made in the first place in order to assist with the change from mechanical to flesh and blood.
Because the world in which the story is set has changed, but the tale has not (if do not cghange it).
In the original Tales there had been never a battle with of host of dragons befor the Fall of Gondolin. In fact in the Lost Tales Glaurung (or better his old equivalent) had been the only dragon metioned at all before the Fall of Gondolin. But as the story stands now, we have the Dagor Bargolach and the Nirneath Anoediad in which a great nummber of animal-dragons fought. The Text of the Tale of te Fall of Gondolin has as it stands no other dragons than the mechanical monsters (or at least that is my impression of the text.)
When Fall of Gondolin is read in its rightfull frame the Lost Tales there is no reason what so ever for any confusion. The dragons all were made for the attack! Their fabrication and lock is somewhat obscure but that does not matter because they are a singel example (it is threefold really) of the craft of dragon fabrication.

So in my view the problem seems to be: We have in the tale the mechanical monster that wer never mentioned in any other text and we have in the texts around it animal-dragons that were not mentioned in the Fall of Gondolin.

Since it is stated in the Fall of Gondolin that these mechanical monsters were never seen again until the final End, we could deal with that situation, IF the mechanical monsters were not to be confused with the animal-dragons. But even then it would be dificault: Why should there be no animal-dragons in the attack on Gondolin since they had done a good job in fighting the Noldor down in two previous battles?

But the task is even more complicated: In the attack many of the mechanical monsters are discribed as exact peers of the animal-dragons seen in the battles before.

If we try to follow Aiwendils plan, the reader will see many of the type 2 and type 3 monsters as animal-fire-dragons. That is in it self not a problem, we might even come too the conclusion, that we desire this. But it is denied in the passage of the making of the mechnical monsters.

My proposal was to give the mechnical monsters and the animal-fire-dragons a place in the attack. But to do so we have to distinguish them in the text more then the old Tale does. For that reason I have seperated thier making and wanted to seperat them in the text by eliminating phrases like "serpants of Iron and such of copper".
What still was not settle, in the work I did for my proposal, is the confusion (at least in the mind of the reader) between type 2 and type 3 monster in the further battle in the city. Since that confusion is already in the Tale implied, I am (now) inclined not to introduce changes for clearty. But that would mean nearly no clear mention of type 3 monster would be left after the intrusion of the attackers into the city.

A possible solution would be to change the type 3 monsters to animal-fire-dragons. The changes to the text would be minimal (deleting type 3 in the creation could already be enough). But I doubt that this the right way to go.

Respectfully
Findegil
Findegil is offline   Reply With Quote