[Maédhros]

That was what I tried with the secret bridge over Sirion. But it is clearly not quite sufficient since the Gridle protected Nivrim. I am sure that we can find some solution.

FD-SL-06: The only logical way that Hurin can have gotten into Doriath is if he was led through the Girdle; so in an abstract sense I agree with Maedhros. I am not sure, however, that either lifting text from elsewhere in TT or inventing a secret bridge over Sirion to match that over Esgalduin is the way to achieve it. We could perhaps be ambiguous here.

I think that we are all on the same page in here.

FD-SL-08: This is one of the two really tricky parts in my view. I fear we can only go so far with ambiguous sentences. I am not at all satisfied with any of the possibilities:

1. The outlaws are killed on the way to Doriath, as in Q30. The trouble with this is of course that it ruins Hurin's gesture. We have what might be interpreted as an indication from JRRT that it was rejected; we also have the strong condemnation of the story by Christopher.

2. The outlaws battle with the Elves in Menegroth. This was the story in TT, but was rejected; there is no reason to think that it would ever have been re-introduced. It seems out of place in the later Silmarillion; also it seems likely that the inadequate story found in Q30 was devised to avoid this.

3. The outlaws leave peacefully. This is not found in any text; also there may be a problem with them escaping the curse of Mim.

If I'm not mistaken, Findegil and me agree on the fact that the outlaws are the ones who take the treasure of Nargothrond to Menegroth and that there is no battle there. Our difference seems to be in what happens to the outlaws after they leave. Do they live with some of the treasure or not? My opinion is that they do take some of it and that it is said that most of them died in quarrels on the road as to not escape the curse of Mîm.

FD-SL-11: I definitely don't think that we can re-introduce Ufedhin; nor can we invent a new character in his place. I don't see any reason to doubt the Q30 story here - nor in fact any reason that we need to elaborate on what is said there.

This is one of the two points in which I disagree with Findegil. I have argued against using either Ufedhin nor a betrayal of the Elves.

FD-SL-12 and FD-SL-13: Again, Q30 ought to be taken as authoritative. What we have there is ambiguous. I wonder about the necessity of re-introducing Lost Tales material merely for the sake of detail, when that material is so highly dubious. Again, I think that this is a place where we may have to just use Q30 as it is.

I would definitely in the whole Ruin of Doriath would introduce as most Lost Tales material as possible within our rules, considering that the Q30 account is very general.

FD-SL-17: I don't know whether to consider The Hobbit in contradiction with Q30 or not. Christopher certainly didn't seem to think it was, at any rate. The statement in The Hobbit is quite general and clearly not intended to say anything about the precise sequence of events. I guess in the end I don't really see the contradiction - the Dwarves can go to war after the slaying of their kin and still be going to "retrieve their treasure".

I agree with Aiwendil in here, and having the fight between the dwarves and elves would makes us follow the Q30 account as it was written.

FD-SL-20: I don't think we can use the treachery of the Elves. It's simply out of place in the later Silmarillion. Putting it back in may be possible, but there's insufficient justification for it; it would be little better than fan fiction.

I agree with this.

FD-SL-21: Tolkien could have revived the hunt story but did not. I don't see why we can't simply follow Tolkien's idea - that he was "induced to go to war beyond his borders". It becomes a problem only if we insist on investing every portion of the story with the level of detail found in the Lost Tales. Why not use the bald statement that "Thingol was induced to go to war beyond his borders"? Or, if we permit a stylistic revision, "Hearing of the anger of the Dwarves, Thingol went forth to war beyond the borders of Doriath."

I would personally want to follow the idea of the old hunt story but now I think that I can follow that because of the slaying of the Elves in Menegroth, Thingol was induced to go to war beyond the borders of Doriath.

FD-SL-22: I wonder about using Mablung here. In the 77 he defends the Silmaril to the last, but as I recall I could find no precedent whatsoever for this in any of JRRT's writings.

I would use Mablung here with no trouble. He is mentioned in the Tale of the Nauglafring as dying with Thingol.

FD-SL-23: I think we can follow the note, much as Findegil suggests, in having Melian depart immediately. But I don't see a definite need to delete the Q30 story that she brought the message to Beren and Luthien before she departed for Valinor. Though I do understand the awkwardness of that solution. If that's deemed unworkable, I would go with Findegil's suggestion that she immediately goes to Valinor and that the message is brought to Beren and Luthien by some anonymous messenger.

To put it simple: The problem is the Girdle. Remove Melian and the problem is solved. Do not remove her, and you have to argue the Girdle away in some very risky fashion.

Findegil is correct in this. But there is another factor to consider. Melian is a wise and great queen. I just can't see her that if she had the ability to keep the Girdle in place after Thingol's death, she would choose not to do it and leave and Valinor at once. I know that she would be in shock at the death of Thingol but not as to leave all of Menegroth vulnerable to such a devastating attack. I would rather follow CT as he did in the QS77 riskier as it might be.