![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
![]() |
#1 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
Kullulin and Silindrin: I agree that we have to do something about these in DoV, with the effect that Ungoliant has drained these sources of light. Since DoV anyhow needs an revision, we could simply keep that in mind, and care for it later. But here is my first go at it:
Quote:
SM-EX-10.9: Well AAm is the later text, that was my reason to use it. But I can see your reason and agree to restore the reading of LQ on the basis that this might be a proposed change that we cannot incoperate because we lake the needed information. SM-EX-11.1: For me the fact that this attack on the Sun does reappear in such a late version, is rather an argument to include it. Tolkien never abandoned the idea that the sun was less ‘enchanted’ then the Moon and therefore times of moonshine were rather the times for the Elves than the day of full sunshine. In the intermediate interations of the mythology Tolkien brings up some rather week arguments why this should be the case. Thus the re-established attack on and subsequent absent of Árië comes in handy. About Morogth it is told that he leaves Angband only once; we are neither told for what reason nor for how long. The rest is read into the passage implicit, by our knowledge of the story about Men’s corruption. Anyhow I would think that both corruption of Men and the ravishing Árië were connected in time. And we learn in the ‘Tale of Adanel’ that Morogth was not all the time present at the dwelling place of Men. So he could have the opportunity. (By the way, the fight of Fingolfin against Morgoth is directly before the gate of Angband. Since Fingolfin hammered on that door. I would assume from the latest description of the Nirnaeth that Angabnd had a kind of outwork and that the fight happen inside that outer fortification and with that could be said inside Angband, so that for this occasion Morgoth literary had not to leave Angband.) SM-EX-11.2: For a (forced) departure from Eä the word ‘death’ is very appropriate as we learn in MT when it speaks about the execution of Morgoth after the War of Wrath. SM-EX-11.25: Well, if this could only refer to the Last Battle I would agree that it contradicts the Second prophesy, but it could in this case refer to the time after the War of Wrath and Morgoth execution as it is told in MT, were no executioner is explicitly named. SM-EX-11.3: Even without leaving Angband he could gather spirits out of the void. As we are told in Ósanwe-kenta communication of thought is not restricted by space. And we can be sure that early allies of Melkor lingering in the void would still listen to his call. SM-EX-11.34: I agree that the grammar is not good. But either the insert from AAm has to go here or we would leave it out. If placed later, it is rendered seens less being out of sequence. What about this: Quote:
SM-EX-11.7: A lost battle does make you the loser of a war. In the end Tilion was victorious capturing back the Moon and prevailing in the farther defence of it. Respectfully Findegil |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
SM-EX-11.1: I agree on this now. Part of my reason for arguing against it is bc i was attached to the published and longstanding myth i suppose.
SM-EX-11.2, 11.25: I think that in these cases, we must be careful using the word "death" about the Valar and Maiar. There is a point made that the Valar do not kill Melkor because he cannot be killed, being divine and immortal. therefore, to refer to the death of Arie in the text without any attention being brought to it seems to be to be entirely inccorect. Similarly, Melkor was not killed after the War of Wrath, he was thrust into the Voids of Ea, as we have in our version of the Tale of Earendil. SM-EX-11.3, 11.34: I agree, but it is "Maia" not "Maiar" when used in the singular. SM-EX-11.4: I added it in with consideration of the added bit about the attack on Arie, but if you feel it is simply stylistic, then I understand. SM-EX-11.7: the way it is written he simply comes back, there is no "recapturing the moon." The two accounts do not reconcile well. In addition, there is in this version no pursuing darkness, yes? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
SM-EX-11.2 & SM-EX-11.25: Okay, we change this as you suggested to:
Quote:
SM-EX-11.7: No, I did not remove ‘though still the pursuing darkness overtakes him at whiles‘. Therefore in the text a fight to recapture the Moon is implicit in the text. Okay we are dealing with an outline. Therefore it would be possible to make this for the sake of clarity a bit more explicit. But do you think that is necessary? Respectfully Findegil |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
SM-EX-11.7: I would think it is, as the recapturing is not implied (it seems to me) and instead feels like two very different accounts being mushed together. I know we do not change for reasons of style, but in this case the attempted narrative is not clear (at least when I read it).
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
SM-EX-11.7: Okay, how do you find this:
Quote:
Findegil |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
This is perfect.
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
A few additions froum LT found while working on my draft for The Flight of the Noldor:
Quote:
Quote:
Findegil Last edited by Findegil; 10-06-2017 at 02:10 PM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |