Fall of Doriath - Outlaws in Menegroth

[Aiwendil]

RD-SL-10

Survive what? We have at least let them survive the meeting in Menegroth so I don't see why you are not happy with the fate of Ufedhin used for the outlaws. In TN he was a example of one that was not killed by the cruse but was effected by it, so I found it fit. But as Maedhros said if you have a better replacment, I would be happy to read it.

I was under the impression that we were going to be as ambiguous as possible about the outlaws' fate - even to the point of allowing the possibility that they fell into quarrels and slew each other after departing Menegroth (though of course we could never state speculation like that). If we now ascribe Ufedhin's fate of nothing worse than a tortured heart to them, we are saying that they came to no harm after leaving Menegroth. It's a minor point - but in any case, I don't see a need or pressing reason to include the clause.

RD-EX-21

Yes, the Narn is what I meant by "Turin chapter". I suppose it is a bit long to be called a "chapter".

But is "Wanderings" part of it? After TN, every version of the Turin story ends with the disaster in Brethil and the memorial stone. There also ends NE the latter half of the Narn, and I see no indication in XI that "Wanderings" was considered an extension of the Narn. I am inclined to agree with Christopher that "Wanderings" was intended as the beginning of a full tale of the Ruin of Doriath.

RD-EX-28

§24a (§3) RD-EX-28<TN Now as he gazed {Tinwelint}[Thingol] said: ‘How glorious is this treasure! And I have not a tithe {thereof, and} of the gems of Valinor {none save}[other then] that Silmaril that Beren won from {Angamandi}[Angband].’ But {Gwenniel}[Melian] who stood by said: ‘And that were worth all that here lies, were it thrice as great.’>

I'm afraid I don't think this works, if I'm reading it correctly. Why should Thingol say that he doesn't have a tithe of the gems of Valinor? It makes him sound like he's lamenting the fact that the Noldor have not turned over a large enough portion of their treasuries to him. Also, the "other than that Silmaril . . ." makes no sense in such a context.

RD-EX-37

I still think it would be safer not to make any statement to the effect that the sword was more glorious than any that Thingol had seen. It certainly does seem possible - even probable, perhaps - that this is true (at least in the sense of "more beautiful"), but in view of the later conception of Thingol, I think that the possibility that the statement is contradicted is sufficient to force us to leave it out.

RD-EX-40

Again, I'm afraid I still prefer my suggestion. The problem is that we are trying to combine two contradictory stories:

1. Thingol, thinking of the treasure of Glaurung and of the Silmaril, summons the Dwarves to fashion the treasure and to make of it a necklace on which to hang the Silmaril.

2. Thingol summons the Dwarves to fashion the treasure and when the Dwarves show it to him, they suggest that a necklace be made for the Silmaril.

The first story is the later one, so we must follow it. But in view of this story, the element of the "second smithying" makes little sense. Why would they wait until after they had shown Thingol some of their work to start on the Nauglamir? And why would they so dramaticly declare to Thingol their intention to do exactly what he had originally bidden them do?

RD-EX-42

In TN, Tolkien sometimes calls it "the treasure of Glaurung" and sometimes the "treasure of the Rodothlim". It would be preferable to keep the distinction if possible (just as in FoG we endeavoured to retain the difference between "Noldo" and "Gnome"). We could change it to "the gold of Nargothrond" here.