[Aiwendil]

It's good to see you here, Squatter - and thanks for your comments. I too would be very pleased to see you continue to post here.

You make first of all a very good point about the problems with altering the poems. In fact, this is a special case of a major problem that concerns the whole project: the problem of changing what Tolkien wrote. Certainly the alteration of his exact words is of greater import when we are dealing with poetry than when with prose, but I think that the fundamental problem is the same.

And yet, we alter Tolkien's prose quite a bit. It would seem that we think we have some justification for doing that, so that the benefits of altering the writing at certain points outweigh the costs. Indeed, this is a premise necessary for the project to proceed at all.

The question, then, is not whether altering the poems will be to their detriment - the question is whether the damage done will exceed the benefit gained.

Of course, that's a very difficult question. But I'm far from convinced that the sort of damage we are doing to the poems is of altogether a different or greater kind than that which we tolerate to the prose (Tolkien was just as far beyond any of us in his prose as he was in his poetry). You cite, for example, the loss of symmetry in the Horns of Ylmir. But we must constantly put up with the loss of certain elements like that in the prose. This is a particularly vivid case, since we are quite directly forced to lose the symmetry as a result of changes Tolkien made in the plot. If Tuor in fact did sing this song to Earendil, it would not have had that symmetry.

Regarding the Lay of Earendil: In several places, you comment on the addition of a syllable ruining the line; and you say that "the alliterative form is completely inflexible in any case". I'm not entirely certain I agree on these points. Is not alliterative verse significantly more free with regard to the exact number and placement of syllables than is modern, metrical verse (particularly when the added syllables are unstressed)? I am aware of the Sievers classifications and all that, but have not had time to examine our changes with reference to them. But I believed that the system was flexible enough to allow the changes.

Other than that:
FG-LE-04: I'm not entirely convinced that "the cleft was cloven" is inadmissable, but I like your line. We might as well go with it.

FG-LE-07: In what sense were the moons thwarted? I would rather go with "thwarting mazes" in this case than attempt to salvage "moons" with a suspect metaphor.

FG-LE-08: Well, Tolkien seemed quite intent on expunging all use of the word "gods" for the Valar. This does not mean that it is completely unacceptable to retain the word, but it does mean that unless there is a very good reason to retain it, it should go.

FG-LE-10: I must agree. "Then" doesn't even make much sense grammatically.

FG-LE-11: I'm not certain that a fourth syllable is required in the half-line, but I agree that it would work better that way. Perhaps "drenched then their feet" - which avoids the repetition "there their".

FG-HY-01: I'll have to think about this. You do seem to have a point.

FG-HY-01: I like your suggestion "Ocean musics subtly magic that those waves alone could weave" as it retains the "alone could weave".

As for "he blew a single, piercing note' vs. 'he blew one long and piercing note', I don't think the decision is of all that much consequence; the difference is minute. I suppose we might go with your suggestion.

FG-HY-03: I think that the emendation must be in error - in any case, the line we want is that which you quoted.

I think jallanite removed "lo!" not because it was melodramatic but because he wished to emphasize the flash-forward from Tuor's vision to the present. I think there is a little to be gained in connection with this by using "now" rather than "lo!"; but I suppose it might not be sufficient to warrant the change.

I agree of course that ending the line with "too" is weak - that has been my main complaint against the emendations. I think that "the willows weep anew" is good in itself, but I'm not sure it makes all that much sense in the revised version, where Tuor has never been to Nan-tathren before. I suppose it might still work, however, since in a sense he has just left Nan-tathren via his poem, and is now returning.

Well, we must now consider both the specific changes discussed and the whole question of including altered forms of Tolkien's verse.

Findegil wrote:

This plot would make most of the emendations in the poem unnecessary. But the change in the storyline is risky and might not be worth the inclusion of the poem.

Yes - the change is very risky, for it invents a new, second vision for Tuor. It's a clever idea, but I don't think we can go with it.

Another thought that came to me is that we might try to alter the beginning of the poem in the same way that we altered the end - that is, have Tuor refer to the present at the beginning of the poem, then describe his sea-vision of long ago, then return to the present. But this would be very difficult, and, offhand, I'd say it looks impossible to accomplish.

And I think that what Aiwendil put forward as an argument against it was the same as you felt put in other words.

Actually (and this is just nitpicking) I think my argument is of a different nature. My argument is that it is a "canonical" fact that this particular poem is the beginning of the Lay of Earendil; it would therefore be false to say that it was a song sung at the festival.