Narn I Chîn Húrin 1: Túrins Fostering - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

gondowe · 03-26-2009, 05:26 PM

In my old work in the Narn i had token the old lay to have a body for the pats of dor Cuarthol to the history of túrin in Nargothrond.
And this is what I want to do now, combine the text in TCoH (that is of the Silm77) of this part with this my old text, as prose of course. So we have the picture of Ivrin, and nargothrond and have a less schematical body of text in the Taur -nu fuin scenes with Beleg and Gwindor. I´m going to maintain the healing of the hurts of Beleg in Doriath ( not in bar-en-danwedh).
I did´nt take more material from other parts, I think the Narn is overall

As an appendix I have a chapter called The Wanderings of Hurin, edited with the end taken from the Tale of Turambar, mantaining the prophecy of Mormegil that stands well with the end of the QS and the second P of Mandos.

Greetings

Aiwendil · 04-07-2009, 07:00 PM

I still lean toward leaving out the parts of the lay that would be used merely for 'expansion' of finalized portions of the Narn. I agree with Aran:

Quote:

Even when it does match and provides more detail, I hesitate in using it, because Tolkien seems to have thought most of the Narn to be finalized.

If Tolkien omitted from the Narn a detail found in the alliterative Lay, I think there's at least a reasonable case to be made that he did so because that detail had been rejected. In contrast to the more common situation where we have an older 'full version' and a briefer, more compressed later version, here we have a late full version. So I think the usual argument that details found in the older text were not rejected but merely suppressed holds less weight.

Findegil · 04-08-2009, 03:10 AM

I can see the point of the argument of course. It is just that I do not agree fully to it. Especially when the portions of the Lay that I used replace portions of the Narn that read like summary of the Lay. Let us look at the cases in turn:

NA-EX-25.02: We skip "he[Morgoth] sought to daunt him[Húrin] with his eyes. But Húrin could not yet be daunted, and he defied Morgoth. Therefore Morgoth had him chained and set in slow torment; but after a while he came to him,". Exactly the same story comes along in the Lay more fully told.

NA-EX-25.06 & NA-EX-25.12: We skip: "at last, weary and haggard, they reached the confines of Doriath. But there they became bewildered, and were enmeshed in the mazes of the Queen, and wandered lost amid the pathless trees, until all their food was spent. There they came near to death, for winter came cold from the North; but not so light was Túrin's doom. Even as they lay in despair they heard a horn sounded. Beleg the Strongbow was hunting in that region, for he dwelt ever upon the marches of Doriath, and he was the greatest woodsman of those days. He heard their cries and came to them, and when he had given them food and drink he learned their names and whence they came, and he was filled with wonder and pity." Which again what we have in the Lay elobarted.

NA-EX-27.04: Skipt are: "Then many wondered, saying: ‘Can the spirit of Hador or of Galdor the Tall return from death; or has Húrin of Hithlum escaped indeed from the pits of Angband?’
One only was mightier in arms among the march-wardens of Thingol at that time than Túrin, and that was Beleg Cúthalion; and Beleg and Túrin were companions in every peril, and walked far and wide in the wild woods together." Which again what is told in the protion of the Lay that I added.

Now your argument is that Tolkien did not use the details of the Lay by propose. But I am not so sure about this. I think we have no evidence that he acctually had the Lay infront of him composing the Narn, and this, I think, would be a needed to be sure that Tolkien found the details not fiting in the later story (for what ever reason). My impression is that Tolkien wrote the Narn based on his memory and the shorter text he had writen to fit the different versions of The Silmarillion, the Annals and probably his plot sysnopsis. In such a work parts that were told elaborated to his satisfaction before hand would probably catch his mind less then spots that he had not jet told in great maner, or were he felt that a change was needed. I think that once you have told the part fully to your satisfaction the (motion-)picture is definied in your mind and you might be able to recapture it for yourself with only a fiew words. But if you have to work out the secne for yourself you will for sure need more words and therewith transport the scene better to a reader unfamillar with it. If we could find some internal reasons to doubt the valibity of the scenes in the portions of the Lay I added, I would agree that we can not use them. But the outer reason that we have a shorter version in later writen fully told story does not fully convince me.

Respectfully
Findegil

Aran e-Godhellim · 04-08-2009, 11:32 AM

But you see, I don't think Tolkien need even have rejected the details. He just left them out. He told the story one way in the Lay, and another in the Narn. Apparently, he thought the Narn passages sufficient.

He was not trying to relate the whole story in all its detail, he was trying to relate the story as it was formed in that particular text. For instance, the Annals of Aman and the Quenta Silmarillion are parallel often, but Tolkien put details in one that were not in the other. This is not because he rejected the details, or even because he thought that they should be left out. It is simply because they were different documents.

Findegil · 04-08-2009, 11:42 AM

But we do not try to creat the Narn as Tolkien would have written it. Our goal is to tell the story of Middle-Earth in the most possible detailed, 'canon' friendly version. With this goal I don't think it is enough that Tolkien told the story without this details in his latest version of the Narn.

Respectfully
Findegil

Aran e-Godhellim · 04-08-2009, 01:12 PM

Perhaps. I personally don't find it justified, but I don't think it's a great crime either. I would prefer to make a Narn and re-write the Lay, to keep them separate, but perhaps that's too much.

Aiwendil · 04-08-2009, 10:48 PM

I think there are three distinct arguments being made by Aran and me:

The Canonical concern: Details omitted from the Lay may have been rejected.

The Literary concern: Introducing excerpts from the Lay mars the cohesive narrative of the Narn.

The Textual concern: The Narn and the Lay represent different texts within Middle-earth that should not be mixed.

The Textual argument is, in my opinion, not really a valid one within the context of this project, since we are not making a 'veritable' Narn i Chin Hurin; that is, we're not claiming that the text we produce actually represents the text written by Dirhaval. I would further argue that the Narn and the Lay should not actually be considered distinct intra-Middle-earth documents, but rather that when Tolkien wrote the Narn he intended it as a replacement for the Lay.

The Literary argument is stronger, I think, but again it's not compelling. Granting that the additions detract from the literary value of the Narn (which is debatable), one could argue that our goal is not a text of literary value; rather, it's a text telling the 'true' history of Arda as fully as possible. Now, there has historically been a certain tension inherent in the project between the literary view and the 'true history' view (and I'm sure if Lindil were around he'd argue eloquently in favour of the former). But at least this throws doubt on the argument that the Canonically valid portions of the Narn cannot be altered or added to because they represent Tolkien's finished text (though I admit the argument does have some force for me personally).

We're left with the Canonical argument which at the very least is clearly relevant. But Findegil counter-argues rather persuasively that the further details found in these portions of the Lay are relatively few and that they seem to make explicit things passed over quickly in the Narn, rather than to add any new substance.

Of course, for those very reasons, one could ask whether anything is really to be gained by adding them. If we view them simply as longer-winded ways of saying what's already less explicitly said in the Narn, then adding them adds nothing of substance to the text (one could argue that it adds something of literary quality to the text, but this is of course question-begging).

Not really a critical issue in the end, but this is proving (to me at least) a somewhat vexing question. I remain ambivalent (which I know is not very helpful, but so it goes).

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-26-2009, 05:26 PM	#1
gondowe Wight Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 248	In my old work in the Narn i had token the old lay to have a body for the pats of dor Cuarthol to the history of túrin in Nargothrond. And this is what I want to do now, combine the text in TCoH (that is of the Silm77) of this part with this my old text, as prose of course. So we have the picture of Ivrin, and nargothrond and have a less schematical body of text in the Taur -nu fuin scenes with Beleg and Gwindor. I´m going to maintain the healing of the hurts of Beleg in Doriath ( not in bar-en-danwedh). I did´nt take more material from other parts, I think the Narn is overall As an appendix I have a chapter called The Wanderings of Hurin, edited with the end taken from the Tale of Turambar, mantaining the prophecy of Mormegil that stands well with the end of the QS and the second P of Mandos. Greetings

04-08-2009, 03:10 AM	#3
Findegil King's Writer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,721	I can see the point of the argument of course. It is just that I do not agree fully to it. Especially when the portions of the Lay that I used replace portions of the Narn that read like summary of the Lay. Let us look at the cases in turn: NA-EX-25.02: We skip "he[Morgoth] sought to daunt him[Húrin] with his eyes. But Húrin could not yet be daunted, and he defied Morgoth. Therefore Morgoth had him chained and set in slow torment; but after a while he came to him,". Exactly the same story comes along in the Lay more fully told. NA-EX-25.06 & NA-EX-25.12: We skip: "at last, weary and haggard, they reached the confines of Doriath. But there they became bewildered, and were enmeshed in the mazes of the Queen, and wandered lost amid the pathless trees, until all their food was spent. There they came near to death, for winter came cold from the North; but not so light was Túrin's doom. Even as they lay in despair they heard a horn sounded. Beleg the Strongbow was hunting in that region, for he dwelt ever upon the marches of Doriath, and he was the greatest woodsman of those days. He heard their cries and came to them, and when he had given them food and drink he learned their names and whence they came, and he was filled with wonder and pity." Which again what we have in the Lay elobarted. NA-EX-27.04: Skipt are: "Then many wondered, saying: ‘Can the spirit of Hador or of Galdor the Tall return from death; or has Húrin of Hithlum escaped indeed from the pits of Angband?’ One only was mightier in arms among the march-wardens of Thingol at that time than Túrin, and that was Beleg Cúthalion; and Beleg and Túrin were companions in every peril, and walked far and wide in the wild woods together." Which again what is told in the protion of the Lay that I added. Now your argument is that Tolkien did not use the details of the Lay by propose. But I am not so sure about this. I think we have no evidence that he acctually had the Lay infront of him composing the Narn, and this, I think, would be a needed to be sure that Tolkien found the details not fiting in the later story (for what ever reason). My impression is that Tolkien wrote the Narn based on his memory and the shorter text he had writen to fit the different versions of The Silmarillion, the Annals and probably his plot sysnopsis. In such a work parts that were told elaborated to his satisfaction before hand would probably catch his mind less then spots that he had not jet told in great maner, or were he felt that a change was needed. I think that once you have told the part fully to your satisfaction the (motion-)picture is definied in your mind and you might be able to recapture it for yourself with only a fiew words. But if you have to work out the secne for yourself you will for sure need more words and therewith transport the scene better to a reader unfamillar with it. If we could find some internal reasons to doubt the valibity of the scenes in the portions of the Lay I added, I would agree that we can not use them. But the outer reason that we have a shorter version in later writen fully told story does not fully convince me. Respectfully Findegil

04-08-2009, 11:32 AM	#4
Aran e-Godhellim Haunting Spirit Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The Halls of Mandos Posts: 86	But you see, I don't think Tolkien need even have rejected the details. He just left them out. He told the story one way in the Lay, and another in the Narn. Apparently, he thought the Narn passages sufficient. He was not trying to relate the whole story in all its detail, he was trying to relate the story as it was formed in that particular text. For instance, the Annals of Aman and the Quenta Silmarillion are parallel often, but Tolkien put details in one that were not in the other. This is not because he rejected the details, or even because he thought that they should be left out. It is simply because they were different documents.

04-08-2009, 11:42 AM	#5
Findegil King's Writer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,721	But we do not try to creat the Narn as Tolkien would have written it. Our goal is to tell the story of Middle-Earth in the most possible detailed, 'canon' friendly version. With this goal I don't think it is enough that Tolkien told the story without this details in his latest version of the Narn. Respectfully Findegil

04-08-2009, 01:12 PM	#6
Aran e-Godhellim Haunting Spirit Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The Halls of Mandos Posts: 86	Perhaps. I personally don't find it justified, but I don't think it's a great crime either. I would prefer to make a Narn and re-write the Lay, to keep them separate, but perhaps that's too much.

04-08-2009, 10:48 PM	#7
Aiwendil Late Istar Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,224	I think there are three distinct arguments being made by Aran and me: The Canonical concern: Details omitted from the Lay may have been rejected. The Literary concern: Introducing excerpts from the Lay mars the cohesive narrative of the Narn. The Textual concern: The Narn and the Lay represent different texts within Middle-earth that should not be mixed. The Textual argument is, in my opinion, not really a valid one within the context of this project, since we are not making a 'veritable' Narn i Chin Hurin; that is, we're not claiming that the text we produce actually represents the text written by Dirhaval. I would further argue that the Narn and the Lay should not actually be considered distinct intra-Middle-earth documents, but rather that when Tolkien wrote the Narn he intended it as a replacement for the Lay. The Literary argument is stronger, I think, but again it's not compelling. Granting that the additions detract from the literary value of the Narn (which is debatable), one could argue that our goal is not a text of literary value; rather, it's a text telling the 'true' history of Arda as fully as possible. Now, there has historically been a certain tension inherent in the project between the literary view and the 'true history' view (and I'm sure if Lindil were around he'd argue eloquently in favour of the former). But at least this throws doubt on the argument that the Canonically valid portions of the Narn cannot be altered or added to because they represent Tolkien's finished text (though I admit the argument does have some force for me personally). We're left with the Canonical argument which at the very least is clearly relevant. But Findegil counter-argues rather persuasively that the further details found in these portions of the Lay are relatively few and that they seem to make explicit things passed over quickly in the Narn, rather than to add any new substance. Of course, for those very reasons, one could ask whether anything is really to be gained by adding them. If we view them simply as longer-winded ways of saying what's already less explicitly said in the Narn, then adding them adds nothing of substance to the text (one could argue that it adds something of literary quality to the text, but this is of course question-begging). Not really a critical issue in the end, but this is proving (to me at least) a somewhat vexing question. I remain ambivalent (which I know is not very helpful, but so it goes).