Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
07-11-2018, 10:47 PM | #1 | |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
The Hunt for the Ring
This is the first draft of the chapter The Hunt for the Ring.
This chapter uses the text of The Hunt for the Ring from UT as a base text, and I mark the first instance of the main text. In UT, several variants and later or contemporary versions are given, and so wherever these are inserted into the story, I have used a marker. The markings are: FY-HL-xx for all the headlines for the Fading Years. HR-SL-xx for all expansions and changes to the narrative. Some conventions of my writing: Bold Text = source information, comments and remarks {example} = text that should be deleted [example] = normalized text, normally only used for general changes, as well as changes which are a part of replacement that is not grammatical. Underlined Text = text changed for grammatical reasons in the process of combining and inserting and removing. <source example> = additions with source information ...... = This section of the paragraph is unchanged from the source. Quote:
HR-SL-01: We start off the chapter with the bit from Of the Rings of Power which describes (in brief) the events prior to LotR. It serves as a nice introduction to the material of the chapter, which is concerned with Saruon's hunt for the Ring. HR-SL-02: Here we enter into the base text of the chapter, text A of The Hunt for the Ring. HR-SL-03: Here we pull in the first expansion from another version of the text. This is from text D, which expands on Gollum's role in the events. This information is worth giving. HR-SL-04: Another tidbit from text D worth giving. HR-SL-05: These movements of Aragorn are given in text B, and are worth giving, and I think this is the place that fits them best. I have chopped up much of the text B snippet given, and I have also not used all of it, but only because it is mostly redundant with text A, giving in some places no new info. I have taken all the bits I feel are substantially different enough to warrant giving. HR-SL-06: These are given as weaknesses of the Nazgul in text B, so I felt they belonged here, where their weakness is discussed in text A. HR-SL-07: This detail is absent from text A, so i took it from B. HR-SL-08: CT notes that in the Tale of Years, it lists three Nazgul as dwelling in Dol Guldur, and that he thinks this is a slip of the pen for Tolkien, so I think we should follow his word, especially since it is such a minor change. I took the bits from the note that were worth giving. HR-SL-09: This information about Gollum entering Moria is not given outside of text D, and sets the stage for his introduction into the narrative of LotR later. HR-SL-10: Because of the text D addition, the 'they' has lost its antecedent. I changed it to be correct. HR-SL-11: This is the most radical change to the base narrative, however, text C is later than text A, so it would (by our rules) represent the more correct version to give. Therefore I replaced all of this part of the story in text A with the version given in text C. HR-SL-12: I mark here the deletion of the old text A story. HR-SL-13: Here we return to the text C story at the point where we left off. HR-SL-14: This reference to a very specific event in LotR does not work for me. No matter what we include in the draft for the next chapter, we will not mention the squint-eyed southerner from the inn, so this reference will go unexplained. I would rather remove it. There may be other such references which I missed, which should maybe also be removed. HR-SL-15: This snippet of text B seems to be the latest piece of info on the movements of the Black Riders given in the UT text. In Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion more bits are published, but they refer to very specific events in LotR, and the narrative is presented in near bullet-point form, and I think is not worth including, due to both of these reasons. Therefore, I think we can end the chapter here. HR-SL-16: This is just cleaning it up from CT commentary into narrative. Last edited by ArcusCalion; 07-11-2018 at 10:58 PM. |
|
07-13-2018, 05:21 PM | #2 | ||||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
I have few remarks about this chapter. Everything I don’t comment on I agree to.
HR-SL-02: The addition itself is okay but after it I think we should change the following: Quote:
Quote:
HR-SL-14: I think we can be sure that readers of our work know LotR and Hobbit. So we should be glad of these ‘bridges’, and not remove them. And another three typos brqad printed in the middle and last give paragraph. Quote:
HR-SL-16: This at least we have in the words of JRR Tolkien: Quote:
Findegil |
||||
07-13-2018, 06:50 PM | #3 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
I agree with everything except HR-SL-15.4 for two reasons. The first and smaller one is that there remain a good many verbs that are in the present tense, when they should be in past tense, which I have changed (this problem also exists in 16b, but I agree to that change, and I corrected them on my draft). The larger issue with this insert, which is related to why I did not put it in, is that ir is very spefiic with its description of events of LotR, far more so than any text we can hope to create. In fact, if we keep this addition at all, I think we must move it to next chapter, since it takes place so clearly after Frodo has left Hobbiton. Therefore, I think if we decide to keep this addition, we should move it to the next chapter, and if we do not keep this change, we can leave it here. As you say, either way, it requires review of the next chapter's draft, so I will post that as soon as possible. Once I post that draft, we may discuss there how best to incorporate these lines.
|
07-13-2018, 08:22 PM | #4 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
Actually, reviewing the draft for the next chapter, I think it is best to take the entire addition of HR-SL-15 through the end of HR-SL-15.4 and move it to the next chapter. It fits into that draft quite smoothly. I will place it there in my post for that chapter. I also added in the rest of the Hunt for the Ring narrative given in A Reader's Companion.
Last edited by ArcusCalion; 07-13-2018 at 11:49 PM. |
07-13-2018, 11:59 PM | #5 | |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
Sorry to triple post, but I found this addition for the chapter only just now. Right after HR-SL-11 finishes and the part I removed (HR-SL-12) begins, I propose we add this in given in A Reader's Companion from the Hunt for the Ring manuscripts:
Quote:
|
|
07-15-2018, 08:41 AM | #6 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
HR-SL-11.5: Godd find! I agree, so I think we should edit it in on place a bit different:
Quote:
Respectfully Findegil |
|
07-15-2018, 10:04 AM | #7 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
Agreed to the editing change, and I await your restructuring proposal.
|
02-01-2019, 08:59 AM | #8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 121
|
I agree with Fin's comments that you did an excellent and admirable job editing this chapter, Arcus! I will include my comments on "The Hunt for the Ring" and "The Ring Sets Out" which was moved to the end of this chapter.
1) A specific comment followed by a more general concern. I have bolded the section I wish to discuss: Quote:
2) I cannot find the edit HR-SL-01.6 in this thread or the "Hunt for the Ring" thread. I think it is a good addition, but we should remove the editorial comment "earlier in this version". Also, there is a detail about the fate of the Stoors in Note 9 of the UT chapter "The Hunt for the Ring" which came from Letter 214. I think it fits well after HR-SL-0.16: Quote:
Quote:
4) Quote:
5) We never mention that Gollum escapes from Thranduil in the text. The best description I could find from the event that doesn't come straight from LotR is from the Tale of Years: Quote:
Quote:
7) Quote:
Quote:
8) At the very end of the chapter: Quote:
9) Quote:
10) Quote:
Quote:
11) Typos: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
02-01-2019, 10:18 AM | #9 | ||
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
Thank you! It was certainly time-consuming!
1) Agreed. 2) Agreed for the inclusions. Apologies if I forgot to make a post about the other addition, it must have slipped my mind. 3) I think both have their merits. Text D supplies some backstory for Gollum which would be missing otherwise, so I am inclined to go with this one. Perhaps we can keep the fallout from the narrative in Text A like so: Quote:
4) I do not see the need to remove it. It is true that this event is explained later, but its reference here is being used to provide in-universe proof for the idea that they did not like water, as well as to allay any calls that this point is not true since they went into the Ford. I think it is worth leaving in for these reasons. 5) Agreed. 6) We do not mention it. Should we remove the reference here or should we leave it in because (as Fin says) we should assume that our readers have read LotR? 7) He told them where the Shire is. I think you are right and this needs some editing, but the issue is that they realize that he did not make Gandalf confess, since he already knew the information. He should have shared it with Sauron, but he did not. So they see he is a traitor. How about this: Quote:
9) Very well, agreed to remove. 10) His puzzlement might be a reaction he had from the first time Khamul told him, but it was driven home to him when he saw Frodo in person. I think we should leave it, as there are ways to explain it. 11) Thank you for catching these! Last edited by ArcusCalion; 02-01-2019 at 10:30 AM. |
||
02-01-2019, 06:50 PM | #10 | |||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
1) I don't think that we must remove this. We have already hinted often to the fact that Saruman had started to desire the Ring and even revealed that he would go to open war against Rohan.
2) I agree to the addition, but I think we should edit it a bit differently: Quote:
4) As ArcusCalion, I think we should keep the footnote. It is a spoiler, but when we assume that our readers have some knowledge of The Hobbit and LotR they know this anyhow. 5) I agree in principal, but I think we should edit it differently: Quote:
7) I don't think any editing is needed. Saruman does pretend that his knowledge is freshly gained from Gandalf, but from his servant the Witch-King learns that Saruman should have answered him straight away out of his own knowledge. At that is what the text means (at least in our editing). 8) Yes, 1418 is Shire Reconing and I gree that this fact is clear enough, so tha we do not need to change or add a qualifire. 9) I agree not to include that sentence twice. But anyhow I could not finde HR-SL-16.1 neither in my working copy nor in the draft in the private forum. So please ArcusCalion, keep us informed what you add to your drafts if you like to discuss them here. 10) As Sauron I think the Witch-King is unable to understand the motives of his enemies. In Aragorn's place both had taken the Ring from Frodo by force as soon as they had been retired to the room of the Hobbits in the Prancing Pony. So that is what he would have expected, and that Aragorn did join Frodo and not take the Ring from him is what puzzled the Witch-King. 11) Some of these are not typos, but corrections of gramatical short commings of Tolkien's text of The Hunt for the Ring: -'the' before 'dislike' is missing in the original text. - Same here: Quote:
- '{[}He{] is} was waylaid by Dúnedain and driven away {does}did not reach {[}the Witch-king{]} until the next day.' Here again I agree to adding the 'and' though it is not in the original text. - 'the Bridge and Bree': Agian this is a change of the original text due to gramatical reason. - I as well agree to the addition of the '?' for gramatical reasons. - 'the Bridge': Again the 'the' is not in the original text, but I agree to add it. Respectfully Findegil |
|||
02-02-2019, 01:38 PM | #11 | |
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 121
|
1) OK, I'm fine with keeping it since we have heavily hinted at Saruman's betrayal.
2) I was debating whether to keep "when Deagol the Stoor found the One Ring". I agree to keeping it. 3) OK, I agree to ArcusCalion's change. 4) OK, I agree to keeping it, since it is in reference to the discussion about their dislike of water. 5) I agree to Fin's change, it makes the flow a bit smoother. 6) I think we should keep the footnote but include something about Balin's quest to retake Moria in an earlier chapter. I will see if I can find something suitable, where to put it, and post my suggestion in that thread. 7) Reading through the text again with your explanations, I understand it now. However, I still think it is slightly confusing/misleading without some slight editing. I think ArcusCalion's suggestion works, but how about: Quote:
8) I personally think we should add "1418 in the Shire reckoning". It is jarring to change to the Shire reckoning all of a sudden, but to me it wasn't implicitly clear; it seemed like a typo/mistake. But if you both don't think it's necessary, I will acquiesce. 10) Yes, I agree it can be explained, so I agree to keep it as is. 11) I figured some of these weren't exactly "typos" but were due to Tolkien rapidly writing his ideas down. |
|
02-05-2019, 12:13 PM | #12 | |||||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
Okay, reading through our source texts for this chapter, I found two issues we have to deal with: the dates in or text are not in accourdance with the LotR, Appendix B: The Tale of the Years and the dates from The Hunt for the Ring are in themself defective since if the Nazgűl only appear after the attack on Osgiliath on the 20th of June Radagast has not enough time to be called by Saruman, coming to Isengard and searching for Gandalf before Midyear’s Day, which is only 12 days later. But as you will see LotR Companion does not only reveal these issues, it as well helps to solve them.
Here is what I would like to change: HR-SL-03.1: Here for me the reference of the ‘he’ is not as clear as I would which for, therefore I would change to: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Findegil |
|||||
02-05-2019, 02:57 PM | #13 | |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
|
Oh good catch Fin! I have a few points.
First, I would make this slight change for smoothness of transition: Quote:
Last edited by ArcusCalion; 02-05-2019 at 03:35 PM. |
|
02-06-2019, 06:55 PM | #14 | ||||||
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 121
|
Great catch, Fin! I think it's feasible the Nazgul would search the Anduin Vale twice because the area is rather large, and Sauron himself suspected it was where the Shire was based on information from Gollum. I found a few typos/grammatical issues.
A slight change to HR-SL-05.2 to make it sound smoother: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think there should be more punctuation to the sentence starting "At first the Nazgul...". I added a semicolon and a comma: Quote:
Other than that, I have one question: Quote:
|
||||||
02-07-2019, 02:40 PM | #15 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,720
|
Dooble search of the Anduin Vale: Wenn we read the original Hunt for the Ring text the Vale is as well searched twice (but proberbly not by Nazgűl): The Witch-king decisded to search there even so he got the message from Khaműl that no trace of the Shire could be found. And in the new context we here from the Nazgűl proling in Rohan and Dunland that they are ‘rather timid and uneffective’ without their leader. So for me it is reasonable that the Witch-king repeated the search considering that he had no better information.
Now to the other remarks: HR-SL-02.5b: Agreed. Mashed and visted, “in”, “belived”, “extraorninarly”, “Isengad”, “whishing”, “Tharanduil” and “Tow”: Thanks for catching. These are real typos of mine for sure. And I also missed to do the time change in that sentence with the Mashed and visted. But must we not as well change ‘has visited’ to ‘had visted’? HR-SL-05.3: Right, and so it is in the original text, as can be seen at the end of the sentence with Mashed and visted. Punctuation in “At First the Nazgűl ...”: Agreed. Saruman belives Gandalf knew something vital about the Ring: In the new version of the story springing from the fact that Radagast must have more time, Saruman is visted much earlier (before the attack on Osgiliath) by some Nazgűl after they did not find any trace of teh Shire in the Anduin Vale. Radagast is concerned about that search and reaches Isengard to the advantage of Saruman shortly after the Nazgűl had been there. The Second visit is not mentioned in the text from LotR Companion; The Council of Elrond; 257 (I: 270)., but it also not denied. For me it seems clear that two or three Nazgűl visited Saruman and stayed in that area until the Wtich-king himself collected them all for another visit to Isengard. At the fist visit Sauron suspects only the motives of Saruman st the time of the second visit he is sure that Saruman is betraying him. But in both cases the Nazgűl involved did not have the full picture, so that Saruman could decive them. Respectfully Findegil |
02-07-2019, 06:55 PM | #16 |
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 121
|
Yes, it should be "had visited". I missed that one.
Regarding the Nazgul and Saruman, that makes more sense if there are two visits. |
|
|