The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - *A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin*

jallanite · 07-10-2001, 09:24 PM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 39</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Comments on Comments

Re your comments, Aiwendil:

C01 My guiding principle was and is to get rid of particular masses of Balrogs everywhere and anywhere by any method. Just dropping the references is easiest (which may not mean best!) If there are too few when all is done, then bring some (or all?) back. I actually don't think we need to drop any. The late reference to seven can be considered another unworkable proposed change. But I do think JRRT did let the Balrogs get away from him. He writes "... for ere that day never had any of the Balrogs been slain by the hand of Elves or Men", and then slaughters them like the Orks they command. Not much hope of keeping them down to seven even with easy omissions, or actually to six since one is for some reason out on the northern marches waiting for Glorfindel to kill him.
Had that note about the seven never appeared, would we care? Certainly these beings are mostly not of the power of Durin's Bane, but must all Balrogs be alike in power?
Still, my policy will be extreme in the first draft, eliminating as much as possible of any suggestions of multitudes

C09 I find no reference anywhere to a collapse of the Way of Escape, merely: "the Dry Gate was blocked and the arched gate was buried." CT states in note 28 to "Wanderings" that his dropping the Way of Escape was based on this single and singular statement. I can't find any other passage bearing on the issue. CT's invention of a purposeful closing by Turgon makes good sense in the context. But you are right that an attempt to use the Way might have been made, if it was still openable. So we have to decide, with no evidence either way that I can see, *Sigh!* whether it was permanently closed, perhaps by forced collapse of the tunnel, or whether Turgon had only closed the outside wall, but left it able to be broken open from inside again if there was need or he wished the gate to exist again.
Possibly the principle of not rejecting anything that JRRT wrote that is not contradicted by his own writing applies here. He relates that the gate was closed in one place, but that the Way of Escape was used in another, and there is no real contradiction if the Way was reasonably easy to re-open from the inside: say a day's work with pickaxes and shovels for a large tast force and removal of a binding spell? "We made it, we're out! My, what big teeth the exit has!"

C10 This is a bit complex. My logic was that in recasting the FB sentence in Q30 JRRT replaced FG "the plain was full of mists" with Q30 "fell upon the vale in mournful mists" and FG "and this perchance had to do with the doom of the fountain of the king" is replaced by Q30 "The fume of the burning, and the steam of the fair fountains of Gondolin withering in the flame of the dragons of the North". The Q30 sentence thus replaces the original with the two elements reversed, but I felt it reasonable and in accord with the principles to re-insert into the the Q30 sentence the missing informaton that this had never happened before, as there's nothing to indicate that information was dropped for any reason other than general compression. Q30 is certainly better here as well as being later: smoke from burning would have been contributing to the "mist" and there is no need of a "perchance" to relate the true mist to the turning of the fountain(s) to steam. We can re-add the somewhat redundant "the plain was full of mists" alongside its replacement. It really doesn't matter.

C11 The addition of "many" twice is only necessary as a change in wording by JRRT in the later Q30 version. I was also going to change "stricken" to "wounded" following the Q30 corresponding sentence, and then noticed that "wounded" does occur three sentences later in FG material that can still be considered part of the material summarized by the Q30 sentence, and so accepted this later use of "wounded" to equal the word "wounded" in Q30. Pedantic and somewhat silly and artificial considerations! Yet for each Q30 sentence I had to decide to what extent it was a summary of FG and to what extent original addition, and whether different wording was a result of it being a summary or a true later change. That's the way the game has to be played. The decisions must be made. Fortunately most of them don't matter: any mixture of wording from the two sources reads equally well.

C18 I made an unwarranted assumption here! FG states: "But they who arose from the grasses of the Land of willows in years after and fared away to sea, <u>when spring set celandine in the meads</u> and they had held sad festival in memorial of Glorfindel, ..." I used this to date to the spring the Q30 "feast in memory of Gondolin" and subsequent removal to the Sea. All annals which mention the fall of Gondolin place the arrival of Tuor and the fugitives at the mouth of Sirion in the following year. So either the FG timing of over a year for the wandering in the mountains or the FG spring dating for the departure from the Land of Willows must be removed. Or both?
I see nothing to push definitely one way or the other. I suspect that one reason JRRT did have the fugutives escape to the north rather than the south was that a northern route led them into wilder territory on the edge of Dorthonion which Morgoth held. That might support the year of wandering. But that still seems a large space of time to wander in, particular if they are in part being guided by Eagles. *Sigh!* Even eight months of wandering seems a lot, but that would still get them to Nan-tathren in plenty of time to leave again in the spring. Aesthetically I like the note about the spring, so will leave that for now as there is no other logic I can see to pull one way or the other otherwise.

C23 The words in the lay "all this have others****in ancient stories / and songs unfolded,****but say I further" are a problem in my suggested setting at the festival. If used here, as a sample of festival song, then the final lines, 32-38, should be dropped. Another possiblity is to place it just after the arrival in Nan-tathren (where the fragment ends) without particular explanation. It just appear as a poetic fragment giving a retrospective summary of the parts of the tale previously related. If we break up the Fall into chapters, it could start one of them. These all just suggestions. It should be fitted in somewhere I feel.

C25 Agreed (sadly) on the daring emendations if others think them too bold. We may have to limit Tuor's recitation to the core poem which presents no problems and drop introduction or conclusion or both. But maybe others can work from what I've started or try some different tack.

C31 You are right! The Elessar has to be mentioned here! But I just can't get any full account to fit here without rewriting or paraphrasing. I've now edited my post to at least mention it at this point, with the assumption that something about it will be fitted in earlier, and of course later. Again, if someone else sees a way, please contribute.

C33 On mermaids, anything written by Tolkien is not to be disregarded unless contradicted by later ideas or in error, etc. I don't know that he did drop them. The late Eärendil information is so frustratingly sketchy, almost worse than the early material. Any scrap of information is important. And they appear in four separate notes. I don't imagine Tolkien was talking about fish-tailed women if that is what bothers. I see something along the lines of the Nereids and Okeanids of Greek myth. But who knows?

C34 Trying to get the other stuff into Q30 was the problem. On any of this mixed material, you or anyone are welcome rework it to read better and still include all the material. With multiple source passages I often stopped at the point, tired but happy, where I had finally managed to fit all the material in somewhere.

The historical present is a strange thing. People fall into it automatically when actually telling a story: "So I went to the store. And as I'm going in the door, I see this woman, and she looks at me funny. So I say 'Hi' to her. And then she says 'Hi' to me". But this natural English (and medieval French) style of narrative is drummed out of peoples' heads as improper grammar by English teachers who don't know any better, influenced by grammarians of three hundred years ago who thought Latin grammar was the model for every language, especially for barbaric non-Romance languages, and persuaded writers to drop the historical present in narrative writing as non-Latin, and so wrong. But medieval French narrative is actually written that way, jumping delightfully from vivid present tense, to past tense for a narrative bridge, and then back to the present again. And much late medieval English prose follows suit. But produce samples of improvements to Tolkien's writing if you wish.

</p>

07-10-2001, 09:24 PM	#56
jallanite Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 479	<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator Posts: 39</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE> Re: Comments on Comments Re your comments, Aiwendil: C01 My guiding principle was and is to get rid of particular masses of Balrogs everywhere and anywhere by any method. Just dropping the references is easiest (which may not mean best!) If there are too few when all is done, then bring some (or all?) back. I actually don't think we need to drop any. The late reference to seven can be considered another unworkable proposed change. But I do think JRRT did let the Balrogs get away from him. He writes "... for ere that day never had any of the Balrogs been slain by the hand of Elves or Men", and then slaughters them like the Orks they command. Not much hope of keeping them down to seven even with easy omissions, or actually to six since one is for some reason out on the northern marches waiting for Glorfindel to kill him. Had that note about the seven never appeared, would we care? Certainly these beings are mostly not of the power of Durin's Bane, but must all Balrogs be alike in power? Still, my policy will be extreme in the first draft, eliminating as much as possible of any suggestions of multitudes C09 I find no reference anywhere to a collapse of the Way of Escape, merely: "the Dry Gate was blocked and the arched gate was buried." CT states in note 28 to "Wanderings" that his dropping the Way of Escape was based on this single and singular statement. I can't find any other passage bearing on the issue. CT's invention of a purposeful closing by Turgon makes good sense in the context. But you are right that an attempt to use the Way might have been made, if it was still openable. So we have to decide, with no evidence either way that I can see, Sigh! whether it was permanently closed, perhaps by forced collapse of the tunnel, or whether Turgon had only closed the outside wall, but left it able to be broken open from inside again if there was need or he wished the gate to exist again. Possibly the principle of not rejecting anything that JRRT wrote that is not contradicted by his own writing applies here. He relates that the gate was closed in one place, but that the Way of Escape was used in another, and there is no real contradiction if the Way was reasonably easy to re-open from the inside: say a day's work with pickaxes and shovels for a large tast force and removal of a binding spell? "We made it, we're out! My, what big teeth the exit has!" C10 This is a bit complex. My logic was that in recasting the FB sentence in Q30 JRRT replaced FG "the plain was full of mists" with Q30 "fell upon the vale in mournful mists" and FG "and this perchance had to do with the doom of the fountain of the king" is replaced by Q30 "The fume of the burning, and the steam of the fair fountains of Gondolin withering in the flame of the dragons of the North". The Q30 sentence thus replaces the original with the two elements reversed, but I felt it reasonable and in accord with the principles to re-insert into the the Q30 sentence the missing informaton that this had never happened before, as there's nothing to indicate that information was dropped for any reason other than general compression. Q30 is certainly better here as well as being later: smoke from burning would have been contributing to the "mist" and there is no need of a "perchance" to relate the true mist to the turning of the fountain(s) to steam. We can re-add the somewhat redundant "the plain was full of mists" alongside its replacement. It really doesn't matter. C11 The addition of "many" twice is only necessary as a change in wording by JRRT in the later Q30 version. I was also going to change "stricken" to "wounded" following the Q30 corresponding sentence, and then noticed that "wounded" does occur three sentences later in FG material that can still be considered part of the material summarized by the Q30 sentence, and so accepted this later use of "wounded" to equal the word "wounded" in Q30. Pedantic and somewhat silly and artificial considerations! Yet for each Q30 sentence I had to decide to what extent it was a summary of FG and to what extent original addition, and whether different wording was a result of it being a summary or a true later change. That's the way the game has to be played. The decisions must be made. Fortunately most of them don't matter: any mixture of wording from the two sources reads equally well. C18 I made an unwarranted assumption here! FG states: "But they who arose from the grasses of the Land of willows in years after and fared away to sea, <u>when spring set celandine in the meads</u> and they had held sad festival in memorial of Glorfindel, ..." I used this to date to the spring the Q30 "feast in memory of Gondolin" and subsequent removal to the Sea. All annals which mention the fall of Gondolin place the arrival of Tuor and the fugitives at the mouth of Sirion in the following year. So either the FG timing of over a year for the wandering in the mountains or the FG spring dating for the departure from the Land of Willows must be removed. Or both? I see nothing to push definitely one way or the other. I suspect that one reason JRRT did have the fugutives escape to the north rather than the south was that a northern route led them into wilder territory on the edge of Dorthonion which Morgoth held. That might support the year of wandering. But that still seems a large space of time to wander in, particular if they are in part being guided by Eagles. Sigh! Even eight months of wandering seems a lot, but that would still get them to Nan-tathren in plenty of time to leave again in the spring. Aesthetically I like the note about the spring, so will leave that for now as there is no other logic I can see to pull one way or the other otherwise. C23 The words in the lay "all this have others**in ancient stories / and songs unfolded,but say I further" are a problem in my suggested setting at the festival. If used here, as a sample of festival song, then the final lines, 32-38, should be dropped. Another possiblity is to place it just after the arrival in Nan-tathren (where the fragment ends) without particular explanation. It just appear as a poetic fragment giving a retrospective summary of the parts of the tale previously related. If we break up the Fall into chapters, it could start one of them. These all just suggestions. It should be fitted in somewhere I feel. C25 Agreed (sadly) on the daring emendations if others think them too bold. We may have to limit Tuor's recitation to the core poem which presents no problems and drop introduction or conclusion or both. But maybe others can work from what I've started or try some different tack. C31** You are right! The Elessar has to be mentioned here! But I just can't get any full account to fit here without rewriting or paraphrasing. I've now edited my post to at least mention it at this point, with the assumption that something about it will be fitted in earlier, and of course later. Again, if someone else sees a way, please contribute. C33 On mermaids, anything written by Tolkien is not to be disregarded unless contradicted by later ideas or in error, etc. I don't know that he did drop them. The late Eärendil information is so frustratingly sketchy, almost worse than the early material. Any scrap of information is important. And they appear in four separate notes. I don't imagine Tolkien was talking about fish-tailed women if that is what bothers. I see something along the lines of the Nereids and Okeanids of Greek myth. But who knows? C34 Trying to get the other stuff into Q30 was the problem. On any of this mixed material, you or anyone are welcome rework it to read better and still include all the material. With multiple source passages I often stopped at the point, tired but happy, where I had finally managed to fit all the material in somewhere. The historical present is a strange thing. People fall into it automatically when actually telling a story: "So I went to the store. And as I'm going in the door, I see this woman, and she looks at me funny. So I say 'Hi' to her. And then she says 'Hi' to me". But this natural English (and medieval French) style of narrative is drummed out of peoples' heads as improper grammar by English teachers who don't know any better, influenced by grammarians of three hundred years ago who thought Latin grammar was the model for every language, especially for barbaric non-Romance languages, and persuaded writers to drop the historical present in narrative writing as non-Latin, and so wrong. But medieval French narrative is actually written that way, jumping delightfully from vivid present tense, to past tense for a narrative bridge, and then back to the present again. And much late medieval English prose follows suit. But produce samples of improvements to Tolkien's writing if you wish. </p>