|
 |
|
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
|
04-21-2009, 01:31 PM
|
#1 |
|
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
 |
Well the text was never even considered for publication, but it was never replaced or updated as fare as I remember.
Respectfully Findegil |
|
|
|
04-21-2009, 01:41 PM
|
#2 |
|
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Halls of Mandos
Posts: 86
|
Oh, right. I was confusing it with another text.
|
|
|
|
|
01-19-2011, 11:34 AM
|
#3 | |||
|
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
After editing the text with all the changes we agreed upon here, I feel the lose of the passages from the Lay more haevily then before. And since not all members old and new have given us their oppinion about these additions I would like to restart the discussion on them. I give them here in full again for your convinience:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For commentaries too the needed changes see my post #23. For the discussion the relevant postings are: post #32, post #33, post #34, post #35, post #36, post #72, post #73, post #75, post #76, post #77, post #78, post #79, post #80, post #81, post #82, post #83 and post #84 Respectfuly Findegil |
|||
|
|
|
|
08-26-2011, 08:55 AM
|
#4 |
|
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
Looking into this thread again, I see that it is not so nice to let you jump from post to post by links. I therefore will giv here a summary of the discussion:
So what we discuss about are 4 passages from the Lay. The first is the treatment of Húrin before the talk with Morgoth. The second is the journey to Doriath and the song of Lúthien, the third is the guided entrance to Doriath with the rest at Belegs lodge and the fourth is the praising of Turins powers in the warfare at the marches. In each part information are given that are not in the text of the Narn. Some of course are only minor details. But especially the first two seem to be more substantial. The Argument against them was brought forward by Aiwendil: "This is, after all, one of the relatively few places where we have a late, complete 'long version' by Tolkien, and in such cases I think that generally the policy should be (and has been) not to insert earlier material for the sole purpose of elaboration." That sound principle is established by the meaning of our general principles 2 made clear by the statement at the beginning of principal 3: “2. Secondary priority is given to the latest ideas found among Tolkien's unpublished texts and letters, except where they: a. violate the published canon without specifically correcting an error or b. are proposed changes that do not clearly indicate the exact details that must be changed and how they are to be changed. 3. If no sources that fall under number 2 can be used to form the actual narrative of a section, …” But it is in part contradicted by the last sentence of our general principles: “A corallary is that we may not disregard any text or note, old idea or projected change, by JRRT unless it is invalidated by one of the above principles, explicitly or implicitly; that is, we must have a REASON for rejecting something.” This does of course open a wide field of argumentation. Aiwendil answerd to this: "But I think a reasonable counter-argument would be that the relevant portions of the lay are contradicted, implicitly, by the Narn. In many cases we must make the difficult judgement of whether a certain detail that appears in an early source but not in a late one was rejected by Tolkien or merely omitted. When the late text we’re dealing with is the Quenta Silmarillion or the Annals, it’s often easy to argue that the detail in question was merely omitted due to compression of the narrative (hence, our retention of the mechanical dragons for example). But here, the late text is the full ‘Narn i Chin Hurin’, the long version of the longest tale of the Elder Days and intended, as we may suppose from ‘Aelfwine and Dirhaval’, as a prose translation of the same primary source that the old lay was supposed to be verse translation of. It seems, then, very reasonable to me to think that when Tolkien omitted a detail that was found in the alliterative lay, it was because he had rejected it. Despite this argument, I’m still of two minds about this and, to be honest, there are some lovely details in the passages of the lay you excerpt. Maybe we need a third opinion on this (Maedhros, if you happen by here, perhaps you could give us your thoughts?)" Aran added this thought to the discussion: "It seems to me that the Lay was largely displaced by the Narn. And it cannot be thought to be the "Lay" Ælfwine (or Bilbo) translated either, as many of its details do not match the Narn. Even when it does match and provides more detail, I hesitate in using it, because Tolkien seems to have thought most of the Narn to be finalized. (At least, as final as any of his works ever got!)" To which Aiwendil added: "If Tolkien omitted from the Narn a detail found in the alliterative Lay, I think there's at least a reasonable case to be made that he did so because that detail had been rejected. In contrast to the more common situation where we have an older 'full version' and a briefer, more compressed later version, here we have a late full version. So I think the usual argument that details found in the older text were not rejected but merely suppressed holds less weight." Findegil countered that by: "I can see the point of the argument of course. It is just that I do not agree fully to it. Especially when the portions of the Lay that I used replace portions of the Narn that read like summary of the Lay. Let us look at the cases in turn: NA-EX-25.02: We skip "he[Morgoth] sought to daunt him[Húrin] with his eyes. But Húrin could not yet be daunted, and he defied Morgoth. Therefore Morgoth had him chained and set in slow torment; but after a while he came to him,". Exactly the same story comes along in the Lay more fully told. NA-EX-25.06 & NA-EX-25.12: We skip: "at last, weary and haggard, they reached the confines of Doriath. But there they became bewildered, and were enmeshed in the mazes of the Queen, and wandered lost amid the pathless trees, until all their food was spent. There they came near to death, for winter came cold from the North; but not so light was Túrin's doom. Even as they lay in despair they heard a horn sounded. Beleg the Strongbow was hunting in that region, for he dwelt ever upon the marches of Doriath, and he was the greatest woodsman of those days. He heard their cries and came to them, and when he had given them food and drink he learned their names and whence they came, and he was filled with wonder and pity." Which is again what we have in the Lay elobarted. NA-EX-27.04: Skipt are: "Then many wondered, saying: ‘Can the spirit of Hador or of Galdor the Tall return from death; or has Húrin of Hithlum escaped indeed from the pits of Angband?’ One only was mightier in arms among the march-wardens of Thingol at that time than Túrin, and that was Beleg Cúthalion; and Beleg and Túrin were companions in every peril, and walked far and wide in the wild woods together." Which is again what is told in the protion of the Lay that I added. Now your argument is that Tolkien did not use the details of the Lay by propose. But I am not so sure about this. I think we have no evidence that he acctually had the Lay infront of him composing the Narn, and this, I think, would be a needed to be sure that Tolkien found the details not fiting in the later story (for what ever reason). My impression is that Tolkien wrote the Narn based on his memory and the shorter text he had writen to fit the different versions of The Silmarillion, the Annals and probably his plot sysnopsis. In such a work parts that were told elaborated to his satisfaction before hand would probably catch his mind less then spots that he had not jet told in great maner, or were he felt that a change was needed. I think that once you have told the part fully to your satisfaction the (motion-)picture is definied in your mind and you might be able to recapture it for yourself with only a fiew words. But if you have to work out the secne for yourself you will for sure need more words and therewith transport the scene better to a reader unfamillar with it. If we could find some internal reasons to doubt the valibity of the scenes in the portions of the Lay I added, I would agree that we can not use them. But the outer reason that we have a shorter version in later writen fully told story does not fully convince me." Aran: "But you see, I don't think Tolkien need even have rejected the details. He just left them out. He told the story one way in the Lay, and another in the Narn. Apparently, he thought the Narn passages sufficient. He was not trying to relate the whole story in all its detail, he was trying to relate the story as it was formed in that particular text. For instance, the Annals of Aman and the Quenta Silmarillion are parallel often, but Tolkien put details in one that were not in the other. This is not because he rejected the details, or even because he thought that they should be left out. It is simply because they were different documents." Findegil: " But we do not try to creat the Narn as Tolkien would have written it. Our goal is to tell the story of Middle-Earth in the most possible detailed, 'canon' friendly version. With this goal I don't think it is enough that Tolkien told the story without this details in his latest version of the Narn." Aiwendil then tried to summe up the counter arguments: "I think there are three distinct arguments being made by Aran and me: The Canonical concern: Details omitted from the Lay may have been rejected. The Literary concern: Introducing excerpts from the Lay mars the cohesive narrative of the Narn. The Textual concern: The Narn and the Lay represent different texts within