Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
06-08-2018, 05:01 AM | #1 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
Akallabêth
This is the first draft of the chapter Akallabêth in the part The Black Years.
The is no Basic Text in this chapter is of course from the Akallabêth out of the Sil77, nonetheless and I will give source information for each part that is used. There are big parts used from The Lost Road in HoMe 5. The markings are: BY-HL-zz for Black Years, Head-Lines, marking all headlines for the chapters in this part. AK-SL-zz for AKallabêth, Story-Line, to document all changes that construct the main text. AK-HA-zz for AKallabêth, History of the Akallabêth, to document all reconstruction to the original text. I will normally not comment on these. Some conventions of my writing: Normal Text is from the text that is mentioned in the source information of each insert. Bold Text = source information, comments and remarks {example} = text that should be deleted [example] = normalised text, normally only used for general changes <source example> = additions with source information example = text inserted for grammatical or metrical reason /example/ = outline expansion Normally if an inserted text includes the beginning of a new § these is indicated by a missing “>” at the end of the § and a missing “<” at the beginning of the next. Quote:
BY-HL-16: On the one hand we have reduced the contenet of this chapter by removing the earlier history of Númenor. On the other hand we extend it by The Lost Road chapters. AK-SL-01: We start with the text were we left the Akallabêth. This is fitting since it tells of the again upcoming might of Sauron. AK-SL-02: Even if we decised not to use the story of Elentir’s proposed marriage to Miriel, we should at least us the first part of this, as it gives a description of Pharazôns character. The problem of the story of Elentir is that it is not fully told, but that shouldn’t hinder us to much. Missing is the death of Elentir, but that he died is clear since Amandil becomes the next Lord of Andunië following Valandil even so we are told that Elentir was the older of the brethren. For me JRR Tolkiens decision to leave the story out, is rather a concern of space then a rejection of its content, but that is of course speculation and open for discussion. AK-SL-03: I took these footnote from text a, since it adds information otherwise lost. AK-SL-04: Text b is difficult, but it is need to construct the tale. I removed in this passage the editorial footnote and remarks in the text. Again Christopher Tolkiens guesses about the unreadable words is the best we have. AK-SL-05: This passage from text a seems to say more explicit what is is only hinted at in text b. After this we come back to the basic text from the Akallabêth. AK-SL-06: This part of the Akallabêth is replaced by the parts telling farther the story of Pharazons and Miriel from text a. The forced marriage of Miriel is the only argument against the story of Miriel/Elentir/Pharazôns. But for me that never worked well: How could even the leader of the King’s Men force the Queen into marriage? At least the last part about the Elendili not being subservient and Amandil being know even so not declared the leader of that party should be considered, even so the story of Miriel/Elentir/Pharazôns is not taken up. AK-SL-07: I don’t see any good reason not to take this passage from text D. AK-SL-08: This is now really independent of the story of Miriel/Elentir/Pharazôns but adds nicely to the character description of Pharazôns. AK-HA-12: I tried to re-establish the difference in th addressing between Amandil and Elendil, but I am fare from sure that I was succesfull. AK-SL-09: The visit of Elendil to Andunië seems to set the stage for the talk of father and son that is told in The Lost Road. As already discussed in the thread * An unofficial New Silmarillion Outline * I think the son must be Elendur since the father fears that his son is called to the weapon taking, and only Elendur has a fiting age for this at any time in which Sauron is in Númenor as he clearly must be during the talk. So with the son fix as Elendur, we could change the older man to be the grandfather and stay with Elendil, but the father to son relation is important in this talk and so I think we have to change the father to Isildur. I removed all editorial notes from Christopher Tolkien. BY-HL-17, BY-HL-18: ‘Chapter III’ etc. as it was in The Lost Road is unuseable, so I