* * Principles of editing the Fall of Gondolin/Translations from the Elvish * * - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

**lindil** · 07-14-2001, 03:06 AM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seeker of the Straight Path
Posts: 683</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Principles of editing the Silmarillion

Re: but I like Jallanite's reintroduction of it [stylistic editing principles]. We might as well deal
with it at this stage anyway, as already in the Fall of
Gondolin we seem to require some sort of working
guideline at least.

lindil: reincluding it now seems best.

4. No new names may be introduced; all names that are
changed must be changed either in accordance with a
universal change by JRRT or with a logical reason and a
sound etymology.
lindil: re: point 4 does this give us a legolas -> quenyaized option? I am not insisting but wondering if this 'logical reasoning and sound etymology'?

ReRe: Principles of editing the Silmarillion

6. The actual words used by Tolkien in a passage may
only be changed, including change by deletion or
addition, when:
a) they are minimally changed to agree with statements
elsewhere in the canon recognized as of greater validity
or to are replaced with words or phrases from later or
alternate restatements of the same material for reasons
of consistancy or are changed to agree with alternate
phrasings used by Tolkien of the same or better validity
b) they are minimally changed to avoid great
awkwardness of expression such as ungrammatical
constructions or too great a difference in style from the
passage
lindil: here I would say passage or section/chapter, so as to leave room to modify style on a larger scale as in FoG from LT.
in which they are now to be inserted
c) they are minimally added to in order to expand a
sentence fragments or an incomplete phrase into a
construction that fits grammatically in the new
environment
d) they are deleted to avoid redundancy in new
passages compiled from more than one source

7. It is not for us to decide what is aesthetically
superior; where we have multiple options, we must
choose from among them based on the above
principles; personal aesthetics (if used at all) may only
be used to decide between two options given equal
validity by the above guidelines. A corallary is that we
may not disregard anything written by JRRT unless it is
invalidated by one of the above principles; i.e., we must
have a REASON for rejecting something.

Though Lindil has (I believe) indicated a desire to alter 7
to allow greater leeway in aesthetics.
Lindil : my concerns were basically covered in 6 . I suppose the ocasional Rog could come up, but I really can't think of any other example. Updating the names [which is possible in nearly all ] seems to eliminate many aesthetic problems as does updating the LT and IV versions to more closely accord w/ V-XII and UT

7. We CANNOT make Gil-galad the son of Fingon for
personal aesthetics; we CAN choose between
compressing the wanderings of the fugitives of Gondolin
and altering the season of their journey to Sirion.
Lindil: this is not what I wouldconsider personal aestheticics.
Rog is.
archaic Lost tales language that can be 'too sweet methinks, even though it has a lithsome and quaint countenance'. that kind of thing. JRRT generally phased all of the flowery ,sugary sweet stuff out by the time of IV, it seems.
Using legolas is I think 1/2 aesthetic and 1/2 feeling that JRRT would not have let it stand. It maty of course be a moot point depending on what we do w/ the Way of Escape.

jallanite : Point 3 is I think a little misleading in the use of the
word "edited". How about replacing "text edited by
Christopher Tolkien" with "text or summary created by
Christopher Tolkien".
lindil : agreed

Change the beginning of 6 to read: "The actual words
used by J.R.R. Tolkien or the editor or summarizer of his
work may be ...." All these rules should apply to CT as
well as JRRT and to anything pulled out of Humphrey
Carpenter's biography (if there is anything there we
want) or from any other source.
lindil : agreed

We also need something to prevent conflict with the
two major LR problems
,lindil : agreed
Perhaps Celebrimbor'sFëanorian descent apearing in LR might be used
instead: because it is said of Celebrimbor in the second
edition of LR in Appendix B under The Second Age "he
was descended from Fëanor", statements in other
wirtings making him one of the Sindar or one of the
Teleri must be disregarded.
lindil : agreed

3. Change the second sentence to: "We may use
Christopher Tolkien's summaries of unpublished
manuscripts from Unfinished Tales." And yes, add the
note about the Fall of Doriath. According to this principle
we can use any parts of it that are not in contradiction
with what we otherwise take as valid (which in this
material will be hard to pin down). But of course we
don't have to use all of it or any of it.
lindil : agreed

4. Add "but could discard the name and use only his
title." I don't favor this, but I think it a valid option.
lindil : agreed

