![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#41 | ||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,156
![]() |
I got off to a good start but then got bogged down with some other things. I think I'll post the comments I have so far, which mainly address the easier early parts.
I think I prefer my selection of LQ vs. AAm (see my post above) as the basic text paragraph by paragraph. For much of the chapter, AAm is the fuller (and later, I believe) text, so taking LQ as the basis throughout means breaking it up with a lot of insertions from AAm. I think it’s better to take full sections from AAm. So, for instance, I would be inclined to start the chapter with AAm section 30, rather than start with LQ section 18, only to switch to AAm after a few sentences. CE-SL-01: This addition is not needed if we take up the emendation (as indeed we must) from AAm* (given in the notes on AAm), where the change was apparently specifically made to remove Melkor’s creation of the Balrogs: We must similarly take up the emendation from AAm* in the following section. Thus, my text: Quote:
CE-EX-04: There’s probably a lot to say about the Cuivienyarna, but first I should repeat that I agree in principle that it would be good to include it. I would not that I prefer a slightly different placement for it, where I think it is less disruptive to the text. My version has here: Quote:
I’d also note, and this is a small and very minor point, that I see no reason to import the first sentence from LQ section 20 to replace the beginning of AAm section 37; as in my version, I prefer to use sections 37-38 of AAm in their entirety. Now we come to the hard question of the status of the Cuivienyarna. I think the evidence shows that Tolkien did not intend this to be (necessarily) the “real” story of the awakening of the Elves, in all its details. He noted on the typescript itself: Quote:
Quote:
All of which is to say that I have a nagging feeling that we must insert something to set the legend apart as just that, and I’m not sure that including the title is enough. I would suggest that we might use Tolkien’s own note from the typescript as an additional subtitle: Quote:
Quote:
If the decision is to keep this material, I think ArcusCalion’s suggestion of making it a separate section with its own sub-heading is a good one, but I think it will need a lot more work. My vote would be not to include it here. Perhaps if a coherent and self-sufficient text can be made of it, it could be separated and put elsewhere, for instance as an appendix? |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#42 | ||||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,561
![]() |
I can see your reasoning for the different choice of the basic text. I did rather choose by fiting structure than by anthing else. So I am over all not in opposition against AAm as basic text. But as a matter of fact I think that some of passages that I kept from LQ add worth while information. So let have the discussion pice by pice.
I do not mind if we start with LQ §18 or AAm §30 and if you prefer AAm that is okay for me, but the more detailed description of growth that had been checked seems worth the interruption of the text for me. What about this: Quote:
CE-SL-01: Do I understand rightly, that you suppose to leave that detailed description of the Balrogs including their nature and physical exterior out yust because it would mean an insertion into a text composition? To this I am strongly in opposition and the ‘corollary’ to our rules is with me on this issue I think. Anyhow ‘multiplied the race of the evil spirits that followed him’ can in my opinion not stand alone. How could he multiply spirits? Did What about this editing: Quote:
A agree that when using AAm §37 - §38 it doesn’t make sense to use the first sentence of LQ §20. It made it to my text because LQ was my basic and I didn’t liked another change before the palce where I gave the Cuivienyarna. ’Legendary’ character of the Cuivienyarna: Wow, I would not have expected such a ‘inovative’ use of a author’s note to be considered acceptable. But I am okay with this. CE-SL-06: Interisting that I would like to remove the ‘sun of summer’ which you ememnd by putting in ‘later’ and I would hold the twilight times by editorial emendation. Are you sure that the concept has been abondaned that the sun was a sign for the waning of the first born and for the approach of the Dominion of Men? That was my reason to remove the ‘sun of summer’. But however that might be Elvish joy might always be mingled with some sadness, wo we might keep the ‘sun of summer’ as you proposed. CE-SL-07: I agree that my amendations are a bit on the heavy side, what about only skiping the later part and adding in the same style as before only a ‘later’: Quote:
Quote:
Respectfully Findegil |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#43 | |||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,156
![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
How about: Quote:
Quote:
CE-SL-01: No, I'm not opposed to interrupting the text for the sake of adding details (which we frequently do), but I thought that the motivation for this was to avoid saying, as in LQ, that Melkor created the Balrogs - since Tolkien had already emended AAm* for this same purpose, and since my general preference is for AAm as the later text, I thought we might use that. You're right that the LQ note offers some additional descriptive details, and I think your last suggestion here is good. The word "multiplied", used in AAm*, is interesting, and I'm not sure what to make of it - it seems to me that the purpose of this emendation was to remove the statement that Melkor created the Balrogs, and yet it is still said that he "multiplied" them. In any case, given the (presumably later) "no more than 3 or at most 7" note, I agree that "multiplied" must go, and I think your suggestion to replace it with LQ's "gathered" is good. CE-EX-04: OK, I think we're in agreement here. Quote:
