The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - **Ruin of Doriath - Pre-Revision speculation/proposal thread**

Aiwendil · 08-17-2004, 08:44 PM

FD-SL-03: I'd say it's possible, and even likely, that Hurin's slaying of Mim would have been restored if "Wanderings" had continued. But I do not think we have the authority to return to that story in violation of Q30. I guess I would go with the story in Q30 for Mim's death.

FD-SL-05: We have at least some indication that Tolkien might have intended to keep the outlaws alive up to Menegroth, since he says in relation to "Wanderings" that they are the "nucleus of the force" with which Hurin brings ruin to Doriath. The other piece of "evidence" here is simply Christopher's observation that Hurin's gesture is ruined by his being forced to get Thingol to send for the very treasure which is to be so dramaticly cast at his feet.

Still, some part of me says that since Q30 is the last full account of the Ruin of Doriath and we don't have any clear renunciation of that story, we ought at least to consider following the story there, however inadequate it may seem. It would at least obviate the problem of the fate of the outlaws.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

FD-SL-19: Would the news of Mim's death really have point for the Dwarves of Nogrod, considering the later conception of the Petty Dwarves?

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.

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."

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.

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.

FD-SL-27: This is indeed problematic. I'll think about it.

08-17-2004, 08:44 PM	#54
Aiwendil Late Istar Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,224	FD-SL-03: I'd say it's possible, and even likely, that Hurin's slaying of Mim would have been restored if "Wanderings" had continued. But I do not think we have the authority to return to that story in violation of Q30. I guess I would go with the story in Q30 for Mim's death. FD-SL-05: We have at least some indication that Tolkien might have intended to keep the outlaws alive up to Menegroth, since he says in relation to "Wanderings" that they are the "nucleus of the force" with which Hurin brings ruin to Doriath. The other piece of "evidence" here is simply Christopher's observation that Hurin's gesture is ruined by his being forced to get Thingol to send for the very treasure which is to be so dramaticly cast at his feet. Still, some part of me says that since Q30 is the last full account of the Ruin of Doriath and we don't have any clear renunciation of that story, we ought at least to consider following the story there, however inadequate it may seem. It would at least obviate the problem of the fate of the outlaws. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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". FD-SL-19: Would the news of Mim's death really have point for the Dwarves of Nogrod, considering the later conception of the Petty Dwarves? 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. 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." 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. 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. FD-SL-27: This is indeed problematic. I'll think about it.