![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#41 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Hi, Findegil! Excellent to see you.
Quote:
1. Sauron mentions Boldog's mission to capture Luthien and bring her to Morgoth. 2. (It is implied that) Beren reacts visibly to this. 3. Sauron asks why he reacts thus to the thought of Luthien as Morgoth's captive. But what we have is now: 1. Sauron mentions the skirmish on the border of Doriath, which leads him to mention Luthien. 2. (It is implied that) Beren reacts visibly. 3. Sauron asks why he should react thus to the thought of Luthien as Morgoth's captive. But in the latter case, what Sauron says in 3 makes no sense. No one has mentioned the idea of Luthien being Morgoth's captive, so why would Sauron think that this is what Beren is reacting to? With my last proposal, the idea I had in mind was that Beren is no longer reacting explicitly to the thought of Luthien as Morgoth's captive. Rather, he's simply visibly affected by the mention of the name Luthien, particularly coming from Sauron; and Sauron notices his reaction. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#42 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
Maybe we removed then more then necessary. As I already argued above we have evidence from Sil77 that the interest of Morgoth in Lúthien still existed:
Quote:
1. Sauron mentions the skirmish on the border of Doriath, which leads him to mention Luthien. 2. (It is implied that) Beren reacts visibly. 3. Sauron father elaborates which interests Morgoth would have in Lúthien to see Beren's reaction. 4. Beren reacts grim. 3. Sauron asks why he should react thus to the thought of Luthien as Morgoth's captive. And goes even on teasing them farther. Leading to: Quote:
Respectfully Findegil |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#43 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Okay, I like this last suggestion. It seems that you're right: the text of the '77 suggests that the motif of Morgoth's desire for Luthien was retained, even when the particular mission of Boldog was dropped. So I think at last we have agreement here.
I have quite lost track of whether there were other unresolved issues in this chapter - glancing back over the last few posts, I don't see any. If not, I think we're done with round 2 of Beren and Luthien. I know I have notes on further issues in other completed chapters; I will dig those out, review them, and post. Last edited by Aiwendil; 01-25-2013 at 02:37 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#44 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
I also looked into the points you commented on and found 2 small issues that are not finially discussed:
BL-RG-08.5: Quote:
BL-SL-07: Quote:
Respectfully Findegil |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#45 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Thanks for reminding me of those two unresolved points.
BL-RG-08.5: Well, I've stared at the lines again for a long while, and I still can't come up with anything. But when I suggested deleting the lines, I seem to have missed the fact that we would have to delete five lines and thus leave an unrhymed line. We might get by with: Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#46 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
Okay. I agree to both points. It seems we are done with this chapter for the second run.
I will see that I can come up with a corrected version in private forum soon. Respectfully Findegil P.S.: Not too soon as it seems. I have to renumber the lines, which is a diligent but routine piece of work. Last edited by Findegil; 02-04-2013 at 03:57 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#47 | ||
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tol Morwen
Posts: 332
![]() |
How about this:
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#48 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
I agree that it would be nice to mention Celebrimbor, but this position is not good. It will feel like an after thought. And it breaks the flow of the passage badly.
I would rather try to work it into the poem, when Orodreth has proclaimed the ban for the brethern: Quote:
Respectfuly Findegil Last edited by Findegil; 09-15-2015 at 10:50 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#49 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tol Morwen
Posts: 332
![]() |
![]()
Sorry, but I am a total idiot when it comes to poetry
![]() Another thing - it would be nice to introduce Angrist somehow into the tale. And another thing, lol - wasn't it Curufin who was in lust with Lúthien in the Lay of Leithian? In the later writings it was Celegorm - in my version I simply changed Celegorm to Curufin and vice-versa.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#50 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
Angrist looks like an easy task:
Quote:
Respectfuly Findegil |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#51 | |||
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tol Morwen
Posts: 332
![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#52 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
It is clear that Celegorm is the one in the end. But your comment looked like it is Curufin in the Lay, which I can not find their.
Respectfuly Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#53 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
Hey, just finished reading through everything, and I had only 1 question. Why were the two references to the mission of Boldog removed?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#54 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
Boldog's special mission was removed because it was never mentioned later. Aiwendils post 37 and me post 39 in this thread have some argument about that.