CE-SL-06, -07: I suppose this works. If you do find the "sun of summer" questionable, I'm OK with deleting it, but it seems quite plausible to me that the Elves would delight in the sun; certainly I don't think it's suggested anywhere that they had any antipathy toward it, even if it was associated with the rise of Men. CE-EX-05.3: Good catch. CE-EX-06 - -23: OK, good, agreed that this is better suited to volume III. |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#44 | ||||||
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 121
![]() |
CE-01: If both of Aiwendil's suggestions are valid, I suppose we must choose for stylistic reasons. I prefer the first suggestion, starting with AAm.
CE-SL-01: I agree to Fin's latest change, and changing "multiplied" to "gathered". CE-EX-04: I agree to Aiwendil's placement of the Cuivienyarna. I think including the information that this is a child's tale is a great idea, including it in the sub-heading works well. CE-SL-06, 07: I agree with Fin's changes. I say we keep the sun of summer; the Elves are very much a mix of joy and sorrow, so the idea that they delight in the sun while simultaneously recognizing that it signals their downfall works very well. CE-EX-06 - -23: Definitely agree with moving this to Volume III. I have a few other recommendations/changes: 1. There are a few "k->c" changes which need to be made in this chapter, including "Valakirka->Valacirca", "Kuivienen->Cuivienen", "Helkar->Helcar", "Kalaquendi->Calaquendi" and "Orokarni->Orocarni". Also, the change "Ork->Orc" should be made throughout the whole document. 2.In §41: Quote:
3. A few typos: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
4. Quote:
5. Quote:
6. I would move the entire "The Clan-names, with notes on other names for divisions of the Eldar" section to Volume 3, to a chapter with other linguistic material. |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#45 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,561
![]() |
CE-01: I agree with gandalf85 to take Aiwendil’s first proposle. But more important we agree to include CE-EX-03 as well, or not?
CE-SL-06: I am okay with ‘sun of summer’ with the addition of ‘later’ especially since the heraldic signs of Fingoflin and his son was a winged sun. I assume that they toke them after they entered Middle-earth at the first rising of the sun and in a backward application based on Fingoflin’s claim as High King of the Noldor applied the similar heraldic signs to his father Finwë and grand-(who know how often)-sire Tata. We placed that heraldic sign of the House of Tata (NN ‘Patterns’ (the winged sun in the upper right corner, sign of the second House; Artist; no. 183; p. 186) into this chapter. CE-EX-06: So this means we would let the text stand as following: Quote:
I suppose that the subheading CE-EX-24 can be removed in this case as well, or moved to a later place according to that in AAm. Gandalf85’s additional points: 1. k -> c: Agreed, I will add these cases to the list of general changes if they are not included already and search the entire text if they are done or not. But fully correct is ‘Cuiviénen’ what so ever it does replace. While doing this I found that we use only once the word ‘Orocarni’ in the phrase: ‘the {Orokarni}[Orocarni], the Mountains of the East’. Even so that is normaly not the way we do it must we not in this case provide the translation to allowe the connection to the Red Mountains of the Ambarcanta and the Maps? I suppose we exchange ‘Mountains of the East’ with ‘Red Mountains in the East’ and name that change CE-EX-05.4. 2. See posting #42 the removal of this was named CE-EX-05.3. 3. Thank you for pointing these out. 4. You are right, I agree to your suggestion. 5. Agreed. 6. Yes, your wish seems in agreement with ArcusCalion’s latest suggestion and seeing the plans for Volume 3 I can easily agree to this as well. Let us discuss how we handle the original text (which includes a sort of extract of this) when Aiwendil comes to that passage. Respectfully Findegil |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#46 |
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#47 | |||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,156
![]() |
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. |
|||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#48 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,561
![]() |
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 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#49 |
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#50 | |||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,156
![]() |
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. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#51 |
Shade of Carn Dűm
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 498
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#52 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,561
![]() |
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 |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#53 |
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 121
![]() |
CE-EX-35.5: Aiwendil's change looks good to me.
CE-EX-37: I agree with Fin's analysis. It is what I had assumed when reading the original text. Since his reworking makes it more clear, I agree to it. CE-EX-39: I do not see why point 5 is contradictory and unworkable. Melkor's forces are defeated, and then he feigns remorse and repentance instead of choosing to fight on. I agree that the prose is more analytical at points rather than narrative, but I think if we want to include these points this is the best place to do it. I actually think Fin's original more chronological edit works better than his latest proposed change where there is a sort of reflection after the confrontation with Melkor. I propose either we use the original editing, or move all the extra-textual analysis about Melkor's dispersal of his power to Volume 3. I will think about it some more, but right now I'm leaning towards the former. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#54 |
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 121
![]() |
Just wanted to check in on how everyone is doing. I'm taking two classes at Signum this semester: Beyond Middle Earth (which focuses on Tolkien's short stories and academic work) and Beowulf in Old English (where we translate Beowulf into Modern English). It's keeping me pretty busy. How is everyone doing?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#55 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,156
![]() |
I've been trying to find a chunk of time to continue reviewing this chapter. I'll really make an effort to do so in the next two or three days.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#56 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,156
![]() |
We'll have to come back to the big unresolved issues regarding Myths Transformed, but for now here are some more comments up to CE-EX-52.
CE-EX-44: Typo "brook" for "broke": Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
CE-SL-15: Another instance where, if we follow my suggestion, Melkor will be chained and the change won't be needed. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
CE-EX-47: If we accept my argument, this statement should be reinstated. CE-SL-17: Quote:
CE-EX-48: Is "Tuivana" still a valid name for Vana? I can't recall if it's used outside of LT. CE-EX-49: I'm not sure about these "unelvish spirits", much less about Mandos's folk roaming Middle-earth. CE-EX-50: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
CE-EX-51: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#57 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,561
![]() |
Nice to have your input Aiwendil.
CE-EX-44: Thanks for pointing out these typos. Maybe we should first address the real issue, before we go farther. I think, we have boiled it down already to the following question: Do we follow MT and thus let Melkor pretend to submit an following the Valar into Aman by his own free will or do we leave that aspect of MT out and follow the earlier AAm and LT account in which Tulkas defeats Melkor which is than bound by Againor and forced to Valinor? Gandalf85 did already state his opinion that he leans more to the MT storyline and found my first chronological editing better than the later. By reading both versions again, I fully agree with him. Maybe we have to skip some parts of the text or some footnotes as to analytic, but even of that I am not so sure. If we take up the MT version here, we have a shift in the story from a physical struggle between the Valar and Melkor’s agents to a much more mental struggle between Melkor and Manwe. That in such a case the style of the narrative changes from a more direct description of the battle action to a more analytic style is a necessity (how else can a mental struggle be told if not by analyses?). To be honest, the analytic comments greatly enhance for me at least the characterization of both Melkor and Manwe. Melkor is shown in the moment he finally rejects repentance and Manwe in his struggle to keep Eä functional for Eru’s propose (or on a smaller scale, Ardar inhabitable for the children of Eru) for this he has to keep Melkor at bay without eliminating the Melkor ingredient to much, as that would rob Eä of very much of its potential. The Word of Eru that no one can change the tale against his will, where a warning for both Melkor and Manwe. Melkor did not heed that warning and struggle on until he had spent his full potential without a benefit for him (so it greatly enhanced the ‘Story of Arda’, which otherwise could have been very booring). But Manwe heeded that warning and did only make an end to the inhabiting of Arda by Melkor when Morgoth had personally via dispersion shrunk to insignificance. Maybe Aiwendil, you could explain a bit more what makes you feel so strongly against the MT stuff here. Respectfully Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#58 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,156
![]() |
My objection comes down to my view that MT VI text is not a narrative; it's an outline for a new narrative that Tolkien never wrote. For me, this is a clear case for principle 2b, "proposed changes that do not clearly indicate the exact details that must be changed and how they are to be changed." That is, it tells us that Tolkien was going to re-write this material, but it does not give us any actual text to use. The phrases that, in the current proposal, we take from MT to effect this change are, in my opinion, not at all suitable to stand in a narrative. This is Tolkien writing in his own modern, colloquial voice, and there's no way that he would have considered describing Melkor as "isolated in enemy territory" or "swallowing a bitter pill" in an actual rewrite of this story.
Now, yes, it's true that we have explicitly said that we are not to be concerned about stylistic inconsistencies within our text. But when we hashed that out, we were talking about the differing styles of narratives written over the course of Tolkien's life. The key example we dealt with early on was the juxtaposition between the very different styles of the Lost Tales and of stuff like the later 'Tuor'. I don't think that this in any way obligates us to treat the text of notes or analyses written in Tolkien's own 'external' voice as if they are real narratives. So, that's my main objection - that as I see it, we simply don't have a text that is suitable for taking up this new element of the story - and in trying to force MT VI to fill that role, we end up doing great damage to the text. Now, for many of the other projected changes in MT, as we've discussed, I think the intervention required to achieve the change is much less, and in those cases and many others, we've used the expedient of taking a minimal amount of wording from a note or analysis and inserting it into a text. In some cases, I've been a bit uneasy about how much manipulation of the text is needed, but of course it's hard to draw a clear line between what is acceptable and what is too much. But for me, the situation with this story of the feigned submission of Melkor is clearly on the "too much" side. Does that help explain my view on this? Last edited by Aiwendil; 11-05-2020 at 05:23 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#59 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,561
![]() |
Thank you very much for that explanation. Your reasons are now much clearer to me. And it has to me become clear that the first answer to your concerns can only be a text that demonstrates that we can take the story line of MT IV without introducing its ‘outside voice character’. It clear that this text is still questionable since it will involve a lot of ‘fragmenting’ textual changes and probably some switching the sense of the actual words.
That said, I still think that we should in some way present the more analytical parts of MT IV to our (imagined) readers. But if that finds approval by the group and how and where (most probably in volume 3) is quiet an independent question. Okay, that is what the following text tries to do. Since I wished on the one hand to have documented where I skipped part of the MT IV that was included before and none the less show how much more storytelling the text has become I provide here under a clean text version: Quote:
Quote:
CE-SL-11.5b: Here we acknowledge the fact from MT; IV that the Valar had no hope of real victory. CE-EX-28b: I nominated this change b because I took up a bit more at the end. LT has here already Manwe’s reluctance to fight Melkor. Instead already this early in the writing history of Middle-Earth Tolkien establishes Manwe as seeking to ‘entreat’ Melkor to ‘better deeds’. It is interesting to see how Tolkien’s sometimes comes back to such idea’s in full circle. CE-EX-28.2: I introduce this marker to nominate our discussion about the name ‘tilkal.’ ‘Vorotemnar’ and ‘Ilterendi’. CE-EX-28.4: I introduce this marker to nominate our discussion about the names ‘Vorotemnar’ and ‘Ilterendi’. CE-EX-28.6: This is the only part of MT; VI I actually used here. It does introduce the motive to fight that we need after we made clear that the Valar did not hope for real victory. CE-EX-37b: I shifted the integration here a bit, therefore the b. Specially at the end I wove the passages a bit more fluent into on another. As it stands now Orome opens the gates, Melkor sends out his Balrogs and only after the Valar had fought that onslaught down Manwe calls Melkor who is now attested to be alone to come out. CE-EX-37.5: I think we have to change this, since later we took up that Tulkas and Ulmo broke the gates and piled rock on them but that the caverns where not utterly destroyed. CE-EX-38: These changes are generally accepted, I think. CE-EX-39f: I left this maker in the text, since here in earlier version we had big parts of MT; VI introduced, but in this version I left it out. CE-EX-38.1b: We already decided to leave out the guile the Valar used to bring Tulkas and Manwe into Melkor’s chamber, but the exchange via the servant I used to trigger the Valar to lay down their weapons and go in for negotiation. CE-EX-38.2: I left that marker because in the last version we skipped ‘unawares’, but here it fits in well. CE-EX-38.3: As mentioned above we did not include this ‘cunning deceit’. CE-EX-38.4b: I changed ‘Then’ to ‘Therefore’ to use the lay down of the weapons instead of the ‘cunning deceit’ from LT. CE-EX-38.55: As my text stands at this point Manwe has introduced Melkor to come with him to Valinor as it seems without any prerequisite. But I think from the new developed context it is clear enough that this offer is one for cooperation in consensus. I skipped the rest of the conversation since if we follow MT; VI Manwe and Melkor in this moment when they face each other in person must have understood who was now ‘in command’. And that is what I let follow here: CE-EX-38.6b: He start the parts of MT’; VI that I found necessary. But I tried to strip that passages of as much text as possible. Thus, giving us a chance to use it full size later on and reduce the essay character it has. The first used scene is that of Manwe and Melkor perceiving the decrease of Melkor. CE-EX-38.7b: The second motive I found necessary is that of possibility of the humiliation and chaining of Melkor. By the changes I introduced I tried to avoid the out side point of view that is used in MT; VI to explain the motives of Melkor and Manwe. CE-EX-38.8b: The third scene used here is that of Melkor’s (feigned) surrender and Manwe’s granting it. But again, I removed the analyses of the motives. In that way the reader is left as unclear as Manwe if the repentance is real or feigned. CE-EX-38.9: This passage from LT fits very well to explain Manwe’s motives at least a bit, and since it comes from a source that is everything but an essay, I don’t see that Aiwendil’s objection against the majority of the MT; VI stuff could be applied to it. CE-EX-38.91b: I found the ‘Nonetheless’ not really fitting here. CE-SL-17b: In the older versions we had only changed the text here from singular to plural and skipped the name of Utumno. But I thought, it might be better to introduce the name of Angband here, as it makes clear that there was a difference between what the Valar made at Angband to how they ‘sealed’ Utumno. CE-EX-44b: Here we tell the sealing of Utumno. CE-EX-44.5: I left that maker in because it marks a place where text of MT; V had been in other versions. CE-EX-45 & CE-EX-46: These are unchanged. CE-SL-14: I came back here to the original text, following Aiwendil’s arguments. CE-SL-15: It is clear, that this passage has to follow what ever we decided about Melkor being chained in Utumno. CE-EX-39e: If we introduce MT; VI with the (feigned) repentance of Melkor we need that passage, since it makes clear that Manwe’s was in a way overruled by the Valar in assembly during that court. But again, I remove the analyses of Melkors motives as they are clearly from an outside view point. CE-EX-47 & CE-SL-16b & CE-SL-18: These are unchanged from the last version. Respectfully Findegil |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |