![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#41 | ||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
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: 1,715
![]() |
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: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
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: 1,715
![]() |
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: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
I continue to make my way through this slowly. Some more comments for now:
CE-EX-25: I suppose LQ does add some details here that may be worth including, but I think that since we have included sections 41-45 of AAm, we must make a small deletion: Quote:
CE-SL-11: Following Tolkien’s own change to the text here, I think we have to delete a little bit more: Quote:
CE-EX-26: As ever, I think I’m a little bit more hesitant than others to transplant scattered bits from the Lost Tales into our narrative, but I can make no real objection to this. But there is a ‘may’ that must become ‘might’ in the past tense. Also, I am not completely sure, but I think that in later Quenya, the root vowel is prefixed to a verb in the perfect tense, so it should become utulielto instead of tulielto (cf. utulien aure, ‘the day has come’). So: Quote:
CE-EX-28: It’s true that Angainor still exists in the later versions, though I must admit that some of the LT detail of its making feel a little out of place to me. But chiefly I worry about the name tilkal and its strange etymology. As far as I can tell, ‘tambe’, ‘latuken’, ‘ilsa’, and ‘kanu’ never show up again after the LT era, and in later Quenya, ‘laure’ is explicitly said to refer to gold as a colour, but not to the metal. I suppose we could try keeping ‘tilka’, but removing the etymology: Quote:
There is also a missing change from ‘Angaino’ to ‘Angainor’ just following this. ‘Vorotemnar’ and ‘Ilterindi’ looks fine to me, though. CE-EX-29: There seems to me to be both some redundancy and some contradiction here between LT, MT, and LQ - notably, that in LQ the Valar go immediately to war and show no intention of “entreating” Melkor to change his ways, so at the very least I think this statement from LT must go. Moreover, I think the MT statement is (aside from being again written with an analytical rather than narrative tone) part of what we might have to consider a projected and unimplementable sketch for a new version of the story, where Utumno is not sacked by the Valar, but rather Melkor guilefully surrenders to them. But I suppose I should consider that when I come to the proper place in reviewing the text. Of more immediate concern is that this statement clearly contradicts LQ, where the intention of the Valar is to defeat Melkor, not merely to provide a “covering action” to defend the Quendi. Findegil has made one change to eliminate this contradiction, in the deletion of “and make an end”, but we still have this: Quote:
Quote:
I would, therefore, do this: Quote:
CE-EX-30: I’ve gone back and forth on this a little bit, but in the end I don’t think I have any problem with the inclusion of this description of the Valar’s battle array. Coming back to CE-EX-03, my inclination is still not to include it, as I think the motivation for the council is already very clearly implied, but again, it's a minor point and if others disagree I certainly won't put up a fight. |
|||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#48 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
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: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Continuing to work through this slowly, as we now come to what I think may be the most difficult (or at least most contentious) bit.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
CE-EX-39: Now we come to what I’m sure will prove one of the real sticking points. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the story given in MT VI must be considered a projected change under principle 2b, that we cannot take up. That text does not constitute a narrative; it is a working note, in Tolkien's voice, on changes he intended to make to the story. To make it work as narrative, it is (as I think Findegil's draft shows) necessary to perform a lot of editorial work, and in the end the product is not really satisfactory. Now, it is true that we have a long-established precedent of not worrying about style, and not worrying if two texts written in very different styles stand next to each other. But as far as I'm concerned, that is about narrative texts in different literary styles - mixing in texts clearly written from an 'external' point of view and in a distinctly non-literary style is something else entirely. Moreover, it's one thing to take a paragraph from one source and a paragraph from another, very different, one; it's again another thing entirely to take two texts that tell utterly different stories, one a full-scale narrative and the other an author's note to himself, and to mangle them together phrase by phrase. So, I think we are more than justified under principle 2b in rejecting any elements of MT VI that cannot be adopted without butchering the text. The only question in my mind is whether any of it should be adopted, or whether the whole thing must be considered of a piece, and rejected entirely. As I see it, MT VI says the following things: 1. Melkor was, in origin, the greatest of the Valar 2. The Valar went to war with Melkor without any real hope of victory 3. Melkor had dispersed much of his power into his servants and into the very fabric of Arda 4. Manwë and Melkor both become aware of this change in Melkor when they encounter each other 5. Melkor submits, or pretends to submit, to the Valar (rather than being defeated and chained). Point 1 presents no problem, and we've already incorporated it in chapter 1. Point 2 we have discussed here already, and it doesn't pose any problems for the storyline, though how to incorporate it without mangling the text is an open question. Similar considerations apply to points 3 and 4, I think - they are not problematic from a story point of view, but I think the current way they are incorporated into Findegil's draft is not good. Note that even if we decide that these points are valid, that does not necessarily mean that we must find some way of introducing them into the text - these could be considered simply an extra-textual analysis of the story. Point 5, though, contradicts the narrative texts of this section, and this is the point that I think must be regarded as an unworkable projected change. So the questions for me are, first, whether we can really consider these separate points or must consider them as a whole and discard the whole thing, and second, if we decide on the former, whether points 2, 3, and 4 can be worked into the text in a reasonable way. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#51 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
Greetings. Life has been very busy for me lately, and so I have not had time to review all these updates and discussions. I will only drop in now to say that {Vailimo}[Vaiaro] was my attempt to update the old Qenya to Quenya, and may indeed be inaccurate. In addition, the updated Quenya of Oromë's declaration should be: 'Utúlieltë' and the Valar's response should be 'I-Eldar utúlier'
Last edited by ArcusCalion; 04-07-2019 at 02:49 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#52 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
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: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
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: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
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: 1,715
![]() |
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: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
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: 1,715
![]() |
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 |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#60 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
It's a well-worn refrain by this point, but once again, I'm sorry I haven't been around in a while.
If Findegil or anyone else is still around, I'm going to make an effort to get back to work on this. My general feeling after reading the last proposal is that I still don't find it satisfactory, but I will try to re-read it and identify my objections more specifically. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#61 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
Hi Aiwendil,
nice to read from you again! Yes, I am still here to discuse what so ever specific critisem you can bring forward. Respectfully Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#62 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
All right, here are my comments on the latest proposal.
CE-SL-11.5b: I gather that the point of this is to remove mention of "taking up again the mastery of Arda" to bring this in line with MT VI, but it introduces a redundancy, since the Valar's trepidation about the hurts they will cause to Arda is then mentioned twice. Also, the editing of Manwe's speech makes him repeat "Melkor" unnecessarily. If we do edit this to agree with MT, I think better would be: Quote:
CE-EX-28.2: I'm still unsure about "tilkal". Even if we accept tambe, latuken, ilsa, and kanu (and I have doubts about the phonology of latuken and ilsa in later Quenya), laure, I'm pretty sure, only refers to the colour, not the metal after the Lost Tales. But I'd need to refresh myself on Quenya, or consult someone more knowledgeable, to be sure. Again, though, I don't see a problem with the word "magic" here. CE-EX-28.4: I think that Vorotemnar and Ilterindi are fine in later Quenya, though again, my Quenya knowledge is very rusty. CE-EX-28.6: I still feel that the language here is very much that of an analytical note by Tolkien, not a narrative. You rightly remove "covering action", but "sphere of influence" still grates. However, I'm not sure that this addition is needed for the purpose you use it for - already above, we say that they wish to make war upon Melkor "and deliver the Quendi from the shadows" (of Melkor). So I suggest that even if we are taking up this part of the <b>MT</b> story, we do not actually need this addition. CE-EX-37b: There is still confusion here caused by merging the LT and AAm stories. In the latter, and in our text, it is told that the siege lasts for years. In AAm this is followed by the statement that at last the gates of Utumno were broken. In the proposal here, however, it's followed by the statement from LT that the Valar came to the gates of Utumno and Melkor shut them before their faces. In LT, this describes the beginning of an altogether far shorter battle, but it rings very odd here. I suppose one could posit that in all the war up to this point, the Valar had never actually come close enough to the gates that Orome's horn could have blasted them open, but this seems like quite a stretch to me, especially since AAm specifically locates the fighting before the gates of Utumno. As nice and vivid as the LT imagery is, I still think it has to go in this instance. CE-EX-37.5: The statement that the halls are unroofed is from AAm, whereas unless I'm mistaken the description of Tulkas and Ulmo breaking the gates but not utterly destroying the caverns is from LT. If there's a contradiction, then, the halls being unroofed has to take precedence. CE-EX-38.1b and following: The addition from LT is, I gather, intended to help achieve the story of MT VI. But the character of the interaction between Melkor and the Valar here is quite different from anything in the later sources, and I don't think that it quite works. In LT (and CE-EX-38.1b), Melko somewhat comically speaks to the Valar as if they were friends he was inviting to tea, and this kind of fairy-tale naive guile doesn't at all fit with the later conception of Melkor, much less with that in MT. But more importantly, this doesn't actually do anything to achieve the story in MT VI, for there Melkor's deception is one of feigned repentance and abasement, not feigned congeniality. In LT, the Valar then decide that they cannot overcome Melkor by force (which you have edited out here) and therefore they pretend to accept his "fawning insolence" in order to come at him unawares, even to the point of saying they have come to salute him. This, too, is gone in the later sources and nothing in MT suggests that it was resurrected. CE-EX-38.6b and following: As I've argued above, I think the LT material doesn't actually do anything to establish the story from MT, which means that these insertions are doing all the work. And I'm afraid they still simply don't read as narrative to me. The first part (38.6b) is less problematic, but the rest (38.7b, 38.8b) is very much in the voice of Tolkien making notes for himself, not that of a narrative - on top of which the many (necessary) deletions make it read somewhat oddly. 38.9 is certainly fine narrative prose, and in fact of all the LT additions so far is the only one that seems to me to go some way toward telling the story Tolkien outlined in MT VI - but it is not enough. CE-EX-45, -39e: Again, the distant, analytical writing of MT VI is very jarring against the vivid narrative of LT. But I don't think this is as problematic as the section at CE-EX-38.1b. Those are my specific reactions to the current proposal - but to step back slightly, my view of this is that I don't really see the value in going to heroic lengths to adopt the story as projected in MT VI, when it requires such drastic interventions in the text and - even in the best case - results in a text that is stylistically and tonally incoherent. I don't see that we have any obligation to follow MT in places where it radically departs from the story of LQ, AAm, and other late texts. I'm sorry to return from such a long hiatus with such an argumentative post! I hope you're doing well - I heard from a friend who lives in Germany that COVID was pretty bad there for a while; I hope your friends and family are safe and healthy. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#63 | |||||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
