Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
03-21-2019, 04:42 PM | #1 |
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 121
|
CE-01: Yes, we should definitely include CE-EX-03
CE-EX-06: Looks good. I would simply remove CE-EX-24, especially since it has no basis in Tolkien's writings. 1. Agreed to the change CE-EX-05.4 2. Whoops, I must've missed that. Looks good to me. |
03-23-2019, 12:58 PM | #2 | |||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
I continue to make my way through this slowly. Some more comments for now:
CE-EX-25: I suppose LQ does add some details here that may be worth including, but I think that since we have included sections 41-45 of AAm, we must make a small deletion: Quote:
CE-SL-11: Following Tolkien’s own change to the text here, I think we have to delete a little bit more: Quote:
CE-EX-26: As ever, I think I’m a little bit more hesitant than others to transplant scattered bits from the Lost Tales into our narrative, but I can make no real objection to this. But there is a ‘may’ that must become ‘might’ in the past tense. Also, I am not completely sure, but I think that in later Quenya, the root vowel is prefixed to a verb in the perfect tense, so it should become utulielto instead of tulielto (cf. utulien aure, ‘the day has come’). So: Quote:
CE-EX-28: It’s true that Angainor still exists in the later versions, though I must admit that some of the LT detail of its making feel a little out of place to me. But chiefly I worry about the name tilkal and its strange etymology. As far as I can tell, ‘tambe’, ‘latuken’, ‘ilsa’, and ‘kanu’ never show up again after the LT era, and in later Quenya, ‘laure’ is explicitly said to refer to gold as a colour, but not to the metal. I suppose we could try keeping ‘tilka’, but removing the etymology: Quote:
There is also a missing change from ‘Angaino’ to ‘Angainor’ just following this. ‘Vorotemnar’ and ‘Ilterindi’ looks fine to me, though. CE-EX-29: There seems to me to be both some redundancy and some contradiction here between LT, MT, and LQ - notably, that in LQ the Valar go immediately to war and show no intention of “entreating” Melkor to change his ways, so at the very least I think this statement from LT must go. Moreover, I think the MT statement is (aside from being again written with an analytical rather than narrative tone) part of what we might have to consider a projected and unimplementable sketch for a new version of the story, where Utumno is not sacked by the Valar, but rather Melkor guilefully surrenders to them. But I suppose I should consider that when I come to the proper place in reviewing the text. Of more immediate concern is that this statement clearly contradicts LQ, where the intention of the Valar is to defeat Melkor, not merely to provide a “covering action” to defend the Quendi. Findegil has made one change to eliminate this contradiction, in the deletion of “and make an end”, but we still have this: Quote:
Quote:
I would, therefore, do this: Quote:
CE-EX-30: I’ve gone back and forth on this a little bit, but in the end I don’t think I have any problem with the inclusion of this description of the Valar’s battle array. Coming back to CE-EX-03, my inclination is still not to include it, as I think the motivation for the council is already very clearly implied, but again, it's a minor point and if others disagree I certainly won't put up a fight. |
|||||||
03-23-2019, 05:50 PM | #3 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,694
|
CE-EX-25.1: Agreed.
CE-SL-11: Agreed. CE-EX-26: Agreed. CE-EX-27: I suppose we can change ‘Eldar’ here to ‘the First-born’. CE-EX-28: Sad as it is to loos it, I agree to remove the etymology. CE-EX-29: For me it is MT that we have to follow if it contradicts the earlier story telling. Therefore I agree that we have do something with the speech of Manwë. But I would like to offer an alternative editing: Quote:
CE-EX-03: So we will include it, since gandalf85 and me agree that it has some importance. Respectfully Findegil |
|
03-27-2019, 07:42 PM | #4 |
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 121
|
CE-EX-25 and CE-SL-11: Agreed
CE-EX-26: The languages are not my strong suit, so I'll defer to you and agree. CE-EX-27: Good catch! Agreed to changing it to the "First-born". CE-EX-28: I'm sad to see it go too, but if the etymology doesn't work, it needs to go. CE-EX-29: We mention how Melkor has dispersed his power into his agents when the Valar confront him. I think splitting up the paragraph from MT works, but I agree that Manwe's speech needs to be modified. I like Fin's edit, the part of that speech that's contradictory is the bit about taking up again the mastery of Arda. The rest of it seems in keeping with the rest of the narrative. I agree that the tonal shift at CE-EX-39 is a bit jarring, but this part of MT is definitely workable in the narrative without doing great violence to it, and since they are Tolkien's latest thoughts we should keep them. |
04-06-2019, 06:01 PM | #5 | |||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Continuing to work through this slowly, as we now come to what I think may be the most difficult (or at least most contentious) bit.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
CE-EX-39: Now we come to what I’m sure will prove one of the real sticking points. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the story given in MT VI must be considered a projected change under principle 2b, that we cannot take up. That text does not constitute a narrative; it is a working note, in Tolkien's voice, on changes he intended to make to the story. To make it work as narrative, it is (as I think Findegil's draft shows) necessary to perform a lot of editorial work, and in the end the product is not really satisfactory. Now, it is true that we have a long-established precedent of not worrying about style, and not worrying if two texts written in very different styles stand next to each other. But as far as I'm concerned, that is about narrative texts in different literary styles - mixing in texts clearly written from an 'external' point of view and in a distinctly non-literary style is something else entirely. Moreover, it's one thing to take a paragraph from one source and a paragraph from another, very different, one; it's again another thing entirely to take two texts that tell utterly different stories, one a full-scale narrative and the other an author's note to himself, and to mangle them together phrase by phrase. So, I think we are more than justified under principle 2b in rejecting any elements of MT VI that cannot be adopted without butchering the text. The only question in my mind is whether any of it should be adopted, or whether the whole thing must be considered of a piece, and rejected entirely. As I see it, MT VI says the following things: 1. Melkor was, in origin, the greatest of the Valar 2. The Valar went to war with Melkor without any real hope of victory 3. Melkor had dispersed much of his power into his servants and into the very fabric of Arda 4. Manwë and Melkor both become aware of this change in Melkor when they encounter each other 5. Melkor submits, or pretends to submit, to the Valar (rather than being defeated and chained). Point 1 presents no problem, and we've already incorporated it in chapter 1. Point 2 we have discussed here already, and it doesn't pose any problems for the storyline, though how to incorporate it without mangling the text is an open question. Similar considerations apply to points 3 and 4, I think - they are not problematic from a story point of view, but I think the current way they are incorporated into Findegil's draft is not good. Note that even if we decide that these points are valid, that does not necessarily mean that we must find some way of introducing them into the text - these could be considered simply an extra-textual analysis of the story. Point 5, though, contradicts the narrative texts of this section, and this is the point that I think must be regarded as an unworkable projected change. So the questions for me are, first, whether we can really consider these separate points or must consider them as a whole and discard the whole thing, and second, if we decide on the former, whether points 2, 3, and 4 can be worked into the text in a reasonable way. |
|||
04-07-2019, 02:46 PM | #6 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
Greetings. Life has been very busy for me lately, and so I have not had time to review all these updates and discussions. I will only drop in now to say that {Vailimo}[Vaiaro] was my attempt to update the old Qenya to Quenya, and may indeed be inaccurate. In addition, the updated Quenya of Oromë's declaration should be: 'Utúlieltë' and the Valar's response should be 'I-Eldar utúlier'
Last edited by ArcusCalion; 04-07-2019 at 02:49 PM. |
04-08-2019, 02:30 PM | #7 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,694
|
CE-EX-35.5: Agreed.
CE-EX-37: I can see your point, but I think removal is a radical cure, where slight modification should be sufficient. A gate unprotected by defenders is worthless and a gate closed all the time during a siege would not allow for many battles before it (in that case the battle would be ‘at the gate’ not before it). Consider for example the Gate of Angband: It was some times shut to keep out intruders like Fingolfin (twice), during the great Battles it was allway opened to let out Morgorth Armies, and in that way Gwindor could even enter during his rush. So for me the many battles before the gates of Utumno are part of the Valar dealing with Melkor’s might dispersed into his servance piecemeal. And their position before the gates show rather that during that time Melkor still had control over the gates and he still could send out his forces. In such a situation forcing the gate open by a horn blow of Oromë would be useless, because either the gate was already open and the defenders coming out, or the Valar did know well that they couldn’t get in as long as the defenders were active. Only after the Valar had fought down the defence in this series of battles they got control area directlybefore the gate and could try overcoming that ‘mechanical barrier’. And we see that even that first attempt of the Valar to enter Utumno was not fully succesfull, since Melkor had kept until that last and desperate moment the Balrogs as his most powerfull force. But again I can see that he editing does not take enough count of this interpretation of the events. My suggestion is find below. CE-EX-39: Posted by Aiwendil: Quote:
It is clear that MT VI can be considered altogether or in parts under principle 2b. I as well agree that the style is in parts awakward for our propose, and that this is underlined by the way in which I mixed the sources (the nice think about a group work is, that there is alway a corrective). I agree to your analyses of the essential features of MT VI and on the fact that point 1. to 4. are less critical then 5.. For me it is not clear why the pretended submission of Melkor should pose a bigger problem. Of course we will lose the fight of Melkor and Tulkas and the chaning with Angainor, but to build a narrative covering the storyl line of MT VI should be possible. So here is my suggestion taking as well your earlier critisem into account: we should try to keep MT VI more together and use it as a kind of retrospective refelction probably before the council of the Valar that dealt with Melkor: Quote:
Findegil |
||
|
|