View Single Post
Old 08-27-2017, 11:12 AM   #23
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,561
Findegil is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Okay, I try a second go on the comments:

CE-EX-30: This is editing mark is for the complet insert from LT of the armour taking of the Valar. As I wrote in my first comment, I am also not quite sure if this is to be taken or not. As argument for pro: we have included physical descriptions of the Valar. We see them here prepairing themself for a physical war. Probably unexpacted for the Valar the main physical action is not against Melkor but against his agents.
About Salmar and Omar: Even in the Lost Tales they are no major figures. So I don't see why this should disqualify them here.
Your change in the last part is stylistic and I would do it. But I looking that up I saw an other miss:
... Thus they passed the {Mountains of Iron}[Ered Wethrin] and {Hisilome}[Hithlum] that lies dim beyond, and came to the rivers and hills of ice. ...
The concept of the Mountains of Iron changed, so that the Valar would not reach but leave Hithlum when crossing them.

CE-EX-37: Agreed. But was not Illuin the name only of the Lamp? I would there correct in this way:
CE-EX-37 <LT There in the deepest North beyond even the shattered pillar {Ringil}[of Illuin] {they}[the Valar] came upon the huge gates of deep {Utumna}[Utumno], and {Melko}[Melkor] shut them with great clangour before their faces.
CE-EX-39: This is the reference for the complete insert. And yes it is a anayltic text that is not transforming on itself to narrative.
About your proposed changes in detail:

1. 'a tyrant (or central tyranny and will), {+}[considered with the sum of] his agents’: The consideration is what follows. I think what Tolkien meant here was Melkor was no longer the central figure only but had created agents to which he had given part of his former self, at least of his power. Therefore I would either stick to 'plus' or replace by 'and'.

2. '{on a power level with}[equal to]': Why do you want to change this? I agree that it is not best style, but the change to 'equal' bad because that was true before as well, as he ever had been of the same order of beeings.

3. '{(sc. armies, Balrogs, etc.)} {piecemeal}[individually]. So {that} they': For all three changes I can only see reason of style. Or do I miss some thing here.

4. 'sufficient {'}force{'} {(in any sense)}': Why should we remove that qualifier?

5. 'evil {magic}[power]': The critisem on 'magic' that is uttered by Galadriel in LotR is only concerned with fact that the word was applied to both the evil deceits of the enemy and the works of elvish craft. So I would think in this circumstance 'magic' is valid.

6. 'his own point of view{:}[; as] he {has}[had] now': This is changing the sense of the construction! The dubble point makes the observation that followes the reference of the sentence before. The semicolon makes it to a kind of addition, with the reference of the sentence before changing to the next paragraph. At least I am strongly against this change.

7. '{Either}{ManwŰ} {must tell}{[told] him} {so or}{/and/ he}[He] {must }himself suddenly {realize (or both) }[realized] that this {has}[had] happened: he {is}[had] {'}dispersed{'}.': By changing the passage in this way you decised what happend. That is not realy what we want to do. But I agree that as it stands the sentence is problematic in a narative. But then we should go with Tolkiens after thought and not with ours and taking his insert '(or both)' as a guide for our editing. That was what I tried.

8. 'power of recuperation and multiplication{. So}[, so] that they {will}[would]': Changing the point to a comma is pure style. We should shy back from this especially in a footnote. {will}[would]: I can agree to that, if we would consider the world cleand from all agents of Melkor. But then which event in the history should have done that cleaning? As I understood the concept the 'would' is true in 'Arda remade', but as I undertand it our narative is still told in 'Arda marred'.

9. 'creative power {has}[had] gone out': Agreed, but it is change for grammatical reasons, so I will formate it with underlining.

10. '{As with all other characters there must be}{/In/ a trembling}[There was a] moment {when it is}[when]/he was/': Your suggestion of 'There was' is good and I agree also to the restoration of 'when', but why do you want the remove 'trembling'?

11. 'in the balance{:}[; and] he nearly {repents}[repented]': Again this change at least for me does interfere with the sense of the construction, which I am at al loos to allow.

12. 'he could {now} at that moment': What is the reason to remove the 'now'?

13. '{(just like Sauron afterwards on this model)}': I can see some reason for the removal. So I agree to it. Probably we can use it as back reference in Second Age stuff.

14. 'From {which}[this] actually he {gets}[got]a {kind of} perverted pleasure': Again for both your changes I can only see reason of style. If I miss some other reasoning, please explain.

15. '[[footnote to the text] for the mere contemplating of the possibility of genuine repentance, if that did not come specially then as a direct grace from Eru, was at least one last flicker of his true primeval nature.]': I can see your reasoning to move that sentence to a footnote, but this might open the flood gate. The sentence was not a footnote in the original text, so we should keep it in the main body of the text. If necessary we might change it in fromating or in formulation.

16. 'He {actually}[even] {kneels}[knelt] before ManwŰ': Please explain your reason behind this change.

17. '{deludes}[deluded] ManwŰ[.]{ -} ManwŰ {must be shown to have}/had/': I agree to this change. It might be called styleish but on the other hand do we lift a text from analyses to narative, and some small alterations are possible.

18. '{[footnote to the text: Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru.)]}': Why do you want to remove this footnote? It is in it content not more critical as the one you wanted to creat out of the remark about Melkors primeval nature.

19. '{ - even 'keeping the status quo' -}': Again I see no reason to remove this insertion. On the contatray, I fell that with removing it we take away some information that Tolkien did provide.

CE-EX-45: I agree to change {Vali}[Valar] and as well to the restoration of the 'silver chair of Manwe', but with the concept of the nine great once we can still speak about 'great and small Valar'.

CE-SL-15: I agree to your changes of interpunctation. But '{enemy territory}[the lands of his enemies]' is a pure style change in my point of view. And I wouldn't take 'and' as the connectore for the 'He could not do this' but rather 'therefore'.

CE-EX-48 & CE-EX-49: Agreed.

CE-EX-50 & CE-EX-51: I agree on the Ulmo part. But for Osse, I would rather let him speak cautioulsy against it without the reasoning. My (bad) idea behind keeping the reasoning was that it now would refer to the 'cautiously', but that is bad editing as it is changing the sense.

Silmo is refered to in chapter 2.

Silpion is still a valid name for Telperion so it should stand.

The changes you made to the speech of the elvish ambassadore seem good to me, I just do not see why you removed 'new-' from 'new-come'.

'Il˙vatar had {wiped}[removed] from the minds': Pure style, or not?


Last edited by Findegil; 08-30-2017 at 08:25 AM.
Findegil is offline   Reply With Quote