replaced it with natural ‘* * *’. AK-SL-10: I think we should keep the reference to Valandil, even so he is in or version an anjester of long, long ago. AK-SL-11: Elendur is not the only son of Isildur, so we must change this. AK-SL-12, AK-SL-13 & AK-SL-17, AK-SL-18: The time that has elapsed between the coming of Sauron and the talk has to be changed as well as the age in which the son was at Sauron coming (unborn in our case). As I said in the outline thread as Elendur is barely old enough we have to place the talk as late as possible. I took 3317 as a working assumption. Orontor and his mission is so unspecific, that we do not have to change anything here. In our version he could be a companion of Amandil. AK-SL-14: I put the complete text of the song into the footnote. AK-SL-15: Eärendil has in our Version two sons. AK-SL-16: The sojourn of the Númenorean mariners in Eressea has to go. AK-SL-19: Tar-Calion in our version goes out to Middel-earth him self. AK-SL-20, AK-SL-21: Amandil was the counsellor and since Isildur speaks it must be grandfather here. AK-SL-22: Saurons arrival is in our version as a hostage, so this has to go. AK-SL-23 & AK-SL-24: I used this passage to make the point that the Númenoreans had no religion. AK-SL-25, AK-SL-28: In our Version the temple is not at the Meneltaram, but in the gardens of the King in Armenelos. AK-SL-26: Their might have been gold used in the temple but the dome was in the later story made of silver. AK-SL-27: Most of this was moved. AK-SL-29: Again we have to add one generation and change Valandil to Amandil. BY-HL-19: At this return to the text of the Akallabêth I felt a ‘headline’ necessary. AK-HA-13: I think we can keep more of this passage. Respectfully Findegil |
|
06-08-2018, 08:29 PM | #2 | |||||||||||||||
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
This is a very long and difficult chapter, especially because of the Lost Road addition, which has quite a few issues in terms of modern canon. I anticipate that we may run into some disagreements along the way, but I will here lay out my comments. It will be rather long, so I beg pardon.
BY-HL-16: Because we know (from Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age) that the 'Akallabeth' is an in-universe document like the Valaquenta and Ainulindale, I hesitate to use this title for this chapter. I think we have taken too much from the actual document, and so I think it would be better to use the original title The Fall of Númenor. AK-HA-01: What is this marker referencing? AK-HA-03: Why was this changed in the published version? I can't seem to find the info, and I'm curious. Just want to make sure there arent any contradictions. AK-SL-02: This is fine, but we should leave out the initial 'For' since it isn't in reference to anything in this new setting.The sentence should simply start with "Pharazôn son of Gimilkhâd ..." AK-SL-04: This is fine, but there are two missed {Zimrahil}[Zimraphel] changes. Also part of the treatment of the outline I think should be changed slightly thus: Quote:
AK-SL-05: The initial 'but' should be changed to an 'And' because the 'but' no longer applies. AK-SL-06: There is one piece of info which is lost in yours from the base Akallabeth text, which I would like to add in: Quote:
AK-HA-09: What is this reference referring to? AK-SL-08: This is fine, but I want to add in the story of the coming of Sauron from the Lost Road here. In the Lost Road, Sauron is also brought as a captive, so it is the same as in our version, but here there is an added story that he rescued the fleet from a storm, as a sign of his power and the power of Melkor. I think this story actually helps us understand how he was able to convince the King to worship Melkor so easily. Tolkien never contradicted the story in any later writing, and therefore I see no reason to leave it out. Quote:
AK-HA-12: I fixed up the use of you/thou. Most of the later uses of 'you' are in the plural sense referring to Elendil and his sons, so I left them as 'you'. I moved the editing marker earlier to accommodate some other changes: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
AK-SL-10: This is fine, but following it are more changes needed due to the illegality of Elvish. Firstly this is a general change in the chapter. The original text has 'Tarkalion' throughout, and Fin changed it to 'Tar-Calion.' However, he would certainly never be known by his Elvish name, and thus should always be referred to as 'Ar-Pharazôn'. I call this first occurrence AK-SL-10.1. Later on, we have Elendur give him a title in Quenya: Quote:
