![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
![]() |
#1 | |||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
1) I don't think that we must remove this. We have already hinted often to the fact that Saruman had started to desire the Ring and even revealed that he would go to open war against Rohan.
2) I agree to the addition, but I think we should edit it a bit differently: Quote:
4) As ArcusCalion, I think we should keep the footnote. It is a spoiler, but when we assume that our readers have some knowledge of The Hobbit and LotR they know this anyhow. 5) I agree in principal, but I think we should edit it differently: Quote:
7) I don't think any editing is needed. Saruman does pretend that his knowledge is freshly gained from Gandalf, but from his servant the Witch-King learns that Saruman should have answered him straight away out of his own knowledge. At that is what the text means (at least in our editing). 8) Yes, 1418 is Shire Reconing and I gree that this fact is clear enough, so tha we do not need to change or add a qualifire. 9) I agree not to include that sentence twice. But anyhow I could not finde HR-SL-16.1 neither in my working copy nor in the draft in the private forum. So please ArcusCalion, keep us informed what you add to your drafts if you like to discuss them here. 10) As Sauron I think the Witch-King is unable to understand the motives of his enemies. In Aragorn's place both had taken the Ring from Frodo by force as soon as they had been retired to the room of the Hobbits in the Prancing Pony. So that is what he would have expected, and that Aragorn did join Frodo and not take the Ring from him is what puzzled the Witch-King. 11) Some of these are not typos, but corrections of gramatical short commings of Tolkien's text of The Hunt for the Ring: -'the' before 'dislike' is missing in the original text. - Same here: Quote:
- '{[}He{] is} was waylaid by Dúnedain and driven away {does}did not reach {[}the Witch-king{]} until the next day.' Here again I agree to adding the 'and' though it is not in the original text. - 'the Bridge and Bree': Agian this is a change of the original text due to gramatical reason. - I as well agree to the addition of the '?' for gramatical reasons. - 'the Bridge': Again the 'the' is not in the original text, but I agree to add it. Respectfully Findegil |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 121
![]() |
1) OK, I'm fine with keeping it since we have heavily hinted at Saruman's betrayal.
2) I was debating whether to keep "when Deagol the Stoor found the One Ring". I agree to keeping it. 3) OK, I agree to ArcusCalion's change. 4) OK, I agree to keeping it, since it is in reference to the discussion about their dislike of water. 5) I agree to Fin's change, it makes the flow a bit smoother. 6) I think we should keep the footnote but include something about Balin's quest to retake Moria in an earlier chapter. I will see if I can find something suitable, where to put it, and post my suggestion in that thread. 7) Reading through the text again with your explanations, I understand it now. However, I still think it is slightly confusing/misleading without some slight editing. I think ArcusCalion's suggestion works, but how about: Quote:
8) I personally think we should add "1418 in the Shire reckoning". It is jarring to change to the Shire reckoning all of a sudden, but to me it wasn't implicitly clear; it seemed like a typo/mistake. But if you both don't think it's necessary, I will acquiesce. 10) Yes, I agree it can be explained, so I agree to keep it as is. 11) I figured some of these weren't exactly "typos" but were due to Tolkien rapidly writing his ideas down. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |||||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
Okay, reading through our source texts for this chapter, I found two issues we have to deal with: the dates in or text are not in accourdance with the LotR, Appendix B: The Tale of the Years and the dates from The Hunt for the Ring are in themself defective since if the Nazgűl only appear after the attack on Osgiliath on the 20th of June Radagast has not enough time to be called by Saruman, coming to Isengard and searching for Gandalf before Midyear’s Day, which is only 12 days later. But as you will see LotR Companion does not only reveal these issues, it as well helps to solve them.
Here is what I would like to change: HR-SL-03.1: Here for me the reference of the ‘he’ is not as clear as I would which for, therefore I would change to: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Findegil |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
Oh good catch Fin! I have a few points.
First, I would make this slight change for smoothness of transition: Quote:
Last edited by ArcusCalion; 02-05-2019 at 03:35 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | ||||||
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 121
![]() |
Great catch, Fin! I think it's feasible the Nazgul would search the Anduin Vale twice because the area is rather large, and Sauron himself suspected it was where the Shire was based on information from Gollum. I found a few typos/grammatical issues.
A slight change to HR-SL-05.2 to make it sound smoother: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think there should be more punctuation to the sentence starting "At first the Nazgul...". I added a semicolon and a comma: Quote:
Other than that, I have one question: Quote:
|
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
Dooble search of the Anduin Vale: Wenn we read the original Hunt for the Ring text the Vale is as well searched twice (but proberbly not by Nazgűl): The Witch-king decisded to search there even so he got the message from Khaműl that no trace of the Shire could be found. And in the new context we here from the Nazgűl proling in Rohan and Dunland that they are ‘rather timid and uneffective’ without their leader. So for me it is reasonable that the Witch-king repeated the search considering that he had no better information.
Now to the other remarks: HR-SL-02.5b: Agreed. Mashed and visted, “in”, “belived”, “extraorninarly”, “Isengad”, “whishing”, “Tharanduil” and “Tow”: Thanks for catching. These are real typos of mine for sure. And I also missed to do the time change in that sentence with the Mashed and visted. But must we not as well change ‘has visited’ to ‘had visted’? HR-SL-05.3: Right, and so it is in the original text, as can be seen at the end of the sentence with Mashed and visted. Punctuation in “At First the Nazgűl ...”: Agreed. Saruman belives Gandalf knew something vital about the Ring: In the new version of the story springing from the fact that Radagast must have more time, Saruman is visted much earlier (before the attack on Osgiliath) by some Nazgűl after they did not find any trace of teh Shire in the Anduin Vale. Radagast is concerned about that search and reaches Isengard to the advantage of Saruman shortly after the Nazgűl had been there. The Second visit is not mentioned in the text from LotR Companion; The Council of Elrond; 257 (I: 270)., but it also not denied. For me it seems clear that two or three Nazgűl visited Saruman and stayed in that area until the Wtich-king himself collected them all for another visit to Isengard. At the fist visit Sauron suspects only the motives of Saruman st the time of the second visit he is sure that Saruman is betraying him. But in both cases the Nazgűl involved did not have the full picture, so that Saruman could decive them. Respectfully Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 121
![]() |
Yes, it should be "had visited". I missed that one.
Regarding the Nazgul and Saruman, that makes more sense if there are two visits. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |