[Aran e-Godhellim]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

697: Aran suggests changing the line to remove the syllabic '-ed'. While I can certainly see the temptation to do so, I think that there is no justification for that in our principles - our goal is not to correct or improve on what Tolkien wrote. So I'm for keeping the original line here.

I thought that might be the ruling. I just mentioned it for the sake of having it there. I've no problem with not using it.

Aran's idea to move 'for gold' into the first half-line so that we can alliterate 'bargained' with 'blood' is a good one but it requires the invention 'of his liege'. Also - and now I'm being really pedantic - he actually did not bargain his liege's blood for gold (if his liege is Turin), as he specifically required of the Orcs that Turin not be killed.

A possibility is:


'Guests' referring to the outlaws who were dwelling in his house (and also providing a nice double alliteration). Or, if 'guests' is deemed an unsuitable word, something like:

I heartily approve of "guests." Excellent idea!

Aran suggests adding the line:


Certainly, it seems that if Tolkien had written this piece of verse with the story of Androg's curse in mind, some line in this vein would have been included. But I'm afraid adding a line is too great a liberty for us. Also, as it stands it doesn't scan properly; there's no alliterating stress in the second half-line ('avenged' alliterates on 'v' and in any case it must be the first stress of the second half-line that alliterates).

Ah! I knew I missed something in that line. Oh, well.

That is, can we use 'his curse' to mean not 'the curse uttered by Mim' but 'the curse upon Mim'? It seems all right to me, if perhaps not ideal.

I'll agree with that as well.

The only problem I still have is with "the traitor Mîm." That line still doesn't flow as well.