AK-SL-12: This is a small grammatical change. The change should be "{but four}[less than two twelves]". 'Than' is for comparison, 'then' is for progression. AK-SL-13: This is fine, but some more Elvish changes: Quote:
AK-SL-14.1: I made a separate marker for this, but in the english translation of the song is the first occurrence of the name 'Alkar' for Melkor. I think we must change all these to Melkor, since the name is a fleeting idea of Tolkien's which he later rejected. CT says as much himself. The name occurs nowhere outside this text and makes no sense with everything else in the established canon. AK-SL-14.2: A little further on, there is a footnote after hón-maren. However, this footnote is not needed, since the definition of the word is given right in the body of the text. The footnote is merely CT referencing the relevant section of the etymologies. Therefore I say we remove the footnote entirely. AK-14.3: At the end of the first paragraph of Isildur's historical tale, there is an innacuracy: Quote:
AK-SL-15.1: This has no marker so I am giving it one. In the paragraph after AK-SL-15 there is an occurrence of 'Avallon' to refer to Eressea. This was an older idea of Tolkien's that he rejected, relegating Avallon to Avalone, a specific haven in Eressea. Therefore it should be changed thus: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
AK-SL-28.1: This is the discussion of the languages used by Sauron. It needs severe updating. I ended up having to remove most of it, since it no longer applied: Quote:
AK-SL-30: This is a shaky addition I found, and it may very well be impossible. I figured I would bring it up and discuss if it should be included: Quote:
Last edited by ArcusCalion; 06-10-2018 at 10:30 PM. |
|||||||||||||||
06-09-2018, 12:07 PM | #3 |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 247
|
Only a fast thing. I know Alkar only appears in this text (or at least in this period of time, I think, I think remembering), but in my opinion could be used as an alternative name of Melkor in Númenor. Well...
And in my opinion the matter of the "flying ships" doesn't work, it should have been developed by the professor better. I agree with Arcuscalion on the inclusion of the arrival of Sauron in that way. Greetings Last edited by gondowe; 06-09-2018 at 12:11 PM. |
06-09-2018, 07:37 PM | #4 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
BY-HL-16: I agree to ArcusCalions argument. So we will change the title.
AK-HA-01: Okay, I forgot to mention the things that I did not develop back to the original text. But in this case their was only a remark about an earlier version. AK-HA-03: As far as I remember, one king was by accident left out of the Appendix A of LotR and Christopher felt bound to this. AK-SL-02: Agreed. AK-SL-04: Agreed. AK-SL-05: Agreed. AK-SL-06: Agreed. So I like to edit it by splitting the insert and not inserting part of the deleted text. AK-SL-07: I wanted the reasoning be named. So what about this: Quote:
Quote:
But to the use of ‘Tar-marion’ at this place I don’t agree. We might add it earlier when we speak about the things that the Númenoreans hear about Sauron. But in Númenor Sauron was never king, so the prefix ‘Tar-‘ is not appropriate. I think we should use ‘Marion’. AK-HA-12: I don’t think this is right. Tolkien wanted to make a difference between father addressing the son and son addressing the father. AK-SL-09: Is it not a bit inconsistent to include ‘Tar-marion’ but remove the Quenya from the speech of Isildur and Elendur? But however we are after the restoration of Tar-Palantir, so it might be that it was not before Sauron convinced Pharazôns to attack Valinor, that Quenya was again forbidden. AK-SL-12: Agreed. AK-SL-14: I agree that we should update the Quenya. AK-SL-14.1: I have to think a bit more about this. It is not impossible to use the name in this text only, but you might be right. AK-SL-14.2: Okay. AK-SL-14.3: Agreed. AK-SL-15.1: Agreed. AK-SL-23 through AK-SL-28: Agreed. AK-SL-28.1: See above. I think the discussion can more or less stand as it is. The reference might than not be to Andunaic but a some other language that Sauron promotes, that is even farther removed from the elvish influence. AK-SL-30: Even so it is risky, I like that addition. Respectfully Findegil |
||
06-09-2018, 11:07 PM | #5 | |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
AK-SL-07: Agreed, I like this.
AK-HA-09: Ahh, ok. AK-SL-08: To the Tar-Mairon question, I see your point. I agree to use Mairon. AK-HA-12: Hmm this might be difficult then. I will give this more thought. AK-SL-09: I see that, but Sauron does not yet know the political status of Numenor, and we are told by Tolkien that Sauron referred to himself as Mairon. We therefore cannot use Sauron here, but we may debate if we wish to use the Adunaic name for him: Zigûr (given in the Drowning of Anadune). As to the Elvish, I had forgotten about Tar-Palantir, but I think with Pharazon being a complete continuation of the King's Men and the rule of his father and other anti-elvish peoples, we must assume that he reinstated their policies. It says that Tar-Palantir was the last to support the Faithful, and so I can hardly say that Pharazon would continue to allow the speaking of Quenya. AK-SL-14: I will then post my proposal for the edit: Quote:
AK-SL-28.1: This, for me, is impossible. The 'ancestral speech of Men' clearly means Adunaic, and to have it refer to some (hitherto unmentioned) speech seems to me to be a great liberty taken, and not to be what Tolkien intended. In this older story the situation is clearly different. In this version, there had been far fewer kings of Numenor, and Tarkalion was the first evil king. Therefore all the anti-elvish sentiment was still new and the languages of Men were unused and forgotten. However, in the newer version this is simply not true, and the Adunaic is spoken by the vast majority of Numenoreans as a daily speech. In fact, the use of Adunaic instead of elvish is seen as a sign of the King's Men, (since they took their regnal names in Adunaic) and so to revive some other unknown language would go counter to their goals and culture all along. Therefore I feel very strongly that we cannot use this discussion, due to its outdated and in-applicable nature. AK-SL-30: Gondowe expressed his concerns for this addition, but to me saying 'it should have been more developed' is not a reason for excluding something. We need a contradiction or an impossibility in order to get rid of something, and as this is new information not found elsewhere, I think it is worth including. Last edited by ArcusCalion; 06-10-2018 at 10:26 PM. |
|
06-10-2018, 01:10 AM | #6 |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 247
|
What I wanted to mean is that it comes from a text older than the Akallabeth, not retaken later. And such remarkable "technology" must appear or have notice of that even in the Third Age, and that not happens, it is not "developed" so it seems very rare to have this paragraph here and then, what...? (IMHO).
As for Alkar I still think that is valid because we are agreed that this legends are mannish and it cuold be a name taken by the Numenoreans (or some of them) as an alternative name for the Ainu in his orinal form, but nevertheless it is not so important for the story itself. Greetings |
06-11-2018, 05:37 PM | #7 | ||||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
AK-SL-09: Hmm, yes Pharazôns reverted the restoration of Palantir as soon as he had married Míriel. But that in the house of the lords of Andunië the knowledge of Quenya was maintained can not be doubted. And we have here Isildur one of the Leaders of the Faithful, raised during the restoration period and his son being one a secret visit in their own old home in an area of the land that must have been rather empty after the Faithfull had to move to Rómenna. Why shouldn’t they speak Quenya on such an occasion?
