![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
I would say that this is merely his opinion, as he presents no new information to back up that change, and he has been known to make mistakes of this kind before.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
No question that is only Christopher Tolkiens opinion. I never said otherwise. But in a case like this, where we long debated and did take the decision in the end based on the feeling of the participants of the discussion, Christopher’s opinion is at least worth notice.
Respectfully Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
As I posted in the other thread Of the Founding of Nargothrond and Gondolin, the footnote of CT in Beren and Lúthien is troubling in its implications for this text:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
RD-SL-27: I've just read through our discussion of this from years ago, and it is such an obscure and complex issue that I can easily believe that a reasonable person could come to either conclusion based on the evidence we have. In the end, I still think I agree with the conclusion we adopted. But I am still far from 100% certain about this conclusion. Christopher Tolkien's opinion is obviously not to be simply discounted, but without any new evidence I don't see any particular reason to change our conclusion. I remain unsure, though, and could certainly be persuaded by a strong argument one way or the other.
About the Nauglamir: This is indeed puzzling and has potentially very important repurcussions for our text. In particular, I find it difficult to reconcile this statement with two things from "The Wanderings of Hurin". Quote:
Quote:
In the absence of any further evidence of this "later story", I don't think it would be wise for us to change the story here. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
I agree with your conclusion because, as you say, CT has provided no documentation to back up his comments in B&L and the Sil77 story, so it is clearly safer to go with the earlier story in as much as keeping the outlaws and hoard and such. However, in the current text as it exists we have provided no story of the Nauglamír's creation. Might we then take only that part from the Sil77 version while keeping the rest the same?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
But if we discount this statement by Christopher Tolkien without further evidence, then shouldn't we keep the story that the Nauglamir was not made until Thingol commissioned the Dwarves to craft the gold?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
My bad, I didn't notice the story was already included. In the current draft, it reads thus:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |