![]() |
|
|
|
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
|
|
|
#1 |
|
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
The usage of Dol Amroth is always in the context of the future: 'In the lore of Dol Amroth.' This case of Mirkwood is used erroneously (before we even explain the name Mirkwood) as the current residence of the elvenking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
RP-SL-29.5: Okay. I see you are right. BUt I think the article should not be used. It is not 'the Mirkwood' so it should not be 'the Greenwood'. Kapitalisation is enough to show that it is a name. If we want t ob be even more clear about that we should use the full name 'Greenwood the Great', which I think is the best solution.
RP-SL-40b: Sorry for coming up with this again, but I found that I used the complete passage later at the end of 'Tal-Elmar', where I place the discussion about the Middle-men. Therefore I would eliminat it here: Quote:
Findegil Last edited by Findegil; 06-05-2018 at 06:15 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
RP-SL-29.5: Agreed to Greenwood the Great.
RP-SL-40b: I see why you removed it, but I think that once this sentence is gone, the antecedent to the 'This' is gone as well. The way this new version flows is somewhat choppy. It sounds at first like Galadriel and Celeborn establish a settlement, and then it says it one was founded aftrwards. I think to remedy this all we need to do is add 'settlement' after the 'This' like so: Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
RP-SL-40b: Agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |||||
|
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 121
![]() |
I skimmed through the previous chapters before reading this one. The previous chapters all build up nicely to this one, as they're all related to building up defenses and preparing for the inevitable next move by Sauron. I have a comment about the placement of the Elessar stories but I will post them in that thread to avoid confusion.
Here are my comments: 1) RP-SL-26: I agree that the mention of the date and the "Tale of Years" should be removed from the main text, but maybe it could be placed in a footnote? Something like: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
3) I am confused about one section: Quote:
4) As it stands, the transition into "But Sauron gathered into his hands all the remaining rings..." is a bit awkward. The sentence which precedes it is "But they were never wholly free of an unquiet and a yearning for the Sea..." It also feels abrupt to transition back to Sauron after several paragraphs discussing Galadriel, Celeborn and different groups of Elves. I propose this order: Quote:
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
1) As Fin will tell you, the project is very much against putting things into a footnote where none exists in Tolkien's draft. We do not need this information; it is not crucial. Therefore the simplest solution is simply to remove it, since it is CT's comment anyway and not part of the actual narrative.
2) I did not notice this, but you are right in both pointing out the problem, and in suggesting a solution. I agree with removing the sentence as the marker RS-SL-32b. 3) You are right this is odd. Maybe we could combine them like so: Quote:
4) I like this better as well, but I would change the marker to RP-SL-46b. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 121
![]() |
I agree with all of your comments, and I like the way you combined things in point 3.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
|
|