6. The example is good. More daring changes I have
made are from "His passion of tears upon the shore" to
"Great was his passion of tears upon the shore" and
"Great love of Eärendel and Tuor" to "Great was the
love between Eärendil and Tuor." Even more daring is
the insertion of the words "and opened it anew" in the
account of the fugitives who attempted to flee out of
Tumladen by the Way of Escape in the story of the fall of
Gondolin. And then there are the changes I made to the
introduction and conclusion of the "Horns of Ylmir". What
is needed is to decide which changes are allowable and
which ones are not and then list some of each as
precedents either way. But the general principle should
always be that a difficulty in sentence construction or
grammar can not prevent use of what is considered
valid data, and minimal changes are allowed for this
purpose.
For my suggested 6 e, add if this emendation of mine is
to be accepted: "Of the thirst and hunger**** of the thirty
moons" to "Of the thirst and hunger****of the thwarting
mazes". Logic for this appears in my post "Suggested
emendations to Fragment of an alliterative Lay of
Eärendel". Essentially I looked through a dictionary at
all words begining with th and thwart was the only
one I found that could be made to fit with the story,
though it changes the meaning of the line here. But we
will have to allow greater flexibility in verse?
I don't think changing the meaning is OK. If a new idea has to introduced then that portion should be dropped if there is no other option.should be dropped

On point 7, I don't think the corollary forces us to keep
the mechanical dragons or Gothmog as son of Morgoth,
to name two examples, if there is a reasonable
probability that they have been removed from the
legendarium in versions following BoLT. These examples
might be listed here as changes that have reasoning
behind them and therefore could be made accordingly.
Both of these are supportable in part from argument by
silence, but that I think is strong enough to allow
omission of the mechanical dragons as quite possibly
what Tolkien intended, and almost force omission of
Gothmog's parentage per the dropping of children of the
Valar and from the fact that so striking a parentage as
being a son of Morgoh would almost certainly be
mentioned if it were still part of the tale.
I think the point of the corollary is that we can't drop
something only because some don't like it without
some other evidence that JRRT had dropped it, not just
happened not to mention it. It is otherwise too easy for
any of us to identify his or her individual tastes with
Tolkien's.

Agreed Thid =s covers the ideas of Dragons, Rog, Legolas Greenleaf etc. Again it does not mean the above items must be deleted, just recognizing their difficulties and likely correction by JRRT.

IF and when another version incorporating the above principles and emmendations meets Jallanite's and Aiwendil's specs i suggest we put the final versioon into a poll in the new Forum and let all the members vote on it. A better way to begin i think than withORKS/ORCS etc.

lindil

<a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000000e Creation of a Revised Silmarillion</a>
Lindil's Tolkien/Christian discussion board<a href="http://pub72.ezboard.com/bosanwe" >Osanwe</a>,
http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhirTar Ost-in-Eruhir</A>.
'In the begining was the Word. And the Word was with God.And the Word is God'. </p>

07-14-2001, 03:06 AM	#11
lindil Seeker of the Straight Path Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: a hidden fastness in Big Valley nor cal Posts: 1,680	<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seeker of the Straight Path Posts: 683</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE> Re: Principles of editing the Silmarillion Re: but I like Jallanite's reintroduction of it [stylistic editing principles]. We might as well deal with it at this stage anyway, as already in the Fall of Gondolin we seem to require some sort of working guideline at least. lindil: reincluding it now seems best. 4. No new names may be introduced; all names that are changed must be changed either in accordance with a universal change by JRRT or with a logical reason and a sound etymology. lindil: re: point 4 does this give us a legolas -> quenyaized option? I am not insisting but wondering if this 'logical reasoning and sound etymology'? ReRe: Principles of editing the Silmarillion 6. The actual words used by Tolkien in a passage may only be changed, including change by deletion or addition, when: a) they are minimally changed to agree with statements elsewhere in the canon recognized as of greater validity or to are replaced with words or phrases from later or alternate restatements of the same material for reasons of consistancy or are changed to agree with alternate phrasings used by Tolkien of the same or better validity b) they are minimally changed to avoid great awkwardness of expression such as ungrammatical constructions or too great a difference in style from the passage lindil: here I would say passage or section/chapter, so as to leave room to modify style on a larger scale as in FoG from LT. in which they are now to be inserted c) they are minimally added to in order to expand a sentence fragments or an incomplete phrase into a construction that fits grammatically in the new environment d) they are deleted to avoid redundancy in new passages compiled from more than one source 7. It is not for us to decide what is aesthetically superior; where we have multiple options, we must choose from among them based on the above principles; personal aesthetics (if used at all) may only be used to decide between two options given equal validity by the above guidelines. A corallary is that we may not disregard anything written by JRRT unless it is invalidated by one of the above principles; i.e., we must have a REASON for rejecting something. Though Lindil has (I believe) indicated a desire to alter 7 to allow greater leeway in aesthetics. Lindil : my concerns were basically covered in 6 . I suppose the ocasional Rog could come up, but I really can't think of any other example. Updating the names [which is possible in nearly all ] seems to eliminate many aesthetic problems as does updating the LT and IV versions to more closely accord w/ V-XII and UT 7. We CANNOT make Gil-galad the son of Fingon for personal aesthetics; we CAN choose between compressing the wanderings of the fugitives of Gondolin and altering the season of their journey to Sirion. Lindil: this is not what I wouldconsider personal aestheticics. Rog is. archaic Lost tales language that can be 'too sweet methinks, even though it has a lithsome and quaint countenance'. that kind of thing. JRRT generally phased all of the flowery ,sugary sweet stuff out by the time of IV, it seems. Using legolas is I think 1/2 aesthetic and 1/2 feeling that JRRT would not have let it stand. It maty of course be a moot point depending on what we do w/ the Way of Escape. jallanite : Point 3 is I think a little misleading in the use of the word "edited". How about replacing "text edited by Christopher Tolkien" with "text or summary created by Christopher Tolkien". lindil : agreed Change the beginning of 6 to read: "The actual words used by J.R.R. Tolkien or the editor or summarizer of his work may be ...." All these rules should apply to CT as well as JRRT and to anything pulled out of Humphrey Carpenter's biography (if there is anything there we want) or from any other source. lindil : agreed We also need something to prevent conflict with the two major LR problems ,lindil : agreed Perhaps Celebrimbor'sFëanorian descent apearing in LR might be used instead: because it is said of Celebrimbor in the second edition of LR in Appendix B under The Second Age "he was descended from Fëanor", statements in other wirtings making him one of the Sindar or one of the Teleri must be disregarded. lindil : agreed 3. Change the second sentence to: "We may use Christopher Tolkien's summaries of unpublished manuscripts from Unfinished Tales." And yes, add the note about the Fall of Doriath. According to this principle we can use any parts of it that are not in contradiction with what we otherwise take as valid (which in this material will be hard to pin down). But of course we don't have to use all of it or any of it. lindil : agreed 4. Add "but could discard the name and use only his title." I don't favor this, but I think it a valid option. lindil : agreed 6. The example is good. More daring changes I have made are from "His passion of tears upon the shore" to "Great was his passion of tears upon the shore" and "Great love of Eärendel and Tuor" to "Great was the love between Eärendil and Tuor." Even more daring is the insertion of the words "and opened it anew" in the account of the fugitives who attempted to flee out of Tumladen by the Way of Escape in the story of the fall of Gondolin. And then there are the changes I made to the introduction and conclusion of the "Horns of Ylmir". What is needed is to decide which changes are allowable and which ones are not and then list some of each as precedents either way. But the general principle should always be that a difficulty in sentence construction or grammar can not prevent use of what is considered valid data, and minimal changes are allowed for this purpose. For my suggested 6 e, add if this emendation of mine is to be accepted: "Of the thirst and hunger** of the thirty moons" to "Of the thirst and hunger*of the thwarting mazes". Logic for this appears in my post "Suggested emendations to Fragment of an alliterative Lay of Eärendel". Essentially I looked through a dictionary at all words begining with th and thwart was the only one I found that could be made to fit with the story, though it changes the meaning of the line here. But we will have to allow greater flexibility in verse? I don't think changing the meaning is OK. If a new idea has to introduced then that portion should be dropped if there is no other option.should be dropped On point 7, I don't think the corollary forces us to keep the mechanical dragons or Gothmog as son of Morgoth, to name two examples, if there is a reasonable probability that they have been removed from the legendarium in versions following BoLT. These examples might be listed here as changes that have reasoning behind them and therefore could be made accordingly. Both of these are supportable in part from argument by silence, but that I think is strong enough to allow omission of the mechanical dragons as quite possibly what Tolkien intended, and almost force omission of Gothmog's parentage per the dropping of children of the Valar and from the fact that so striking a parentage as being a son of Morgoh would almost certainly be mentioned if it were still part of the tale. I think the point of the corollary is that we can't drop something only because some don't like it without some other evidence that JRRT had dropped it, not just happened not to mention it. It is otherwise too easy for any of us to identify his or her individual tastes with Tolkien's. Agreed Thid =s covers the ideas of Dragons, Rog, Legolas Greenleaf etc. Again it does not mean the above items must be deleted, just recognizing their difficulties and likely correction by JRRT. IF and when another version incorporating the above principles and emmendations meets Jallanite's and Aiwendil's specs i suggest we put the final versioon into a poll in the new Forum and let all the members vote on it. A better way to begin i think than withORKS/ORCS etc. lindil <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000000e Creation of a Revised Silmarillion</a> Lindil's Tolkien/Christian discussion board<a href="http://pub72.ezboard.com/bosanwe" >Osanwe</a>, http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhirTar Ost-in-Eruhir</A>. 'In the begining was the Word. And the Word was with God.And the Word is God'.* </p> __________________ The dwindling Men of the West would often sit up late into the night exchanging lore & wisdom such as they still possessed that they should not fall back into the mean estate of those who never knew or indeed rebelled against the Light.