![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#41 | |
The Kinslayer
|
![]() Quote:
The transformation of type 2 to animal dragons was an idea that came from jallanite, and that we all had agreed, you included Findegil.
__________________
"Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy." |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#42 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
![]()
But when you first agreed upon it, mechanical monsters seemed unacceptable for you. When I devoloped my Idea, I only looked for the dragons / monster in question themself and not to the editing process that my theory would force. If we sunder type 1 and type 2 so far as to make the on mechanical and the other animal like we must change at least 3 phrases in the text (FG-D-02, §§ 62 and 74).
Aiwendil had seen at once that if mechnical monsters are accepted this would allowe for much less heavy editing in the text, if we accept type 1 and 2 to be mechanical, as they were introduced in The Tale. The problem that could have been produced by that would be the missing of type 4 dragons in the battle. But as my discussion shows that is not realy the case, since type 3 does often sound like type 4. So in conclusion many mentions of the dragons are so ambigous that any of the four types we psotulated has found its place in the sack of Gondolin. So some of the phrases used are confusing. But that is true for original The Tale as well. Respectfully Findegil P.S.: What ever we do in the end, the dragons in the sack of Gondoiln are a clear case for a paragraph in the appendix. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#43 | |||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
![]() Quote:
There is also, as Findegil points out, the textual problem. Embarking on a program of editing the references to dragons so that each one is clearly a type 1, type 3, or type 4 can only damage the text. Bear in mind that in the original text these distinctions are not always clear and are certainly not identified explicitly. Findegil's recent proposal is a solution to this; when we examine the text with the idea that type 4 dragons are present, we find that many references to the mechanical ones could be taken as references to animals. I definitely think this is the best way to go, since it involves minimal editing as well as avoiding the arbitrary change of type 2 to type 4. The one deficiency seems to be that the presence of animal dragons is not suggested strongly enough from the outset. At worst, that may have to be remedied by inserting one reference to them early on. Maedhros wrote: Quote:
Findegil wrote: Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#44 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
![]()
As far as I can see the theory with 4 types of monsters creats or rather shows 3 problems:
1. An inherernt problem of the theory is, that type 2 is very similar in its potency to type 4. Thus we have to answer the question: Why does Morgoth take the effort of creating mechanical Dragons so similar to the real ones he had already at his comand? We can of course only gueses at the answere. But we have to find a probable answere to make the theory work. One guess is that he had not enough type 4 dragons for the attak that he planed. That would imply that he had have haevy loses in the Nirneath. Or it might be that he was unsitisfied with the behavior of the dragons in the Nirneath. Had Azaghâl wounded Glaurung a bit early in the course of that battle, the flight of the dragons might have turned the tide against Morgoth. So Morgoth might have wiched for beatst that do not act so irrational and tried his hand on mechanical monsters. At last it might be that we have to look closer on what service the type 2 did in the battle: They crushed the Walls of the city by leaning their very haevy bodies against it. The iron type 1 was only able to crush the gate but not the walls around it. Copper has a high density (8.92 kg/dm³). For bronze the density depends highly on the actual alloy. Typical bronze (used for bearings, fittings, bronze-medals) is an alloy of copper and tin (7.28 kg/dm³). Other bronze could be copper with lead (11.36 kg/dm³) for hammers that does not produce sparks, silver (10.53 kg/dm³) for brazing for coopertubes, or with alluminium (2.7 kg/dm³) for a special combination of electrical and mechanical properties. (Sorry for that lenghty account, but I cuoldn't resist to show my professional knowledge.) Only the last one could have a lower density than iron. So if the type 2 dragons would have been exactly in build like type 1 they would have been haevier. But since type 1 is hollow we might expect type 2 to be much havier than any other dragons. Type 4 is clearly a kind of lighweight dragon in comparission to any mechnical one since all animals we know have a over-all-density around 1 kg/dm³. So it might be that Morgoth did know from Maeglin how heavy his monsters must be to break the walls of the city. And according to that knowledge he builded type 2 monsters. 2. The type 4 dragons are not clearly introduced in the text as having participated in the battle. That is true and I wonder that Aiwendil is nearly willing to amand it with a insertion into the text. I do not think that this is neccessary. The reader will expect them to be their from the start, because they had been in any other battle since the Dagor Bargolach. That leads dirctly to the last problem: 3. The confusion between type 3 and type 4. I think in this we are no longer any good judge. We all have discussed so long about the creation scene that we can no longer read the text openminded. I think that a reader how had read before of the battle of Beleriand and Glaurungs deeds, will recognise type 1 and type 2 easily after the creation scene. But he will most probably take nearly all the mentions of type 3 in the original Tale as type 4. So what might be really needed is the clearification of type 3 not of type 4. I don't think we would like to edit each single type 3 mentioning. But may be we must prepare the read for the task we impose on him (to interpret the dragon type while reading). In the creation scene there is no mention of the later "name" "dragons of fire", with which they were mostly addressed in the text, but that could be easily amended: Quote:
Respectfully Findegil |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#45 | |
The Kinslayer
|
![]()
Findegil, I was wondering if you could post your enmendations that you would like to do with 4 parragraphs that you have mentioned before, regarding the clarifications of dragons.
Posted by Findegil Quote:
__________________
"Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy." |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#46 | |||||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,715
![]() |
![]()
Posted by Maedhros:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Nearly the same goes for § 78. At first we see the approach of the type 3, but Tuor "hewed at a foot". But type 3 have no feet. So, it must again be a type 2 he is fighting against. In my original post I suggested to delete the type 3: Quote:
The problem in § 94 is an iron serpent spouting flame, which I find strange, but, well, we do not have any hard evidence that type 1 could not spout flame. So, I think the text must stand. The gain of the addition of "dragons of fire" in the creation scene (what § is it in, I wonder), is that we prepare the reader for the later mentions of that type of monster. Otherwise in my view only the § 50 and § 76 are understood clearly as type 3. The reader could take all other „dragons of fire“ as a mere variant of "fire dragons" and therewith interpreted as type 4. Respectfully Findegil Only amended a few typo's. <font size=1 color=339966>[ 7:57 AM January 21, 2004: Message edited by: Findegil ] |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |