Glorfindel

[ArcusCalion]

I have some minor comments, most of which remove any 'commentative' or 'ambiguous' wording left in after Fin's edits. I think in Fin's draft it is presented as someone making conjectures about what might have happened, which is not in keeping with the entire rest of the body of work, which is presented as an authoritative story. If it really must be kept ambiguous, then I would argue it should be moved to Volume 3, as a work of Scholarly deduction rather than historical narrative. I do not think this is necessary, and so I have instead edited it further to turn it into a historical account in keeping with all the other chapters.

GLOR-SL-04: I agree with this removal, but in the paragraph following I would make the following change:

As for the former: he}He was slain in the Fall of Gondolin at the end of the First Age, and GLOR-SL-04.5 {if}was a chieftain of that city {must have been}and a Noldo, one of the Elf-lords in the host of King {Turukáno (}Turgon{)}.

This is because from the Fall of Gondolin as edited and according to the later texts, not all of the people were Noldor, nor indeed were all the lords. Therefore it does not follow that if Glorfindel was a lord of the city then he must be a Noldo, since that is not true.

GLOR-SL-07: I would change this thus to remove the ambiguity of the story. I moved the marker slightly earlier.

GLOR-SL-07 {From what is said of} Glorfindel {in The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings it is evident that he} was an Elda of high ....

GLOR-SL-09: I agree with this change, but afterwards there is a bit calling Turgon their king. Is this correct? IS he not rather their lord, and Fingolfin their king? Or is he simply the high king, and Turgon and all the others were kings as well?

GLOR-SL-13/14: I think as Fin left it, it sounds too speculative and conjectural, and so I edited it further, combining 13 and 14 together:

GLOR-SL-13/14 {(11) It is therefore entirely in keeping with the general design of The Silmarillion to describe the subsequent history of Glorfindel thus.} After his purging of any guilt ....

GLOR-SL-14.5: Later in this paragraph, there is a reference to Gandalf being mentioned in the Silmarillion as being a friend of the Children. This is actually in the Valaquenta, and as the two are separate works in our draft, we should change it to reflect that. So I simply changed {The Silmarillion}[The Valaquenta].

GLOR-SL-16.5: The entire second-to-last paragraph is Tolkien speculating about when Glorfindel might have returned. It has to go if we are presenting it as a historical fact and not a scholarly essay, and so I have removed it:

GLOR-SL-16.5 {When did Glorfindel return to Middle-earth? .... importance than seems fitting.
We may then best suppose that} Glorfindel returned ...

GLOR-SL-16.7: In the next paragraph we run into several similar issues. Firstly:

... Sauron were at last perceived by them. GLOR-SL-16.7 {It might, therefore, have been as early as Second Age 1200, when Sauron came in person to Lindon, and attempted to deceive Gil-galad, but was rejected and dismissed. [Footnote: No doubt because Gil-galad had by then discovered that Sauron was busy in Eregion, but had secretly begun the making of a stronghold in Mordor. (Maybe already an Elvish name for that region, because of its volcano Orodruin and its eruptions - which were not made by Sauron but were a relic of the devastating works of Melkor in the long First Age.) GLOR-SL-17 [See note 15.]] But it may have been, perhaps more probably, as late as} It was c.1600, the Year of Dread ....

I decided if we were to pick one of the two variants given, we must choose the one Tolkien says is more likely, which he gives as the second option, and we must therefore remove all the references to the former. However, the description of the origin of Orodruin I moved into its own footnote later on here:

... completed and the One Ring forged GLOR-SL-16.8 in Mordor, [Footnote: {Maybe already}Already an Elvish name for that region, because of its volcano Orodruin and its eruptions - which were not made by Sauron but were a relic of the devastating works of Melkor in the long First Age.] and Celebrimbor ...

After this he gives reasons why 1200 is unlikely, which I have removed:

... trap into which he had fallen. GLOR-SL-16.9 {For in 1200, though he was filled with anxiety, Gil-galad still felt strong and able to treat Sauron with contempt. Also at that time his Númenórean allies were beginning to make strong permanent havens for their great ships, and also many of them had actually begun to dwell there permanently.} In 1600 it became clear to all the ....

These are all my changes. I apologize for the length of the post, and also if I came across as unappreciative. This is a very difficult chapter to edit, considering the difficult nature of the text. I only give these comments because I think I must and I feel strongly about the reasoning behind them, even though I imagine Fin will disagree with them.

[Findegil]

I m not sure if the draft ‘presented as someone making conjectures about what might have happened’ ‘is not in keeping with the entire rest of the body of work’. We have already comments and introduction telling about the textual history of what follows. So it is in my view not the case that we have only ‘an authoritative story’.
I think that this difference in the overall approach is at the moment the main point of disagreement between us. Most of the points of criticism ArcusCalion raise are connected to this. So I think we must clear that point first before discussing it again and again in each single point raised. And I think it will have an impact on later chapters as well.
For me it was clear that what we as real world editors compile as Translation from the Elvish is in itself a compilation of works from different sources, some of which are pure narratives, some narrative plus later commentary, some more descriptive, some are essay. Early in the project there was an emotional debate about revisions to smooth the ‘style’ of the writing. It sprang from the hard break in style felt between Tuor and his coming to Gondolin from UT and The Fall of Gondolin from HoMe 2, but the decision taken at that time was used ever after. In the result the revisions for reasons of style were denied for this first step of the project. Lindil, the main promoter of the stylish edits, envisioned a second phase of the project in which the once established text would be farther revised to make it more uniform and of higher literary quality, but it was consensus to separate the two steps an refrain from any pure stylish edits.
The question at hand is of course not quite the same, but it has some similarities. When we lift some paragraphs or sentences from an essay like Of Dwarves and Men into the body of some chapter of pure narrative we clearly have to adapt them to their new environment. But here we are speaking about full chapters. Okay we adapt them in a way, since we have to change them from essay by JRR Tolkien reflecting about this own creation. But is it not overdone if we change them to fact reporting narrative? I at least approached the edit differently and changed them to essay by some later Middle-earthian writer reflecting about the history of his world. That this is not alien to Tolkiens writing is shown by many examples like The Elessar or The Istari.
Often enough in the history of this project we found that ambiguity is our best friend if we can handle it. That does not mean, that we should not try to find out what ‘really’ happen in Middle-earth. And if we are able to make that out (by unanimous consent) we should try to make it as clear as our rules and the texts we are working with allow. But the team soon discovered that unanimous consent can not always be reached even by endless high sophisticated discussion. So from the start there was a need for some alternative. The simple and at the beginning of the project often used way was voting. This is a nice and fast working procedure for a large team, but is very dangerous for small teams. So the smaller the team became the more we avoided voting. The discussion for building up an unanimous consent became longer, deeper and more enlighting. But since it remains true that unanimous consent can not always be reached, in this process ambiguity became more and more important and – at least from my point of view – our work better: we strove to allow an interpretation of our text that would fit the different ‘personal Middle-earth cannon’ of each team member if we could not change that ‘personal cannon’ by profound arguments.

All that said, I am inclined to think any essay by some later scribe gives more freeness for ambiguity than a narrative text can do. And if the style of our basic text is in that way, I am against changing it without farther fording reason.

Now to some not directly connected points:
GLOR-SL-04.5: Good catch. I didn’t thought about that. I agree on the first part. But do not see any good reason to remove Turukáno here.

GLOR-SL-09: Clearly Turgon is often called ‘King of Gondolin’ even before he had could claim the title ‘Highking of the Noldor in Middle-earth’ after the death of his brother Fingon. But I think the interpretation of the text is to narrow here if ‘the decision of their king’ is read as ‘Turgons decision’ after our editing. Clearly the decision is taken by Finrafin (in agreement with Turgons wishes) and that was by what people like Glrofindel were grieved.

GLOR-SL-13/14: I couldn’t resist to gain say this particular case in special: How could any narrator of our text being inside the legendarium be sure what had happened in Mandos? He might get a report from coincil of the Valar out of Valinor by some Elve or Maia that was present, but from inside the Halls of Waiting? Or do we suppose that Glorfindel himself would openly talk about his purgatory stay in Mandos? I don’t think so, and therefore ambiguity is for sure needed here.

GLOR-SL-14.5: Agreed. Good catch.

Respectfully
Findegil

[ArcusCalion]

I do see your point, but all the same, I would propose a difference. If the uncertain nature of the text and its construction as an analytical text by an in-universe author making speculative comments, would it not be more appropriate to include in Volume 3?

[ArcusCalion]

My main point, Fin, is that this text reads as speculative, whereas all the other chapters in the First Age, Second Age, and Third Age narrative read as given fact. As you say, this is not unusual for Tolkien, who likes to sprinkle in some uncertainty to his narratives (see Istari and Elessar). However, my main point of discussion I suppose is the placement of this chapter. If the speculative nature of it is essential (as I think you have argued it is) then I am not opposed to this, but perhaps it would fir better in a section devoted to such speculative and scholarly work, like Volume 3. If you really disagree with that, then I might be persuaded to leave your draft as it is and in the same placement, but I would like to discuss first this possibility. Sorry if any of this has seemed contentious or bitter, I did not intend for that to be the case.

[Findegil]

I didn't take your arguments contentious or bitter. And I agree that the chapter would fit in volume 3, but I still feel that we should keep it here. My reason for this is not that I think it would fit here better in style (in that I agree that volume 3 would be better for it), but that we need the information given here for a full picture of the history of the second age.

If we postpone this to volume 3 Glorfindel would be virtually non existant in the Second Age. And I see not other way inside our rulls to include him.

Respectfully
Findegil

[ArcusCalion]

I do see this difficulty, and I am inclined to include it here for the same reasons, but the issue is the nature of the document. As it is an analytical text, by its nature it belongs in Volume 3, but due to its content, it would be better to include it here in Volume 2. It's quite a pickle.

[gondowe]

I dont remember if I had said this before, but have you considered to included in the Second age narrative but as a foot note? That way is how I managed. Ifit works with the project rules.
Greetings