[Formendacil]

I feel obliged to confess that I am not "getting into" the Narn. Part of this may well be because it isn't quite as neatly a digestible-sized chunk, like "Of Tuor." Part of this may reflect a literary mood that isn't really interested in the dance of fate and tragedy (for which you can blame the course I'm TAing on Greek Myth--more than enough Fate there to deal with). Mostly, though, I think in a weird sort of way that I'm resisting rereading the Narn because I now feel like I prefer to read it as The Children of Húrin.

This is particularly interesting, because I only realized this time around, while reading the notes to the first section of the Narn, that the Narn actually isn't as full an account as The Children of Húrin. In particular, I noticed endnotes 1 and 2 to the Narn, which say:

Originally Posted by Unfinished Tales, Narn i Hîn Húrin, Note 1

At this point in the text of the Narn there is a passage describing the sojourn of Húrin and Huor in Gondolin. This is very closely based on the story told in one of the 'constituent texts' of The Silmarillion - so closely as to be no more than a variant, and I have not given it again here.

Originally Posted by Unfinished Tales, Narn i Hîn Húrin, Note 2

Here in the text of the Narn is a passage, giving an account of the Nirnaeth Arnoediad, that I have excluded for the same reason as that given in Note I.

The interesting thing here, for me, is the editorial quality of Unfinished Tales. I usually have a tendency to think of Unfinished Tales as Volume XIII (or Volume Zero) of the HoME, which is essentially a critical text looking at the evolution of Middle-earth--but this isn't what it is. It's just as much a companion piece to the (EDITED) Silmarillion and the "canonical" works--although it begins the "behind the scenes" work that will be fully treated in the HoME.

The excision of these repetitive accounts (justifiable, in and of itself, I think) was a cause for me to look back at Christopher Tolkien's introduction to Unfinished Tales, in which we read the following:

Originally Posted by Unfinished Tales, Introduction

When the author has ceased to publish his works himself, after subjecting them to his own detailed criticism and comparison, the further knowledge of Middle-earth to be found in his unpublished writings will often conflict with what is already 'known'; and new elements set into the existing edifice will in such cases tend to contribute less to the history of the invented world itself than to the history of its invention. In this book I have accepted from the outset that this must be so; and except in minor details such as shifts in nomenclature (where retention of the manuscript form would lead to disproportionate confusion or disproportionate space in elucidation) I have made no alterations for the sake of consistency with published works, but rather drawn attention throughout to conflicts and variations.

The interesting thing about this, to me, is that Christopher Tolkien, by excising the Narn accounts of the Gondolin episode and the Nirnaeth has glided over a potential conflict in the legendarium, rather than letting it stand. Possibly, I am making a lot more out of this than the situation actually presents, but I now want to take out my Children of Húrin and compare its accounts (which are presumably those of the Narn) with the Silmarillion accounts. I have it in my head that there was a comparison made somewhere here on the 'Downs, once upon a time, but I don't know if I'm making that up or not...