With that let’s start with Aiwendil’s specific reactions: CE-SL-11.5b: Agreed. CE-EX-28b: I do not think that the similarity between LT and MT is ‘superficial’. Some motives have long roots, and Manwë leaning always rather to peace and treaty than to victory by violence, is clearly one such long rooted motive. Considering MT storyline, how could we think that Melkor asking for pardon in the moment of obvious defeat, could have changed Manwë’s mind, if he had not believed that a true repentance of Melkor was possible? But none the less your criticism is right, since there is big difference of what Manwë might have hoped for and what the Valar in conclave did plan. For the storyline of MT VI work, where the Valar in conclave do deny the immediate freedom of Melkor, the earlier conclave can not hope to ‘entreat him to better deeds’. CE-EX-28.2: If ‘tilkal’ has to go as a name that is okay with me. The actual idea of this editing was to adopt the name without giving the meaning. I still think that ‘magic’ was in Tolkien’s later vocabulary reserved for the ‘deceits of the enemy’ (black magic). But I am open exchange it by some other fitting word instead of ‘power’. But my feeling is that the Greece-roouted ‘theurgy’ is totally out of tone. CE-EX-28.4: My knowledge of Quenya is clearly weaker than yours. If you think the names have to go that is ok for me. CE-EX-28.6: Agreed. CE-EX-37b: Okay, I see your point. We have to change this. CE-EX-37.5: Is there a contradiction? In AAm immediately after ‘the halls are unroofed’ ‘Melkor took refuge in the uttermost pit’. That wording suggests for me at least strongly that not all caverns where laid open. Specially if we look to the corresponding LQ text: ‘Nonetheless the fortress of Melkor at Utumno had many mighty vaults and caverns hidden with deceit far under earth, and these the Valar did not all discover nor utterly destroy, and many evil things still lingered there; …’ CE-EX-38.1b and following: I accept you criticism. The exchange with Melkor’s messenger has to go. CE-EX-38.6b and following: This is clearly the core issue and there is no way around at least some of these materials, if (as I still think we should) we want to tell the story as given in MT VI. Let’s see if I can do better below. CE-EX-45, CE-EX-39e: I think this can be amended by some ‘clever editing’. As the result is the same, we do not really need the actual text of MT VI here. Okay, here is my next try: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Respectfully Findegil |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#64 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
CE-EX-28b: Perhaps "superficial" was the wrong word, but my point (which I think we agree on) is that while the story in LT resembles the MT story in some ways, it also differs from it in important ways.
CE-EX-28.2: Sorry, I think I misread the proposed edit and missed that the etymology was removed. I'd need to do a little research to decide whether tilkal is OK - I'm afraid my Quenya knowledge is not as deep as it once was! CE-EX-28.4: No, what I meant was that I think these two names are good and we can keep them. CE-EX-37.5: I don't necessarily think there is a contradiction, for the reasons you give - my point was only that, in any case, th statement about the halls being unroofed should not be deleted. But to the main point, CE-EX-38.6b and following. I've taken a few days to think this over before replying, because it seems to be a real sticking point, and I'm not sure how to resolve it. Insofar as less of the text of MT VI intrudes here, I think it's an improvement. But the real crux of the issue for me, I think, is that no matter how we slice it, we inevitably have the critical moment of this story being narrated via a non-narrative text. It's a very jarring change in tone, and I'm afraid that the only way to avoid that would be to modify the text to the point where we're no longer editing Tolkien but rewriting him. To be honest, I'm even still a little bit uneasy about how much we're chopping up and adding in the LT, which also has a different tone, of course, from LQ and AAm, though in the end I think that that disparity is not great enough to warrant its wholesale exclusion. But when we add in MT text, especially to convey critical plot developments, it feels to me as if we've constructed Frankenstein's monster, an ungainly assemblage of pieces from obviously very different places sewn together. And the thing is, I don't see the necessity of doing it that way. I suppose you could say it's incumbent on us to try, since MT is later than AAm, and since we can't really know that a change is unworkable unless we try to work it. But the conclusion I'm drawing from these attempts is that it is, in fact, to be classed as an unworkable projection. So, I don't know. Left to my own devices, I certainly would not take up this particular element of MT VI, but the goal here is, of course, consensus. It seems that you feel pretty strongly in favour of incorporating this version of the story, so maybe you could explain why you see it as so worthwhile? Perhaps if I could see some real benefit to following MT in this instance, I would be willing to accept the scarring that this surgery is doing to the text, but as of now I just don't see it. Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#65 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
CE-EX-26b: Okay.
CE-EX-28.2 & CE-EX-28.4: If you find some linguistical doubts about any of these names, we can edit them out. CE-EX-37.5: Agreed, and my new version has it included. CE-EX-38.6b and following: Good that you see an improvement, otherwise it would have been a bit of a disappointment 😊. Quote:
Quote:
When ever Tolkien during his work on the Legendarium wrote at length about (e.g. LT, Laws and Customs) or analyzed (e.g. MT) the character of Manwe, the picture is that of a “thinker” rather than a “maker”. Manwe searches always for compromise not for conflict and avoids violence by all possible means. That picture does not come through in the shorter Sil77. There the focus is, somewhat naturally due to its shortness, on his actions: He gainsays Melkors claim for Arda in the beginning, he it is that resolves to attack Utumno and we assume that he send Eonwe to bring down Morgoth at the end of the first age. In our editing we do in some places already include a kind differentiation, like Manwe’s reluctance against the hiding of Valinor or the story of his concourse with Manwe about elvish re-embodiment. But the analysis in MT VI does much more: It set him in a sharp contrast to Melkor and in that way reveals a lot about both characters. (By the way LT did the same, but with a different characterization of Melko as it stood at that time.) A similar argument could be made about Melkors characterization, but since he is a “maker”, he is much more in the focus of the story and we can learn much more about him by judging his actions. None the less are the directness of MT VI about Melkors “dispersing” and the immediacy in which it tells us about Melkors “trembling moment” unique. That said it is clear (now) that we can not include that analysis in our main narrative. But there is still our famous Volume 3: THE LORE OF THE WISE. We could assume that we could include MT VI there, what ever we do with the storyline here, we “just” would have to edit it accordingly. But I think that will not work. Once Melkor is bound by Angainor, I do not see a chance for that reveling first encounter between Manwe and Melkor since ages nor for the trembling moment of near repentance of Melkor once Tulkas has stepped forward as champion of the Valar to fight him down. I hope, I could make my motivation clearer this time. Respectfully Findegil |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#66 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Thank you for explaining your reasoning. I certainly agree that, if possible, it would be nice to include as much of this elaboration of the characters of Manwe and Melkor as possible. I'm just not sure how much is possible.
It seems to me, though, that the more crucial point here is not so much Melkor's deceptive surrender at the climax of the battle as it is Manwe's inclination toward lenience and forgiveness. What if we were to keep the AAm/LQ narrative for the battle, with Melkor defeated and chained, but also keep the LT council where the Valar debate what to do with him? Then we would still have the strong characterization of Manwe as the seeker of reconciliation, but without having to rely on a sentence from MT to narrate a critical part of the story. We might even find it possible to touch up the LT council scene with bits from MT to suggest Melkor's feigned repentance at this point, and highlight Manwe's attempt at compromise. Thus, while rejecting the part of the MT story that contradicts AAm/LQ as an unimplementable projected change, we could use it to enrich the depiction of character and motive inherent in the earlier story. This would, in my opinion, do far less damage to Tolkien's texts than changing the whole story of the battle by splicing in sentences from MT. I'd also note that I don't see the chaining of Melkor here as precluding the moment of realization by him and Manwe about his dispersal of power, nor the moment of near repentance. The only difference is that in this case, despite the realization, Melkor at first tries to fight anyway, and it is only after he is defeated that he has his trembling moment. I wrote the above a week ago and intended to try my hand at editing the text in the way I suggest, but haven't had the time to sit down and do so. So I thought I might as well just post the suggestion so that you can think about the idea, and I'll try to provide a text to show what I have in mind later this week. Not sure if this idea is at all tenable for you, but I thought I'd throw it out there. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#67 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
Thank you for charring your thoughts. You may already anticipate that I will consider your idea only a second-best solution at best. But second best is sometimes what we have to accept for finding a consensus. And I am a professing combiner, so I am generally open for your idea.
But I have some doubts, that I may name here, for the sack of your editing process: - The timing and setting of the moment of realization is critical: I think it is an important factor that it is first time meeting after the beginning of Arda. And I don’t see Melkor realize the real reason for his own shrinkage directly after a “physical” defeat by the hand of Tulkas. In such setting he would probably blame his weakness rather to that defeat than to his ‘dispersion’. I could accept that Manwe did not meet Melkor in person at or around Utumno, even if we can only tell that implicit. (we could at least use MK IV to mention that Melkor was led to Valinor at the end of the row, as anybody would assume that Manwe as leader of the homecoming victorious forces would be at the front.) As you plan the moment of realization come at the council of the Valar that would decide about Melkor’s ‘doom’, I think we have to assume that he was led there not chained by Angainor. That item is at least for me more than a physical mean for chaining: It must have some mental binding characteristics to restrict one of the Valar (we have to take into account that it is still Melkor, who could by his own will leave the physical world behind, we are dealing with and not the later Morgoth who was bound to his physical body for good). Being chained by such an item would again weaken Melkor at least in his own perspective, and I at least have some problems to see him realize the real reason for his inability to daunt Manwe by his gaze while being bound by Angainor. Anyhow ‘knelling before Manwe’ seem improbable after he was ‘arraigned before all the {Vali}[Valar] great and small, lying bound before the silver chair of Manwë.’ But material to work with that issue is there, since MT IV states: ‘Then he … would have … burst out into flaming rebellion - but he is now absolutely isolated from his agents and in enemy territory. He cannot.’ I would not use that to explain before hand why Melkor was not bound at the council but if we can use it later at its proper place (when the ‘doom’ is set) it will explain it in retrospect. - That said, if we can handle it, we should as well include Melkor’s accusing Manwe of being faithless. - I can see that at the council the insertions from MT IV will break the action much less, but the gap in style is still there and may be even worth with the text formed out of LT and MT. So, for the sake of your own idea beware of the ‘Frankenstein’-effect! ;-) Looking forward to reading you editing. Respectfully Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#68 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
Greetings after such a long absence! With the new Nature of Middle-earth book coming out in the next month, I have been thinking once again of this project, and realized I never caught up and reviewed Aiwendil's proposed version of this chapter, and have not taken into account any of your discussions on the matter since. As it has been quite some time since I partook in this project (several years!) my familiarity with the chapter is next to none. I will start from the beginning of the thread and try to gather my thoughts on all the changes, and hopefully share my thoughts on it soon. I just wanted to let everyone know that I am going to return before I embarked on that project. I look forward to continuing!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#69 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
Posted by ArcusCalion:
Quote:
Welcome back. Findegil |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#70 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
I have been trying to work my way through all of the developments, and I have to say, Aiwendil's changes are hard to track given the fundamental restructuring which comes from using a new base text. Could that new version with AAm as the base text be posted in the private forum for easier analysis? I don't have as much free time to restructure the text myself from scratch I'm afraid
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#71 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
ArcusCalion, can you be a bit more specific where your stuck? I might be able to post a version of my working copy up to the recent main point of discussion. But that is of course not Aiwendils editing purely but (as far as it has come) the result of the discussion so far.
Aiwendil, re-reading our postings about your idea, I see that it must have been dicouraging for you. I am sorry for that, and I now think in the search for consensus more flexibility is worthwihle. I hope I got your idea of the storyline right: - The Valar sake Angband and drive the forces of Melkor before them to Utumno - The Valar set a watch upon Cuivienen. - The Siege of Utumno with many a battle before the gates - The Valar brake the Gates (by Orome's horn blow) and Manwe summons Melkor to come out. - Melkor does not come out and the Valar unroof the Halls of Utumno while Melkor takes refuge in the uttermost pits and lunches his last attack by the Balrogs - Conversation before the gate with Manwe warning about the demage that a farther open fight could cause and his searching allway for compromise rather than risking violence. - The Valar lay down their weapons and decent into the pits of Utumno. - Tulkas steps forward as the champion of the Valar and defeits Melkor. - Melkor is bound with Angainor, draged out of Utumno and the Vorotemnar and Ilterendi are set upon him (=> Thus Melkor can on the one hand go by himself being followed by Tulkas clincing on the chain of Angainor - implicit holding the end of that chain avoiding Melkor to stray from the path - and later at the council not laying bound by Manwe's feed he can kneel before Manwe.) - Melkor is led to Valinor - and the Council to judge Melkor is set up. (He must not lay bound before the chair of Manwe!) (- The argument of Makar from LT could be given to Melkor himself.) - After the departure of Tulkas from the council we insert Melkor pleading for pardon and offering help in the repair of evils and hurts he had done. (This would be the only part of MT VI to be taken up into our text.) - Manwe considering the case from LT. - Manwe's judgement should be a mixture from LT, AAm and LS. So I think now your story line idea to take the critcial moment of near repenteance to the council of the Valar juding Melkor's case can work and should be tried. If you don't find time for the editing of the text, please speak up and I will try my best to work from your idea. If that is the way we go forward, please correct my story line from above if necessary. Meanwhile I will take MT VI and try to edit in accord with that story line idea to fit our volume 3. I think it will be combined with MT VII. ArcusCalion, MT VII: Notes on Motives in the Silmarillion was one chapter in your draft for volume III. Cab you provide your draft, so that I can see where to fit MT VI? Respectfully Findegil Last edited by Findegil; 08-17-2021 at 09:38 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#72 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
Findegil, your updated version would be very helpful, if you still have my email.
As for Notes on Motives, I will email you what I have. Last edited by ArcusCalion; 08-17-2021 at 06:48 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#73 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
As I made a kind of connected / parallel editing of the account of the War of Powers and its aftermath here and in Notes on Motives in the Silmarillion, it does not make any sense to withhold the result here. Sorry Aiwendil if this renders some of your effort useless. To your relieve you will find as good as nothing added from MT. But you might still have some Frankenstein-feeling since the amount of LT material has been ‘enhanced’. But I think it should be bearable.
As a matter of fact I tried first to stick to Aiwendil’s story line as given in my post and when I produced the draft text, I was very optimistic about its success, and posted the draft for Notes on Motives in the Silmarillion. But when I wrote in the remark about my editing CE-EX-39.1 my hope nearly fell to despair. That fatal comment read originally thus (see specially the underlined part): Quote:
- It seems strange to me if Manwë first orders the war against Melkor and then stays home, but in the end that is what Denethor would call the duty of a wise ruler. - We never see Manwë stepping upon the blue chariot and wielding the bow that fired gusts of wind nor the sword of lightning to slay the Balrogs. - The Balrogs can assail ‘the standard of Manwë’, but can they be ‘withered by the wind of his wrath’ when he is far away at the Mountain of Taniquetil? Probably yes, figuratively, but it is a stretch. - All conversation with Manwë before the gate must be given to someone else or skipped. At that point in my thought, I decided against Aiwendil’s Story line and remembered one of our best friends in editing: ambiguity. The text that follows tries to combine both AAm/LQ story line and MT VI story line with both nearly unchanged. And since the plan is now to have MT VI as a whole, it should not be used (much) here and thus avoid the Frankenstein-effect. The basic idea is the following: Change the text here in a way that Manwë and Melkor meet only after Melkor is bound and hint only at Manwë’s reaction to it as given in full in MT VI. Change MT VI so that Melkor is defeated by Tulkas and bound but than meets Manwë still at Utumno and sues for pardon right there. The changes necessary to MT VI will be discussed in the thread Notes on Motives in the Silmarillion. Since the text is heavily edited, it makes no sense to reduce the text and I give it in full. Remarks on my editing will follow the text. Quote:
CE-SL-11.5c – CE-SL-13 & CE-EX-28b – CE-EX-38.2b & CE-EX-39g: I think, these changes have already been agreed upon. CE-EX-38.3: Even if we discussed this before, I may add here that it seems important to me to show Manwë’s reluctance even during the campaign. CE-EX-38.4c & CE-EX-38.5c: Now only Eönwë and Tulkas enter Utumno to allow Manwë meet Melkor only after the fight. CE-EX-38.51: Here the real changes being. As desired I kept fight between Tulkas and Melkor. The version of AAm has the benefit of given an additional reason why it is Tulkas alone. CE-EX-38.52: When we keep the fight, then I don’t see a good reason not to take up the details from LT. But of course we have to skip Aulë giving aid. CE-EX-38.53: There is here no change, but the question is if we consider that there is still vassalage to be commanded. CE-EX-38.54: The question here is of course if we can still say, that Melkor form that moment in history wore the Vorotemnar and Ilterendi for ever. In LT that was no question, since he never after gave up his bodily form. But in later versions (that we follow) he escapes from Valinor by going first north than giving up bodily form and going south to meet Ungoliant. Nonetheless I think he can be said to wear them. My reason is that these fetters have to have some verry special properties to bind an ealar. And we have an example of a physical object ‘transported’ by an ‘unhoused’ ealar: Sauron lost his body during the drowning of Númenor, but he caried the One Ring back to Middle-earth. For sure Sauron did that by his own free will and desire, but still I think with the special properties mentioned above Melkor could have been forced to carry the fetters along even when ‘unhoused’. CE-EX-46.5b: The strange numbering of this and the next change are due to my first editing. I think this is the ideal place to put Melkor’s suing and implicitly the trembling moment of realisation. That the full implication of this moment is only understood afterwards when reading the analysis of MT VI in volume 3 is a virtue and not a buck: reading the text here as it stands, the reader can still hope with Manwë that Melkor really repented and was only driven away from it by the harsh doom that Manwë had to announce to satisfy the other Valar. I took Melkor’s suing not from MT VI, because I wanted that text be stay intact. Instead it comes from the telling of the council that granted Melkor freedom after the imprisonment in Mandos as told in AAm. Up to now we used in our version telling about that later council the text from LQ which differs slightly. If we in the end use the text from AAm for that later council we will exchange this passage with the LQ text, to avoid exact same wording. For the necessity for Melkor to sue twice see the discussion about CE-EX-39.1 below. CE-EX-38.9c: The passage comes from a totally different place in LT, but if we want to use MT VI completely at a later point, than we cannot butcher it to pieces to form our text here. And we needed some text here to make the plot in MT VI work: Manwë must be shown to be driven by the demand of the assembly to a harsher doom than what he would have preferred (and Melkor expected). CE-EX-38.55b: Here we have a second concession to enable my edit of MT VI to work: Melkor must be able to kneel before Manwë not lay all the time prostrated before his feet. And if he can kneel down, he can walk by himself and must not be ‘borne’. When at first he was just ‘warped around’ with Angainor, it is clear that Tulkas has to drag him out of the pits of Utumno. But now he is bound by the fetters and the chain and done in a usual way a prisoner bound thus can stand, sit down, lay down or kneel down (on both knees and he might have difficulties to come up again) and walk by his own but he cannot run. You can of course bind down prisoner with fetters and a chain more restrictive as exemplified on Morgoth after the War of Wrath, but I do see a necessity here for more movement possibilities, which at least seem plausible. CE-EX-38.91c & CE-SL-17 & CE-EX-44d: These are nearly unchanged from my last version. They explain why there was some remains of Angband usable later and how Utumno was closed for Melkor for ever. In addition they give some worthwhile information about Melkors creatures either reassembled later or found in strange places like the door-warden in the lake at the west gate of Moria. CE-EX-44.1: I found this a worthwhile addition from AAm. CE-EX-45b: I extended this passage to include the leer upon Melkor’s face. If we take up the fight than its result should also be included. Again the question must be answered why Melkor could not ‘remove’ that leer when he build up a new body. (When he is later injured by Fingolfin and Thorondor, he is permanently incarnated as Morogth, so that limping and scars naturally remained.) But it seems that the ealar when housed in a body could not avoid to take some of the damage done to that body to have lasting effect. We have again Sauron as prominent example: First he drips blood after he was realised by Huan even so he had shape-shifted, and more important he had still only nine fingers when he tortured Gollum even so he had to rebuild that body longer after his defeat by the last alliance. CE-EX-45.1: This reason for the fight from LT has to go. CE-EX-46b: I gave Makar’s speech for Melkor’s case to Melkor himself. He seems the only one fit for putting same value into strife and conflict. And we must assume that he was allowed to speak in defence of his case. CE-SL-14: This was agreed upon already. CE-SL-15b: This we had changed when Melkor was chained, but now since he is bound by Angainor it can stand unchanged. CE-EX-39f: This is actually the only phrase taken from MT and its inclusion serves the same reason as explained in the discussion of CE-EX-38.9c above. CE-EX-39.1: In LT there has never been a second trial. Melkor did never sue for pardon, the doom was set and Melkor was handled accordingly, his time of punishment was only somewhat shortened due to the Valar’s joy about the coming of the Elves. In the later versions Melkor sues for pardon only after his imprisonment. But in MT VI we have him now sue for pardon much earlier. But MT VI says at the end that ‘The rest of the story, with Melkor's release … can then proceed more or less as already told.’ As we have no more specific information what Tolkien meant with the ‘more or less’, principal 2b forces us to go with a second trial and Melkor suing for pardon twice. CE-EX-47 & CE-SL-16b: These are the remains of our basic text edited to a usable form. Part of it was used earlier. CE-SL-18b: The original passage was as well used earlier, so it has to be removed here. And the passage inserted comes only from a few sentences above and might be a bit redundant. CE-EX-47.5: The description of Melkor’s reaction to the doom and the peace that followed after his imprisonment are most detailed in LT and therefore taken up here. Respectfully, Findegil |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#74 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Great to see you, ArcusCalion!
I had done some work on a new version along the lines of my proposal, but unfortunately a number of other things have conspired to keep me very busy. This will continue next week, but the week after I'll be on vacation and should have plenty of time to look over Findegil's latest post. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#75 | |||||||||
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
Well, after many days of reviewing and re-familiarizing myself with the text, the different versions, as well as the many many MANY layers of discussion about the same few paragraphs, I have organized my thoughts. Honestly, before reading Fin's last post, I had MANY more comments, but I will give him a LOT of credit - this version he has created is very very near to ideal, as it solves nearly (if not) all of Aiwendil's objections, while maintaining all of the essential essences of Tolkien's proposed changes from MT VI. Nonetheless, I have several, mostly minor stylistic or organizational suggestions, as well as various comments for other points in the chapter. Everything I do not specifically mention I agree to.
CE-EX-01: There is a portion of LT I think we can take up in the beginning here: Quote:
CE-EX-03.2/03.3: Again, another small inclusion from the Lost Tales to add some color to Varda's making of the Stars: Quote:
Quote:
CE-EX-27: I do not know why the use of 'Eldar' is problematic here. Just before this, we have this: Quote:
CE-SL-11.5c: I would change the sentence very slightly: Quote:
CE-EX-28.4: As to the question of these words' validity in later Quenya, it is complex. Vorotemnar seems to be voro - "ever, always" and some derivative of the early "qenya" root ᴱ√TEME - 'to bind, to tie." However, another root was later given this same meaning in Quenya: ᴹ√NUT. In the text Tolkien says "Vorotemnar that bind forever" so if we take it to mean (literally) "ever-binding" we can use Voronutalë. As for Ilterendi, this is much less clear. All we can guess at its meaning is that it likely came from the early Qenya root ᴱ√YḶTḶ meaning "to yoke, join." From this qenya yalta "yoke", and Gnomish ilt- "to yoke, join." This seems to have been replaced by another root much later ᴹ√YAN "join" from which we get words like Quenya yanta "bridge." The (er)endi portion of the word is obscure to me. The text explains that the meaning signifies "they may not be filed or cleft." However, I do not see how this meaning can be gleaned from this word. Any replacement name we give them would be entirely invented on our part, but the name as it is cannot be said to be accurate Quenya. CE-EX-35.1: I added a marker here for the discussion of Falman and Vailimo. I will do my best to lay out the linguistics of it. Falman is derived from the early version of the later root √PHAL - "foam, splash' as in falas and other words having to do with the shore. Specifically there exists the word Falma for 'crested wave' in later Quenya, which has been a word for a long time. The nominal ending -on is a common masculine name ending, and I believe Falman is simply an early version using -an instead of -on. Therefore I would keep the name, but change it to Falmon instead. As to Vailimo this is meant to be a title in the same vein as Súlimo, being a royal-type masculine suffix (-mo. Vai was Tolkien's old name for the Outer Ocean, which later became Vaiya and even later Ekkaia(Eccaia). I do not know if Eccaia replaced Vaiya or not, as both as still valid Quenya words with different etymologies, but from these we can get Vaiyamo or Eccaiamo as the updated title of Ulmo. Either should be fine, but I personally prefer Vaiyamo as it remains closer to the original and accords with it in meaning. Hopefully that made some sense! ![]() CE-EX-36.5: This passage from the Grey Annals seems worth including, and indeed I suggested so earlier in the thread, but it undoubtedly got lost in the many revisions. Anyway, here seems the best place to put it: Quote:
CE-EX-46b: I do not think this speech from Makar quite works put into the mouth of Melkor. It feels too 'cheeky' from him when he is meant to be enraged/humbled/despondent/plotting all at once. I think it is best to leave this dialogue out. CE-SL-15.2: I found a small addition from AAm which we can put here: Quote:
CE-EX-48: Tuivána is still a valid name for Vana, although it only appears in the Lost Tales. However, the Quenya is still good. CE-EX-49: See my above comments for CE-EX-01.5 but I think the inclusion of these references is worth keeping. CE-EX-50: I agree with Aiwendil that the references to Mandos and Nienna must be removed completely, but I think the dialogue we here attribute to Ulmo must go as well, as it completely goes against his character, as it was originally said by Makar: Quote:
CE-EX-52b: I agree to the new placement suggested, but I also found an inclusion we can take from the Lost Tales: Quote:
I think we are nearly to the end of this chapter! It has been quite a hard, long, and heated process, but I really do think that this chapter is becoming far better than it was before thanks to all of our work together. I look forward to hearing from you both! Last edited by ArcusCalion; 08-21-2021 at 04:43 PM. |
|||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#76 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
I haven't had time to review the latest posts in detail (and will have to wait until probably next Saturday to do so) but I wanted to pop in to comment on one thing.
Findegil wrote: Quote:
I realize that this is somewhat tangential to the main thrust of your proposal, and again, I'm looking forward to reviewing that when I can, but I just wanted to comment on this one point. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#77 | ||||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
Quote:
Reading further howmany of your suggestions have not yet found my working copy, I have some doubts about my talent as a text keeper. For execuse I can only bring forward that the chapter is still work in progress and that before prepare a text for an update in the forum, I check all the discussion. But still it is doubtfull if I would have catched them all. In short I am glad you made that review and reminded me! CE-EX-01.5: I like that addition, even so it is not clear what spirits are meant (as it shuold not be for sure) we have later examples as you mention. CE-EX-03.2 & CE-EX-03.3: I agree to these addition as well. Even so we might suspect that it is more legendary than a real description of Varda at work. (I personanly find it very sad, that Christopher Tolkien did cut out the actual smithing of the sun-ship by Aulë in LT.) CE-EX-03.5: Good catch! How did that got lost? May be at one point we thought of including Telimektar, who was to become that configuration of stars, but I can't remember. CE-EX-26: It is good to have your input in all these linguistical questions! Utúlieltë it will be and I corrected as well the answer tu utúlier. CE-EX-27: The idea behind the change was that none of the Valar could have know that name, since up to that time Oromë had it given to the Quendi when he was alone with them. But in the end the communication of the Valar might be always in more than level (verbal and mental) and therefore it might be obvious to the other Valar and Maiar what he meant. Or we might asume your explanation of transfered texts. CE-SL-11.5c: I agree to your change. But it will be CE-SL-11.5d then. CE-EX-28.2: I do not see how you landed at Tulcal. In the original we have Qenya Tambe, Ilsa, Latunken, Kanu, Anga, Laure => Tilkal. Now this would in Quenya change to Urus, Tyelpë, Latúcen, Canu, Anga, Culu => Uilcac Even if we change the order (wish I am hesistant about) we have only one L and thus can't build Tulcal. CE-EX-28.4: I can't help much in this questions, but with yoked/joined as on element the other element must mean some thing like everlasting. Sad as it is, it seems to me that if we do not find beter solution for the lingustical riddels, we have to eliminat all 3 names. CE-EX-35.1: I have nothing to add to Falman => Falmon. But to Valimo => Vaiyamo: Vaiya we considered still valid when we discussed Ambarcanta. There we have still the concept of Vaiya being more like water below and more like air above the earth. And we are told that the more sea-like part is called Ekkaia. But in the next sentence we are told: 'In Vaiya below the Earth dwells Ulmo.' Thus Vaiyamo seems fully justified. CE-EX-35.1: I agree to includ this passage, but I think it has to come a bit earlier: Quote:
CE-EX-46.5: I missed not only that passage but as well the sentence before it: 'There he lay upon his face before the feet of Manwe, and he sued for pardon and freedom, recalling his kinship with Manwe.' Thus as a fact that I missed in AAm which is the last version before MT VI we have Melkor sue for pardon twice: first at the council after the War of Powers and a second time after his 3 ages of imprisonment. This does render my first attemp, that I mentioned at the begining of my last post possible. I will give it below as far as necessary to show its differences and discuss its pros and cons. As for this version this is a good addition where ArcusCalion put it. CE-EX-39.1: Not explicitly contradicted but, ArcusCalion is right we have to change this: Quote:
CE-EX-52.5: Good find! I agree to its inclusion. CE-EX-58.3 & CE-EX-67: I agree that with Q&E given in volume 3 in full, this both this passages should be removed here. Aiwendil, I have read your post as well, even so you posted it while I worked on my again overlong posting. You might be right and I rejected that way out anyway. But as mentioned in the discussion of CE-EX-46.5 the dilemma was anyhow not there because AAm has Melkor sue for pardon twice and the first time during the council we discuss here, which I missed. So I give here as an alternative the view changes that were different in that draft I had made first: Quote:
Respectfully, Findegil Last edited by Findegil; 08-24-2021 at 05:53 AM. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#78 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
To all Fin's replies to my points I agree.
CE-EX-28.2: I realized that myself, and went back to edit my post. Malta is another valid late Quenya word for gold. Culu is later said to be more red-gold, and Malta yellow-gold. Either works here I think, and having an M will be easier. So that gives us T, M, U, L, C, A. This can make Tulcam which I think works. I think it is worth keeping this word. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#79 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
CE-EX-28.2: I agree to use Malte since any how red-gold is always an alloy of gold with same conetent of copper (to get the red coulur), while yellow-gold is the pureer stuff (normaly with some very small content of an other metal to get more hardness).
And of course Utlcam does not sound right, so we have to change the order to Tulcam. But I would like to let the order in the text as it is and provide in the note the Quenya names of the metals and the english equivalent. My reason for it is that to get a red metal you would meed copper as a main alloying element. Therefore it could be that the elements are in order of content and even if they are in order of puting them in the mixture it would be a chame to lose that info. It might well be that Tolkien just had the names already composed and ordered them build a good sounding word. But with two of the names never used elswhere and two names label 'magic' it looks rather like an intricated composition process in which the order was may be not as freely chosen as we think. Quote:
Quote:
Respectfully Findegil |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#80 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
CE-EX-28.2: As unfortunate as it is, I think we will have to rearrange the order if we want to keep it. I agree to the edit you posted.
CE-EX-28.4: Ah good find! In that case I think the likely etymology of the word comes from teren(d) 'file, pierce, cleft' as a speculative derivative of ᴱ√TERE 'to pierce, bore' with the early Qenya negative prefix il- giving it the meaning 'Non-pierced.' This translation basically accords with the stated 'cannot be filed or cleft' definition. The same root became ᴹ√TER 'to pierce' Which is nearly identical, and produces many similar derivatives, so I think we can safely leave the second part of the word. However, il- in later Quenya means 'all, every' and the negative prefix was changed. La- seems like the most similar late Quenya version. This would give us Laterendi. I am happy with this if everyone else agrees to it. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |