[Aiwendil]

lindil: We have almost no info on earendil and especially the War of Wrath, because much of what would be known about it passed over Sea w/ those who fought in it. i.e. not the noldor in beleriand./Eriador. There would have been far less time to compose something like a Narn or Fall of gondolin, before the departure over the sea. So a compressed version makes a certain
sense. This could be part of the reason that Bilbo resorts to creating his version of Earendil's story. maybe he could not get a full acount in Rivendell [due to ignorance or secrecy] and so was gently chiding his host[s] Aragorn we read was not impressed.

Aiwendil: Interesting thought. But all indications are that JRRT considered the tale of Earendil part of the Atanatarion, the great tales of the fathers of men from the first age. In Myths Transformed he breaks the later stories down into the Narn Beren ion Barahir and the Narn e mbar Hador; and he divides the latter into Narn i Chin Hurin and Narn en El. He seems to consider these the longer versions of the stories told in brief in the Quenta Silmarillion. I think it's unlikely that he intended the Earendil story to be disproportionately shorter than the others. Not that this is such an important point to decide right now.

Ambiguous Balrogs

Looking back over jallanite's proposed changes recently I was moved to see how much rewriting would be required to make the number of Balrogs as ambiguous as possible (though still possibly 7), while cutting as little of the tale as possible. My idea has been to change mentions of 'Balrogs' to more ambiguous terms such as 'demons' or 'monsters' - both terms that can be understood to include Balrogs, Boldogs, or a variety of other creatures. Here's my attempt - I'll go through each of jallanite's emendations and counter-emend them:

FG-B01: Balrogs on the dragons of flame.
jallanite:

... and upon them rode the Balrogs {in hundreds};

Aiwendil:

... and {upon} with them {rode} came the Balrogs {in hundreds};

Eliminates reference to Balrogs riding dragons. These Balrogs may or may not be capable of flight. Also, if we change the mechanical dragons to real ones, they may no longer serve as transport.

FG-B02: Balrogs shoot arrows of fire.
jallanite:

... yet a worse matter was it that {a company} one of those demons climbed upon the coils of the serpents {of iron[?]} and thence loosed unceasingly from {their} his bow{s and slings} till a fire began to burn in the city to the back of the main army of the defenders.

I can find nothiing better to do with this passage, unless we decide to cut out Rog's slaying of a Balrog (which we may very well have to do.)

FG-B03: Rog's men attack
jallanite:

... but the men of Rog leapt even upon the coils of the serpents and came at {those} that Balrog{s} and smote {them} him grievously, for all {they} he had whip{s} of flame and claws of steel, and {were} was in stature very great. They battered {them} him into nought, {or} and catching at {their} his whip{s} wielded {these} it against {them} him that they tore {them} him even as {they} he had aftoretime torn the [Elves]; and {the number of Balrogs} that this Balrog perished was a marvel and dread to the hosts of M[orgoth], 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 that were about the city and ordered them thus: {a number} two made for the folk of the Hammer and gave before them, but the greater {company} part 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.

Aiwendil:

... but the men of Rog leapt even upon the coils of the serpents and came at {those} that Balrog{s} and smote {them} him grievously, for all {they} he had whip{s} of flame and claws of steel, and {were} was in stature very great. They battered {them} him into nought, {or} and catching at {their} his whip{s} wielded {these} it against {them} him that they tore {them} him even as {they} he had aftoretime torn the [Elves]; and {the number of Balrogs} that this Balrog perished was a marvel and dread to the hosts of M[orgoth], 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 monsters 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.

This leaves the Rog situation as it was; I'll discuss this later. My (risky) addition to the second paragraph, I think, nicely sidesteps the question of Balrog numbers. I wonder if it is justified.

FG-B03.5 Rog's slaughter

{Fearful too they were for that slaughter Rog had done amid the Balrogs, because of tose demons they had great courage and confidence of heart.}
Now then the plan that they made was to hold what they had won, while those serpents of bronze and with great feet for trampling climbed slowly over those of iron, and reaching the walls there opened a breach wherethrough the Balrogs might {ride} come {upon} with the dragons of flame . . .

I doubt that the first sentence should be deleted, but I can at the moment think of nothing better. At any rate, Rog, whether he kills a Balrog or not, cannot be said to have done slaughter amid them. The change in the second paragraph eliminates Balrogs riding on dragons.

FG-B04: Entrance into the city
jallanite:

... and behind comes a creature of fire and a Balrog{s} upon it.

Aiwendil:

... and behind comes a creature of fire and Balrogs and monsters with it.

It may seem odd to restore the Balrogs plural. But jallanite's original change here was, I think, designed not to reduce the number of Balrogs in the scene, but to limit the dragons to one Balrog each. If, as I suggest, we eliminate the dragon-riders altogether, the ‘s' on the end of ‘Balrogs' can stand. My ‘and monsters' is dubious, but follows the trend of this proposed revision. I don't think there's any problem with dropping it, though - there's no reason, even if there were only four Balrogs, that not more than one could have been in the square.

FG-B05: Ecthelion against the Balrogs
jallanite:

Of these demons of power Ecthelion {slew} drove back three, for the brightness of his sword cleft the iron of them and did hurt to their fire, and they writhed.

Aiwendil:

{Of these demons of power Ecthelion slew three} And he drove them back, for the brightness of his sword cleft the iron of them and did hurt to their fire, and they writhed.

This (rather innocuous looking) bit is quite troublesome. My proposal is probably not justified, though I think would work well. Jallanite's proposal is, of course, good; but the mention of ‘three', as innocent as it looks, says things about how many Balrogs there are and aren't.

FG-B06: The Great Market
jallanite:

... where a force of Or[k]s {led by Balrogs} came on them at unawares ....

or

... where a force of Or[k]s {led by Balrogs} came on them at unawares ....

Aiwendil:
Go with jallanite's first proposal or:

... where a force of Orcs {led by Balrogs} and monsters came on them at unawares

Though I get the feeling I'm stretching ‘monsters' a bit by now.

FG-B07: To the Square of the King
jallanite:

But now the men of M[orgoth] have assembled their forces, and seven dragons of fire are come with Or[k]s about them and a Balrog{s} upon one of them down all the ways from [sou]th, [we]st, and [ea]st, seeking the Square of the King.

Aiwendil:

But now the men of M[orgoth] have assembled their forces, and seven dragons of fire are come with Or[k]s a Balrog about them {and Balrogs upon them} down all the ways from [sou]th, [we]st, and [ea]st, seeking the Square of the King.

This Balrog must be kept, and must be Gothmog, as he appears in the next paragraph. I have eliminated the dragon-riding.

FG-B08: The king and his guard
jallanite:

... the royal house laid on and the king came down in splendour among them and hewed with them, that they swept again much of the square, {and of the Balrogs slew even two score,} which was a great prowess indeed:

This can stand.

Not nearly as difficult as I had imagined. Of course, the question here is how far my ‘monsters' can be stretched. In any case in the tale where an individual Balrog is singled out, ‘monster' fails. For, though the term might cover Balrogs, Boldogs, trolls, or whatnot, it obviously is against our principles to state that there are Boldogs or trolls, for instance. Nonetheless, I think we can get away with it. Is there perhaps a light at the end of the Balrog-filled tunnel?

As for Rog: This is probably the most problematic point of the whole tale. Does Rog kill a Balrog or not? He does in the proposal I've just presented, but that is not so much indicative as my preference as it is of my exhaustion. We have three options when it comes to Rog: have him kill a Balrog, have him not kill a Balrog, or be ambiguous about it. I could, unfortunately, not think of a way to achieve the latter. But then I'm very tired.

Is UBB code for underlining 'u' in brackets and '/u' in brackets, or am I just losing my mind? I've had to italicize what I meant to underline.

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]