Respectfully Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#55 | |||
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Aug 2023
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 42
![]() |
Hey Findegil,
I was reading the working doc, and came across this bit: Quote:
I don't think the new line "in fast craft for ever bound," works. For one, the Lay is in iambic tetrameter (not uniformly, but close), but this line is now short one syllable. For another, it throws off the stresses. And lastly, here "fast" doesn’t mean “rapid; quick”, but "firm; secure" – as in “fastened.” So, it’s not fast craft, it’s trunks fastened by craft. Long story short, I think this would work better, both in preserving the stresses and the meaning: Quote:
Edit: BL-RG-08.5: I agree with Aiwendil that it would be nice to keep these lines. What about... Quote:
Last edited by Elvellon; 09-28-2023 at 09:07 PM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#56 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
You're quite right about line 1241, and I'm not sure how I missed that before. However, I don't think your proposal works grammatically. "In magic fast forever bound" is an adjective phrase modifying "towers of an enchanted wood"; inserting a verb into it doesn't make sense.
Honestly, I've never been of the mind that every use of the word "magic" must be struck from the text, and my preference here would be to simply retain the original reading. BL-RG-08.5: I don't know. These lines could work, but they feel a little off to me. I guess we have to weigh re-writing Tolkien's rhymes against cutting out of a few lines of the poem. I've just stared at the lines for a while again, and still can't come up with a better suggestion. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#57 | |||||
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Aug 2023
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 42
![]() |
Quote:
BL-SL-03: Quote:
Quote:
Here's another possibility, making use of a rhyme that Tolkien is quite fond of: Quote:
Quote:
One might be able to write a couplet that rhymes "in hand they bore" (meaning the torches) with "Noldor," but at the moment I'm not seeing it. |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#58 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
BL-SL-03: While I don't necessarily think that every instance of "god" used of the Valar must be excised, I think its use here from the mouth of an Elf is sufficient reason to delete this couplet.
BL-RG-08.5: I've been racking my brain trying to work out a rhyme for either "... did start and twinkle, as that folk" or "... did start and twinkle, as that kin". If we were OK with an archaic placement of "in" following its noun, we could do: Quote:
With "folk", we could try: Quote:
Last edited by Aiwendil; 09-29-2023 at 09:06 PM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#59 | |||||
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Aug 2023
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 42
![]() |
Quote:
BL-EX-06: "lay white beneath on the dark stones" looks like a transcription error. My copy has "lay white beneath on the dank stones" BL-EX-10: A fantastic bit of work here, but a few things don't sit quite right for me. Don't get me wrong, the effort that was put into the Lay by everyone involved is nothing short of brilliant. I'm not here to step on any toes, just to share some grist for the mill. In that spirit, here is my suggestion: Quote:
The usage of "reek" here is the Old-English noun form, as in "delivered from the noxious fumes." BL-RG-22: How about: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Elvellon; 09-30-2023 at 09:41 PM. Reason: Added new suggestions, instead of double/triple/quadruple-posting |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#60 | |||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
First of all: Elvellon, I am glad to have your input here as everywhere. But here it is very welcome indeed, since my talent for rhyming is very limited.
Nonetheless, I have to argue against some of your suggestions. A general remark first: The argument that what we have here is one of the “songs of Númenor”, has come up in some discussions. For me, it does not hold water for several reasons: - That a poem or text has be traditioned by the Numenorians does not mean that the in-story author was of mankind. I would argue here to the contrary, since the mannish origin of the Narn was mentioned as an exception. (Nonetheless, later mannish redactions is of course possible.) - Even so the main line of tradition might be Númenorean, it is by no means impossible that additional sources are involved. Such as eyewitnesses talked to in Imladris. But these in-story arguments are in a way pointless, because the main counter arguments for me are external: - Some time ago the project discussed if we should assume that our texts have existing counterparts in Middle-earth. And the final result of that discussion was that we could not entertain that idea at all. Tolkien could and did use that idea and thus produce the large corpus of sources we have. But since we decided that we can only hope to produce one single string of very diverse texts telling the Legend of Middle-earth, we have to skip that idea. Therefore if the result of our editing does not have an existing counterpart in Middle-earth, it does as well not have a history of in-story tradition. - If we follow the argument that due to its tradition a texts is allowed some failures to its ultimate end, we render our project void and useless. It is no question that a character in the story must not speak the truth, but that is not the point here. If we accept that the texts, we produce have a tradition behind them that allows for them make false statements about what we found as the ‘true’ story, we would have to give our readers some means to find out were these false statements begin and end. That mean would be the full corpus of sources we used. What than is the worth of the text we produced? - This does not mean, that we can not leave some uncertainty in our version or that we can not use parts that Tolkien did mention with a disclaimer (like the second prophecy of Mandos). But it clearly means we have to take up all such disclaimers, and were we don’t have them we should try to report what we find as the ‘true’-story as well as possible. Now to the more specific issue: Line [1241]: First, since line numbers may change, let’s take up an editing mark for this case: BL-RG-00.7. On the case itself, I agree that it was maybe a bit over the top to change each and every occurrence of ‘magic’. Nonetheless for me it has a kind of negative connotation, following the discussion of it between Galadriel and Sam in Lothlorien. Thus it seem inappropriate for a description of a work of craft that seems to appeal to the author. What about getting rid of the means ({magic}[craft]) and instead mention who (masons) used these means: Quote:
BL-SL-03: ‘Apologies if I'm retreading settled ground.’ I don’t think you do, and even if, we have done so before and we will most probably do so in future. The discussion is what brings the project forward. (And often it is the fun of it, not the (temporary) final result.) ‘We're reading a Mannish text, and we know Men thought of the Valar as gods, right?’ Wrong, in two ways: We do not read a mannish text (see my remark above). At best we rad a text edited by man. And the man that thought of the Valar as gods where not the Númenoreans. At first they did know better, being in alliance with the Elves, and later when they rebelled against the Valar, I doubt that they would name them gods, since who would rebel against gods? Anyhow I have to say that using ‘god’ in this context is a no go for me. We can tell our readers that man did name the Valar gods, but to have a group of elvish Exiles address them as such does not work for me. That the Nargothrondrim are Exiles makes these lines anyhow doubt full: They did rebel against the rule of the Valar in the first place, so what would it help, if Finrod would be a Vala? But I understand the urge to keep the lines. So I searched form some replacement with the one characteristic that could transport the meaning of god like ruler ship: infalliblity. Even so I did not find a solution for the couple, this might by a line of thought worth mentioning. BL-EX-10: I like your suggestion. In the first part you did edit it more but less so in the last. But as it is ‘grist for the mill’ I would try to leave out the ‘reek’ and use instead the couple ‘seek’-‘indeed’. For that of course we need some additions. I would not use ‘Silmaril’ again here, therefore ‘one stone’ was the best I could come up with. In the next line ‘solemn quest’ is as well the best I found. I had first considered ‘hopeless quest’ but Finrod just declared that he sees that Beren will get it, so that this should give him some hope. Farther on I would like to now why you moved the ‘shall’ in the third last line? I think the line works without that movement. Quote:
Quote:
BL-EX-10.5: I like your suggestion, but aren’t your first three lines each one syllable short? What about {none}no one in the first line and ‘perceiving that evil would follow’ for the second? I have no good solution for the third, but ‘heavily’ would be a last resource. Maybe my counting is wrong, but isn’t Curufin 3 syllables (Cu-ru-fin)? If so that line is too long. But however the line can stand since we count iambic feet and not syllables propper. Line [3277]: Thanks for pointing that out! Respectfully Findegil Last edited by Findegil; 10-05-2023 at 06:01 AM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#61 | ||||||||||
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Aug 2023
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 42
![]() |
Quote:
To your points about the "songs of Númenor" and "Mannish texts," thank you for taking the time to summarize it so clearly. I can see the reasons for adopting this stance, and I'm happy to leave it there as settled. How about this, then: Quote:
BL-RG-00.7: Is there a thread here where the use of the term “magic” was discussed? I'm curious if it is primarily Patrick Curry’s opinion that drove this idea I've seen that Tolkien saw magic as an evil. Is there a clear statement from JRRT on the matter? My understanding has been that Tolkien saw the word “magic” not as inherently negative but as inaccurate, because “all human stories have suffered the same confusion” between “the devices and operations of the Enemy, and those of the Elves” (from Letter 131). Galadriel echoes this sentiment in Fellowship, where she does not say that the word “magic” is only used for “the deceits of the Enemy,” but rather that it is one word being used for two different things. It must not have had too negative an association in her mind, because she then referred to the mirror as “the magic of Galadriel” and “Elf-magic” – and ironic adoption of a word familiar to the Hobbits. I don’t disagree that the word should be minimized because of its inaccuracy. And this is easy enough to do in prose, but it seems to me that in the Lays, one should do so primarily when it doesn’t disturb Tolkien’s verse too much. Personally, the more I think about it, the more I feel “in magic fast for ever bound” is too lovely a turn of phrase to mess with. But in fairness, here's another suggestion: Quote:
Quote:
BL-EX-10: “Seek” and “indeed” are too imperfect of a rhyme. I think the word “reek” here is altogether appropriate: Tolkien refers to “the reeking towers of Thangorodrim,” as well as “the reeking tops of the Iron Mountains”; and he used the word in the sense I’ve used it more than once in composing the Lay of Leithian: “above the reek and trampled dead”, “A second morning in cloud and reek”, “amid the reek, and far and wide”. It’s only because he used it so frequently that I felt comfortable using it. In general, I’ve tried to restrict my changes to rhymes that Tolkien used elsewhere; that seemed the safest, least destructive, course. Quote:
![]() Quote:
BL-EX-10.5: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Elvellon; 10-05-2023 at 02:16 PM. |
||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#62 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
BL-SL-03:
Quote:
BL-RG-00.7: I searched for the discussion about 'magic', but could not find it. I think now that the discussion was done in a phase of the project with not many participants, but I am not sure of that. But I can asure you that Patrick Curry's opinion played no part in that discussion at all. The Letter you quoted and the refelctions of Galadriel where considered. Anyhow, after that discussion, I as the keeper of the texts, did go through all texts and introduced the changes (when the reference was to elvish craft) without farther discussion of each occurence. Therefore I appreciate when you (or anybody else) finds such places where these regular changes are problematic for any reason. In this special case I, after farther refelction could even agree to keep magic, since we most probably speak about a work crafted by dwarfish masons and we did allow magic to stand in other cases of dwarfish craft. But nonetheless as they had elvish help and the help of Melian in crafting the halls of Menegroth, I would rather replace it. I like your new suggestion of {in magic}[so crafted]. Aiwendil, is that okay for you as well? BL-RG-08.5: I did understood your use of doom well enough. I just find it a bit broad. But if you and Aiwendil are okay with it, we can take it. BL-EX-10: Okay, as I said, I am far from beeing in expert in ryhming. If 'seek'-'indded' id not good your lines wih 'seek'-'reek' are totally okay for me. BL-EX-10.5: Well, as a none native speaker syllables and stress counting doesn't seemed to be that easy for me. For the first line your repetition of 'went' works fine for me. Respectfully Findegil |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#63 | |||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
On the subject of the provenance of the texts, I agree with Findegil.
BL-RG-00.7: I don’t really agree that “magic” must be purely negative in its connotations. I’m not sure about “by masons”, though. The imagery in the poem is one of a forest of real trees being petrified, turned to stone. Yes, in reality they were carved by masons, but what the poem is saying is that they are like towers of an enchanted wood, made fast by magic. “So crafted fast forever bound” doesn’t work for me, either; I’m not quite sure how it fits grammatically, and again it loses the point of the imagery, which is of a forest having been turned to stone. BL-RG-08.5: I guess I can live with the spark/dark solution, though again, I also think that omitting the lines as we had earlier decided is fine. BL-SL-03: I agree with Findegil here. I’d prefer to omit the couplet, unless a different solution can be found. The “grand/command” solution doesn’t work for me, I’m afraid. “Grand” is not the appropriate word here. BL-EX-10: I’m not wholly convinced by either of these proposals. First of all, I’m not sure what you mean, Elvellon, by “putting ‘Celegorm the fell’ and ‘sight that is given’ back in Finrod’s mouth. In the version previously adopted, both of these phrases are direct quotes from Finrod. However, your first couplet is an improvement over mine in terms of meter. I’m not sure about the “But lastly”, though. I think a slight improvement over your lines would be: Quote:
I’m not sure about “from the reek”. I mean, yes, maybe it’s true that Angband is filled with noxious fumes, but since this hasn’t been brought up, it seems an odd way to refer to it. I recognize that “’neath the triple peak” is also clunky, but at least “triple peak” is a clear reference to Thangorodrim. Findegil’s version tries to avoid this, but “seek” and “indeed” fail to rhyme. I don’t understand why you change “shall” to “will” in these lines: Quote:
Finally, I think the last line, “to another the bride-price of Luthien” is also too long. I will try to take another crack at these lines tonight, but at least my earlier proposal could be slightly revised: Quote:
BL-RG-10.5: I’m afraid these lines don’t work for me. The “would go/follow” rhyme is very awkward, and the curse doesn’t lay “therein” but rather “thereon”. Also, the line “Celebrimbor rose and disclaimed” is a little metrically awkward. Let me think about these lines; I agree it would be nice to be able to include Celebrimbor’s renunciation here. Apologies if I'm being a bit difficult about some of these lines, but I really do feel that we should be very careful about messing with Tolkien's verse, and I would generally rather omit some lines than have our amateurish poesy stick out line a sore thumb. Edited to add: Sorry, I started writing this post before the last two posts from Findegil and Elvellon, but I've edited to add my thoughts on additional proposals from them. Last edited by Aiwendil; 10-06-2023 at 08:32 AM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#64 | ||||||||||
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Aug 2023
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 42
![]() |
Quote:
BL-RG-00.7: I agree, which is why I think "by magic fast for ever bound" is really best here. BL-RG-08.5: Omitting is best, since a solution hasn't been found that everyone is happy with. BL-EX-10: Quote:
Quote:
For comparison, in §194 of the Grey Annals, Finrod says: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#65 | |||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
BL-EX-10:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If the rhyme using "reek" is strongly preferred to "triple peak", we might make it a little clearer: Quote:
Quote:
So, overall, I think I prefer my version above. |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#66 | |||
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Aug 2023
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 42
![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And he did use 10 syllables every so often (not an exhaustive list):
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#67 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
BL-RG-00.7: Okay, since the ‘like’ in the line before makes this a figurative description and a petrified wood (living trees being stopped from fulfilling their natural grows) has exactly that subtle touch of evil Tolkien saw and laid into Galadriels mouth, I agree that ‘magic’ can stand here.