Middle-earth that should not be mixed. The Textual argument is, in my opinion, not really a valid one within the context of this project, since we are not making a 'veritable' Narn i Chin Hurin; that is, we're not claiming that the text we produce actually represents the text written by Dirhaval. I would further argue that the Narn and the Lay should not actually be considered distinct intra-Middle-earth documents, but rather that when Tolkien wrote the Narn he intended it as a replacement for the Lay. The Literary argument is stronger, I think, but again it's not compelling. Granting that the additions detract from the literary value of the Narn (which is debatable), one could argue that our goal is not a text of literary value; rather, it's a text telling the 'true' history of Arda as fully as possible. Now, there has historically been a certain tension inherent in the project between the literary view and the 'true history' view (and I'm sure if Lindil were around he'd argue eloquently in favour of the former). But at least this throws doubt on the argument that the Canonically valid portions of the Narn cannot be altered or added to because they represent Tolkien's finished text (though I admit the argument does have some force for me personally). We're left with the Canonical argument which at the very least is clearly relevant. But Findegil counter-argues rather persuasively that the further details found in these portions of the Lay are relatively few and that they seem to make explicit things passed over quickly in the Narn, rather than to add any new substance. Of course, for those very reasons, one could ask whether anything is really to be gained by adding them. If we view them simply as longer-winded ways of saying what's already less explicitly said in the Narn, then adding them adds nothing of substance to the text (one could argue that it adds something of literary quality to the text, but this is of course question-begging). Not really a critical issue in the end, but this is proving (to me at least) a somewhat vexing question. I remain ambivalent (which I know is not very helpful, but so it goes)." To this must be added that Findegil had made a faint support argument of Literary concern: "I thought that the inclusion of parts of the poem in the earlier parts of the Narn would help to make the, in my view inascapable, changes between poesy and prosa in the later part more bearable. And I only included parts were the poem has some points of detail to add to the text of CoH and/or Narn. Gondowe then explained his view in short: "I think the Narn is overall, the final view of the history by Tolkien, and with the finished parts I think we must not do anything. Not with the parts not finished, that fortunately were left in the Lay, (as a premonition, I like to think). One can say, "so for what reason in a "finished work" like the Valaquenta, you add parts of the LT?". Because I think the descriptions of the houses of the Valar, etc, relly adds a worthwhile information." At this point of the debate we counted votes: Gondowe has offer a no in some way Aran has said no clearly Aiwendil is abivalent leaning to no. Findegil offer a clear yes. Counting we had: 2.5 no 1.5 yes Neither Aiwendil nor I myself were happy with having to decised by voting. So I thought it might be good to look into this discussion again. Now I ask any member who has not overed his opinion to let as have his voice if he likes to. Respectfuly Findegil |
|
|
|
|
09-02-2011, 03:25 AM
|
#5 |
|
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 248
|
Good to read you again Findegil, we still are going on.
Well, for me it could be easier to include these parts of the Lay because I can make them prose and insert into the body of the Narn, as was made in the central chaptes of the Narn (here the whole Lay) or in other parts of the TftE. You could make the same. Greetings |
|
|
|
|
09-02-2011, 09:07 AM
|
#6 |
|
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
Hi Gondowe,
I think the arguments agianst these inserts had not so much to do with the fact that they are verse. It was more focused on the Narn being a very completed text in these parts. In addition we only in very special cases tried to change prose to verse or the other way. And when ever we did the result was at least questionable. That is better in your case since you are more free with the text since you have to translate them anyway. Respectfuly, Findegil |
|
|
|
|
02-07-2013, 10:52 AM
|
#7 | |
|
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
While working on other texts I found that I possibly over did it in the intro to the Narn. I eliminated all references to English even so some were to the actual text we produce. Since our Product is clearly in English we should probably keep these references. The second § taken von Aelfwine & Dírhaval A would read then:
Quote:
Respectfully Findegil |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