AK-SL-16.5: About Saurons name: I agree to use Mairon in AK-SL-09, but probably we should mention Zigûr as well. It is translated ‘wizard’. And therefore probably not suitable for Sauron to use it for himself. But we could add it in here; Quote:
AK-SL10.1: General change {Tarkalion}[Ar-Pharazôns]: Agreed. AK-SL-10.2: Here I think we have simply to remove Nuaran Númenóren. I think we can not use Adûnakhôr as that was the title of one of Pharazôns ancestors, an d I don’t think it would have been reused. AK-SL-13.4 & AK-SL-14: Okay, the version of Helge should be okay. I agree as well that in this special case Alkar should be replaced by Melkor in the Text of the poem and in the translation. AK-SL-14.1: ‘Alkar the Radiant’ reminded me of the following passages, One from Myths Transformed, Text II: Quote:
Quote:
AK-SL-28.1: I agree that the discussion cannot stand as it is, but I would try to remove only the contradiction: Quote:
Respectfully Findegil |
||||
06-11-2018, 06:42 PM | #8 | |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
AK-SL-09: I think a lot of the point of this story is that Elendur is much less knowledgable of the Faithful and how deep his family is into it. So I think he would not be speaking Quenya so openly. Also, later on, he is very scared that Sauron's servants will hear his father speaking ill of Sauron, and urges him to stop talking. If he thought they were being watched so closely, he would not speak Quenya out in the open.
AK-SL-16.5: Agreed, I like this very much! AK-SL-09.7: This is actually a very good point, and so I will agree to leave it. AK-SL-10.2: Agreed AK-SL-14.1: This seems to me to be a very risky thing to leave, but I suppose I cannot find reasons in our rules to change it, and so I suppose we can leave it in. However, I think we must equate Alkar with Melkor, since the first occurrence of the name is not explained. I think we should do it like this: Quote:
AK-SL-28.1: Agreed, this works. AK-SL-30: This is very very true. Last edited by ArcusCalion; 06-11-2018 at 07:04 PM. |
|
06-12-2018, 03:48 AM | #9 |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 247
|
Findegil wrote.
AK-SL-30: gondowe, I see your point. But this last paragraph of the Akallabêth is in all its parts ‘prophetic’ or ‘anachronistic’, looking into a far future from the time of the Downfall. Neither the discovery of the new lands in the west that did know death as well as the old lands nor the discovery of the fact that the earth was round were ever mentioned in any narrative of the Third Age. Therefore all these events could have been still in the future at the time of Bilbo and Frodo or Saelon of The New Shadow for that matter. So a development of aircrafts (as is clearly described in this passage) is possibly as well in the future. And that flight pioneers, when they came down amid ‘wild people’ where not always unhappy to be held in awe is for sure witnessed in our own real history and used as a motive in many tales (e.g. C-3PO and his friends among the Ewoks in ‘The Return of the Jedi’). Yes, I also can see your point, and is something I thought when I faced this paragraph at first time. But, although this could be again a misunderstanding from me of the English text, I thought and I think that, at least as the text is presented, that point of view is erroneous. In the later Akallabeth is stated that the Númenoreans knew of the new round world (I suppose simply by the conventional sailing). In the LOTR is implicit this round world (not said with all the words but implicit), The Eldar and the Dunedain knew it. The "Númenoreans of old" in my opinion shouldn't be Númenoreans of the fifth or later ages, to say. But (again with no certain security cause I have not my texts with me, I beg you pardon if I'm mistaken) I think the later Akallabeth have many passages taken directly of this version, and possibly is a fact that the same professor didn't liked this flying ships and rejected them. I don't know. Greetings |
06-12-2018, 03:45 PM | #10 | |||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
AK.SL-14.1: Okay, but must it not be ‚whom of old we named‘?
AK-SL-09: Okay, probably you are right and the removal of the Quenya is the safer way to go. I will go through each single change not yet agreed upon: AK-SL-09.5: I think we have to remove with the Quenya the strange feeling of Isildur: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But I do not share your impression that the passage in the later Akallabêth refers to a time immediately after the Downfall. Even so I agree that in LotR the Round world might be implied (but for sure not very explicit), that does not mean much, since it could refer to the Myths Transformed cosmology where the world was round from the start. But since we rejected this (for this project), we would not be bound to it. Respectfully Findegil |
|||
06-12-2018, 06:52 PM | #11 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
AK-SL-14.1: I think you're right.
AK-SL-09.5: Agreed AK-SL-13.1 to 13.35: Agreed AK-SL-29.5: Agreed, but I think we need to slightly update the Quenya. It should be: Atarinya tyë-melinyë |
06-13-2018, 04:22 PM | #12 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
AK-SL-29.5: Agreed.
Respectfully Findegil |
06-15-2018, 08:47 AM | #13 |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 247
|
AK-SL-30: Yes, it is a possibility that JRR Tolkien rejected this passage intentionally. And if we want to go on the safe side, we should remove it.
But I do not share your impression that the passage in the later Akallabêth refers to a time immediately after the Downfall. Even so I agree that in LotR the Round world might be implied (but for sure not very explicit), that does not mean much, since it could refer to the Myths Transformed cosmology where the world was round from the start. But since we rejected this (for this project), we would not be bound to it. Sorry to bring up again this. It´s only to show that for me this passage of Akallabeth: Thus in after days, what by the voyages of ships, what by lore and star-craft, the kings of Men knew that the world was indeed made round, and yet the Eldar were permitted still to depart and to come to the Ancient West and to Avallónë, if they would. Therefore the loremasters of Men said that a Straight Road must still be, for those that were permitted to find it. refers to a period where still depart Eldar and I think this must be at least so later than the Fourth Age. (In my humble opinion) Greetings |
06-15-2018, 04:46 PM | #14 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
gondowe wrote:
Quote:
Anyhow to develop the idea of aircrafts to follow the straight road one has to understand that the ocean is bent along the round surface of the world. Thus the aircrafts are later then the knowledge of the round world fact. Respectfully Findegil |
|
06-16-2018, 01:41 AM | #15 |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 247
|
Well, this is one thing we cannot be agreed. In this case I need more opinions because is posible I'm wrong but I cannot see it now.
And goes to swell the list of three or four divergences in terms of narrative "history" that we have, as far as I can remember. Apart from the structure, which for me is not important (its divergence). Greetings |
06-17-2018, 01:10 PM | #16 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
gondowe, if we could not convince you, then I would say we skipt it, since neither ArcusCalion nor me where adamant on this addition.
Respectfully Findegil |
06-18-2018, 10:24 AM | #17 |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 247
|
No, I think is better more opinions (Aiwendil, Galin, perhaps) with other arguments either for or against. The same could be said of the other divergences ... but that would be another story and in another thread.
Greetings |
06-18-2018, 10:44 AM | #18 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
I fully agree that more opinions are allwys very much welcome.
Respectfully Findegil |
12-24-2018, 11:50 AM | #19 | |||||||||||||
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 121
|
Regarding the debate about flying ships: As it is currently laid out, the paragraph about flying ships and the passage about the Eldar leaving do not necessarily refer to the same time period. The paragraph about flying ships could only refer to aircraft of modern times since no aircraft are present in any tale from the third age. But if it refers to modern times, I don't think it works as it stands. The text states that the aircraft "came also to the lands of the new world, and to the East of the old world." The new world must refer to the Americas and the old world refers to Europe and Asia. The first transatlantic flights actually went from the Americas to Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transa...lantic_flights). There was a popular contest over who could do it first and it was discussed in newspapers, so presumably many people knew about it. This makes the statement "and they took these mariners of the air to be gods, and some of the Númenóreans were content that this should be so." unbelievable. I doubt people viewed the first aviators as gods. Furthermore, the text states that it is because of these flights that we discovered the Earth was round, but we knew the Earth was round around the 3rd century BC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth). I think this paragraph is highly problematic since it so clearly contradicts actual history. I would be OK with allusions like this to the "distant future" if they were accurate. I personally think it should be removed.
Other than that, I have a few comments: 1) The term "Powers" is used to refer to the Valar. Is there a rule for when we use "Powers" or "Valar" or are they used interchangeably? I am sorry if this was discussed in another thread; if so, just point me to it. 2) I propose a change when we introduce Pharazon for the first time: Quote:
3) I am confused about the section after AK-SL-03: Quote:
4) There appears to be the same thing said twice here: Quote:
Quote:
4) A small grammatical fix: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
6) I have a question about the usage of you/your vs. thou/thy. As an example, in a speech by Amandil: Quote:
7) I think we should remove any instances of the words sounding strange in the Lost Road section. The reason they sound strange is because of the frame narrative of traveling back in time. I found one section where it was not removed: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[QUOTE Then Manwë upon the Mountain called upon Ilúvatar, and for that time the Valar laid down their government ...[/QUOTE] With the addition: Quote:
|
|||||||||||||
12-25-2018, 01:47 PM | #20 | |||||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
AK-SL-30; The Flying ships:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But it is clear that this is a very critical passage. To be on the save side we should remove it, or not take it up. 1) I don’t think we ever used ‘Powers’ to replace ‘Gods’. {Gods}[Valar] was a general change. So ‘Powers’ is only used if it was used in the original text of JRR Tolkien. 2) AK-SL-02: I agree that a change is recomandable here. But ‘was’ is not much better for me, so what about ‘became’? 3) The reference of ‘her’ is in the sentence before: ‘his[Pharazôn’s] cousin , daughter of Inziladûn‘, so Míriel is meant. As we did not change this passage, the unclearness is in the original and I wouldn’t change it. 4) I am okay with this change, but I think your editing is a bit defective, as you have left in the move passage at the end of the passage. So what about this: Quote:
5); 8) and 9) Ak-FN-01; Ak-FN-02 and Ak-FN-03: Nice find! I agree to these additions. There nothing against the usage of such passages. 6) thou, thy versus you/your: What we tried was to have all references to Elendil and his belonging as thou and thy, while all references to him and others as a group you and yours. 7) I think we did not removed that feeling in that special case, because her for the only time his son uses Quenya, which at this time in Númenor could feel strange. Respectfully Findegil |
|||||
12-26-2018, 12:29 AM | #21 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
Airships"Your objections make a lot of assumptions. It is true that these flying ships could not feasibly have been built till after LotR, but as Fin says, between even the Fourth Age and our current time is an enormous gap. Tolkien posits that we are currently at the end of the sixth Age (in 1960s) so it is conceivable that we are in the very beginnings of the seventh age at this time. The Second and Third ages are around 3400 and 3200 years long each, and even if the next 3 were shorter, that still means a time period of around 9000 years between the end of LotR and the current year. This is plenty of time for the Numenoreans to have developed airships of their own and flown to the new lands, and for people to have taken them to be gods. I do not think the assumption that it must refer to our own historical discovery of flight holds water. In addition, the text does not say this is the reason they knew the earth was round, only that it was the final confirmation of this fact.
1) As Fin says, we did not make this any sort of general change. Tolkien uses the term at times. There are times where we may have changed 'Valar' to 'Powers' in the Akallabeth text, but only if CT has said that this change would reflect the original state of Tolkien's text as opposed to his own edited version in the published Sil. 2) Agreed, good catch. I am fine with 'was'. 3) I agree with Fin, the reference is to his cousin who is mentioned just before, and any confusion is included in Tolkien's own wording, so we can't change it. 4) I like Fin's recommendation best, since it keeps more and flows just as nice. AK-SL-08: Agreed, nice catch! 5) Awesome find! 6) This was, as Fin says, a delicate balance, and it may need some revision. 7) The idea is as Fin says that it is shocking to hear the Quenya from his son, who was almost expressing support for Sauron earlier, and it signals that he might not be as brainwashed as we think. However, if you are adamant that does not work, we can remove it. 8) Good find! 9) Great find! I would just add a 'he' after 'mountain' to make the grammar work with the new construction. I just want to say, that gandalf, your combing through our drafts has been really helpful and I can already see great improvement in flow and structure and substance, so thank you for your tireless efforts! Last edited by ArcusCalion; 12-26-2018 at 12:38 AM. |
12-26-2018, 04:11 PM | #22 |
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 121
|
I will try to respond to both Fin and Arcus:
[Airships]: I hadn't even considered the idea that the passage is referring to a period after the third age but before our modern discovery of flight. You guys are right, this passage could refer to that time period. I suppose this passage doesn't break any of the rules set forth for the project, and I don't have any other objections to it, so I vote we keep it. 1) Got it. 2) The word "became" would work if we had already been introduced to the character, I think "was" works best. 3) OK, I agree. 4) I agree, I like Fin's recommendation too. 6) I think this rule makes sense. 7) Re-reading it, I think it does work, I vote we keep it. Arcus, no problem! You guys have done the vast majority of the heavy lifting, I think you've done an admirable job combining so many disparate sources into something coherent. |
12-27-2018, 03:06 PM | #23 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
2) My problem with ‘was’, is that I think we tell later in this chapter how Pharazôns becomes ‘even more restless and eager for wealth and power than his father‘.
Posted by gandalf85: Quote:
Respectfully Findegil |
|
08-20-2023, 11:21 AM | #24 | ||
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tol Morwen
Posts: 358
|
Can someone tell me if the 'First Phase' of the Later Quenta (in Morgoth's Ring) was written before or after the last version of the Akallabeth?
I ask because in the 'First Phase' there is an occurrence of the name 'Avallone' used for the entire island, instead of the easternmost city: Quote:
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Arvegil145; 08-20-2023 at 11:25 AM. |
||
08-20-2023, 04:42 PM | #25 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
|
08-24-2023, 05:51 AM | #26 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tol Morwen
Posts: 358
|
I see - by '1958', do you mean just additions and corrections? Since I was under the impression that the final version of the Akallabeth story (as such) was written by Tolkien around c. 1951 or so.
Anyway - the motivation behind my previous reply is that I'm not quite sure that Tolkien made up his mind about whether or not 'Avallone' was the name of the city or the name for Tol Eressea as a whole. And if we are going to keep the version where the name refers to the city/harbour in the east of Tol Eressea, I think we should rename it to 'Avallonde', since: 1) The name is already attested 2) The element '-londe' means 'Harbour' - as opposed to '-lone' (meaning 'Island')
__________________
Quote:
|
|
08-25-2023, 02:43 PM | #27 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
|
Avallone could be the name of the habour, even so '-lone' means island. It could be a shortend version of some longer name meaning things like the 'habour on the Island near Valinor'
Respectfully Findegil |
08-28-2023, 07:51 AM | #28 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
I would like to say I am categorically against changing the name to Avalonde based on a hunch. Even if it seems odd in meaning, it is not for us to make up new names in this way it seems to me.
|
08-28-2023, 08:21 AM | #29 | ||
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tol Morwen
Posts: 358
|
Quote:
See the entry on Eldamo for a more in-depth look at the development of the name: https://eldamo.org/content/words/word-3289261925.html
__________________
Quote:
|
||
09-04-2023, 05:01 AM | #30 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tol Morwen
Posts: 358
|
Isn't the Akallabeth basically a fusion of two sources, Elvish and Mannish (i.e. The Fall of Numenor and the Drowning of Anadune)?
If so, shouldn't we expect certain things (such as the 'flying ships') to be present in one telling of the story and not the other? In other words, just because something is missing in the Akallabeth itself, doesn't necessarily mean that Tolkien rejected it. And since we're not creating a 'work of literature' so much as a giant 'lore compendium' (so to speak), I think we have the luxury of making things explicit that Tolkien might otherwise not.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
08-08-2024, 12:43 PM | #31 | |
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Aug 2023
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 43
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|