BL-RG-08.5: Okay, ‘dark’-spark’ solution it will be than. (Since the restoration of lines will call for renumbering, which is quite an amount of work, I will only take up that task, when all active members agree that we are done with ‘Beren and Lúthien’. BL-SL-03: What about this: Quote:
BL-RG-22: Seems we are all in agreement here. BL-RG-10.5: I tried my hand at avoiding ‘would go’-‘follow’, and what if we avoid the curse here: Quote:
Findegil |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#68 | |
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Aug 2023
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 42
![]() |
BL-RG-05: Why not just make it past tense?
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#69 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
Sorry for the late later answer. For the couple it selfit would work but in the line before we have: "the chain Angaionr that ere Doom" This Doom must be the War of Wrath not the War of the Powers I would think. That makes some statement for the future necessary in the next line (if we do not alter the couple above the fires in Angband's gloom;/the chain Angainor that ere Doom).
Respectfully Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#70 | ||
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Aug 2023
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 42
![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
Angainor was wrought before the War of the Powers, which was before the War of Wrath. The Lay doesn't specify that it shall be wrought immediately prior to Morgoth's Doom, so I don't see it as necessary to put the line in future tense. This rewording does less harm to Tolkien's text, and what's more, allows it to be read in multiple ways: Angainor was wrought before "Doom for Morgoth", the judgment delivered by Manwe in the Ring of Doom after the War of Powers, and it was thus also wrought before Morgoth's ultimate Doom, where it was used again after the War of Wrath. Indeed, Angainor proved to be the Oppressor that followed Melkor from doom to Doom. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#71 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
Okay, I can follow your argument, even so for me "Doom" did refer to the final doom of Mekor. But yes, it could refer to the doom spoken after he was captured in the War of the Powers. To make that interpretation more straight forward we could de-capitalized Doom in that line? I as well find Valar here not well fitting as I would naturly make it "the Valar". But in that respect we could be more speciffic:
Quote:
Findegil Last edited by Findegil; 07-18-2024 at 06:56 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#72 | |
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Aug 2023
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 42
![]() |
Quote:
As far as capitalizing vs. not capitalizing, I don't see any good reason not to capitalize it. Trust the reader's ability to interpret. Not to mention, Tolkien was fond of capitalizing Doom:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#73 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
If our text is any kind of reference Tolkien was inconsitance in the capitalization of 'doom'. I have to say that I did not check the originals. Right now I don't have the books near me and the scans are no good reference.
But your examples do more help my argument than yours: - Ring of Doom: That is a place name. So capitalization is quiet normal in such cases in Tolkiens texts. - Doom of Mandos, Doom of the Noldor and many of the later e.g.'s: This Doom is felt at least by the Exiled to be very final (even so it did not prove so by the end). To emphazise that Tolkien used capitalization often (but not always as it seems). - doom of Manwë: the only time we used that in our text is when Manwë after the War of the Powers send Melkor into prison. Which is exactly the event that most naturlay would be interpretetd as refered to by the passage under discussion. And so fare we have it in our text not capitalized (again, I did not check the original text in the books, so this might be a mistake). - "neither law, nor love, nor league of swords, dread nor danger, not Doom itself": This refers to Doom in general, making it uncomparalbe for our use case. All the rest either refer to the Doom of Mandos/the Noldor or to Doom in general. Thus what we are left with is: Doom as a general concept is capitalized and the Doom of the Noldor is capatilized. Dooms as refference to some rulings of Manwë are not capitalized. And in this particular case the ruling of Manwë had in itself a temporary charchter: After three ages Melkor's cause should be tried again. But I am not adamant on this. If you feel, Doom should stay as it is, so be it. Respectfully Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |