**Ruin of Doriath - Pre-Revision speculation/proposal thread**

[Findegil]

FD-SL-06: Posted by Maedhros:

Ever since our last discussion of the Ruin of Doriath, I have thinked about this and I think that there is a simple way to do this. We can move the scene that Húrin and the Outlaws reached the doors of Menegroth and change it so that they reached some outside part of the Girdle of Melian and that they are transported into Menegroth. That change would involved minimal editorial alterations by our part.

That was what I tried with the secret bridge over Sirion. But it is clearly not quite sufficient since the Gridle protected Nivrim. I am sure that we can find some solution.

FD-SL-08: Posted by Maedhros:

I still think that as Aiwendil suggest way back and CT did is that it would be best for us not remove that battle.

I think the "not" is just a typo. Aiwendil and Christopher Tolkien did suggest to remove the fight. And I strongly agree with that, as you seems to do.

FD-SL-09 & FD-SL-10: I am still not quiet happy with the scene of the departure and the suggestion of some fate for the outlaws. It might be that we need the help such a master of ambiguous writing as Aiwendil to do that in a fashion that satisfies us all.

FD-SL-11: So were are again in a dead lock. Since I can not see Thingol simply dismiss his first impulse to get ride of the treasure just by looking on it again. Further I think that you overestimated the role I would use Ufedhin here. I would have taken him as an Elf that had fallen under the cruse of Mîm and did lure Thingol not to through the gold away, nothing more. When I think about the behaviour of Saeros during the feast he is an good example for an Elf-Lord that would fit the role of Ufedhin I have proposed above.
The later treason of Narthseg (which I only meant to bring Naugladur some info of the hunt so that he could time his machinations to lure Thingol out of the Gridle) is a completely independent issue. It could of course be connected by using one and the same person in both roles, but that would really be to much liberty in creating a new character.

FD-SL-12: Posted by Maedhros:

I think that we are forgetting one very important point in here. The gold that we are talking about here as in the Tale of the Nauglafring was the gold of the simple Rodothlim that were in no way comparable as to the later Ñoldor of Nargothrond. Remember that in the Tale the gold was not worked but it would seem to me unthinkable that the horde of Nargothrond under Finrod Felagund would be in such state. I'm not really sure how much worked that gold would need. To me it would be very beautiful pieces of gold.

That is a valid argument. But even if the people of Nargothrond were the most cunning Noldor-smith of all there would have been the possibility of a big hoard of un-fashioned gold in the halls of Nargothrond. But I must say that in this direction I had overdone it in my version of FoD by taking the descriptions of both results the smithies of the Dwarves together. Maybe we should use the first one to describe the treasure when it is brought forth by Húrin and the Outlaws.
I am not convinced that the Dwarves were only engaged to fashion the Nauglamir.
The other payments demanded by the Dwarves are clearly debatable. But we need something to lunch a quarrel and these demanded payments seemed perfect for that.

FD-SL-14 - The Dwarves already plant treasury.
Oh, sorry a bad misprint of mine. It should read: The Dwarves already planed treachery. Meaning that they lusted for the treasure and sought for a way to get hold on it.

Posted by Maedhros:

I see no reason as to not have a battle between the dwarves and the Elves of Doriath. It can be seen that there was a quarrel between the Elves and dwarves that ended up in a battle between them. It seems perfectly logical thinking about the curse of the gold.

Consider the result of a battle: Dwarves would have been killed. Okay, now the Dwarves that were driven away would reach Nogrod. What ever they tell there they would have to give some account why some of them were slain. From The Hobbit we learn that the Dwarves started the war only for the withheld reward. Thus the Dwarves that returned must have given a tale in which the dead Dwarves were killed justly or the fight would have been re-lunched for revenge and not only for the reward.
Alternative we could consider the statement in The Hobbit to refer to the first fight in Menegroth between the Dwarven-smiths and the Elves. But that would mean that the Dwarven-smith must capture some part of the treasure for which we have no hint at all in JRR Tolkiens texts.

FD-SL-20: Posted by Maedhros:

I don't think that treachery of the elves should be used, instead I would use the idea of Naugladur would know about the hunt. I mean the dwarves had already worked in Menegroth before and it is very plausible that they would know about certain customs in Menegroth, as the hunt.

The plot is workable without the treason of some Elves. But why not use it? The yearly hunt of Thingol (which could have been know about by Naugladur) could have been everywhere in Doriath. An Elf new come from Menegroth would had have the necessary information for Naugladur were to look for Thingol to lure him out of the Girdle.
And up to this point you have been the one that argued with the potency of the cruse of Mîm. Isn't a treacherous Elf a plausibly result of that cruse?

FD-SL21: Posted by Maedhros:

Using the hunt is the way that Thingol is killed outside his borders.

Not really, the hunt would normally be lunched inside the Girdle or at least so I would think. Otherwise there would not be any need to lure Thingol to come out of protection. Which JRR Tolkien clearly saw.

FD-SL-23: Posted by Maedhros:

When Thingol is killed we can follow the TN where Melian feels that her husband is dead, her power of the Girdle is gone, she fleds to find her daughter.

But in TN the girdle is already out of function by the treason of Narthseg. And Melain did not fled to find Lúthien:

Then did Naugladur in his triumph laugh till his beard shook, and bid seize her: but none might do so, for as they came towards her they groped as if in sudden dark, or stumbled and fell tripping each the other, and Gwendelin went forth from the places of her abode, and her bitter weeping filled the forest. Now did a great darkness fall upon her mind and her counsel and lore forsook her, at she wandered she knew not whither for a great while; and this was by reason of her love for Tinwelint the king, for whom she had chosen never to fare back to Valinor and the beauty of the Gods, dwelling always in the wild forests of the North; and now did there seem to her neither beauty nor joy be it in Valinor or in the Lands Without. Many of the scattered Elves in her wayward journeyings she met, and they took pity on her, but she heeded them not. Tales had they told her, but she hearkened not over much since Tinwelint was dead; ...

It is in S and in Q30 that Melain goes from Menegroth to seek Lúthien. And in both versions it is again treachery of the Elves that had removed the girdle. But this was not to the liking of JRR Tolkien as he later stated in TY.
Posted by Maedhros:

JRRT quote doesn't necessarily mean that Melian willingly removed the girdle but as CT imply in his version, that her power over it was gone, and that is why she fled.

I do not interpret the Sil77 version in that way. I think that you changed cause and effect here. Melian is trouble by the death of Thingol and forsook Middle-Earth. She did not remove the Girdle with some purpose but she did not longer care for it. She did not fled because she was no longer able to protect Doriath. She went way because here former life had fallen in ruin and was stripped from its sense for here by the death of Thingol. And last but not least, why should here power over the matter of Arda be gone with the death of Thingol? Do you see Melian acting with Thingol in a way like Sauron with the Ring? Possible but such a interpretation should not be forced on the reader of our version of the story.
Posted by Maedhros:

As to call her witless after such an event is to me unthinkable.

Not so for JRR Tolkien as seen in TN. But in my view you drive it even further by denying here power after the death of Thingol.
Posted by Maedhros:

Why wouldn't a maiar like her, who had not the restrictions that the later Istari had, would not be able to find her own daughter?

I agree on that point, in principle she would have been able to find Lúthien, but see next § of the post. And for Melian not being restricted like the Istari I would say she might even have been more ristricted by her former actions: permanent incarnation, living in the fashion of the Sindar for a very long time, childbirth, gaining power over the matter of Arda (creating the girdle). But that is clearly a argument for nothing since we do not know enough to make a valid comparison.
Posted by Maedhros:

I don't see any pressing evidence as to why Melian should not be the messenger.

To put it simple: The problem is the Girdle. Remove Melian and the problem is solved. Do not remove her, and you have to argue the Girdle away in some very risky fashion.

FD-SL-24: Yes it works well, and we have already done some step in removing the innumerable host of Green-Elves that jumped from behind each tree when Beren sounded his horn. When we workout the passage I will give the purposed further reduction a try and we can see how it works.

At least I have the feeling that we know begin to discuss the core of the problems we have each with version of the other and not only the textual details. Even if I in the moment don't see us move nearer to any agreement.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Aiwendil]

Just wanted to let both of you know that I've been following this discussion. I had been thinking that I would avoid commenting at all until Earendil was finished, but as things here look to be going ahead with or without me, I will see if I can make some kind of response later today. If not, then, alas, I'll be away for a few days with no internet.

I think I can say in general that I'm wary of a lot of the proposals so far and I may end up advocating a lot less use of LT, unfortunately.

[Aiwendil]

FD-SL-03: I'd say it's possible, and even likely, that Hurin's slaying of Mim would have been restored if "Wanderings" had continued. But I do not think we have the authority to return to that story in violation of Q30. I guess I would go with the story in Q30 for Mim's death.

FD-SL-05: We have at least some indication that Tolkien might have intended to keep the outlaws alive up to Menegroth, since he says in relation to "Wanderings" that they are the "nucleus of the force" with which Hurin brings ruin to Doriath. The other piece of "evidence" here is simply Christopher's observation that Hurin's gesture is ruined by his being forced to get Thingol to send for the very treasure which is to be so dramaticly cast at his feet.

Still, some part of me says that since Q30 is the last full account of the Ruin of Doriath and we don't have any clear renunciation of that story, we ought at least to consider following the story there, however inadequate it may seem. It would at least obviate the problem of the fate of the outlaws.

FD-SL-06: The only logical way that Hurin can have gotten into Doriath is if he was led through the Girdle; so in an abstract sense I agree with Maedhros. I am not sure, however, that either lifting text from elsewhere in TT or inventing a secret bridge over Sirion to match that over Esgalduin is the way to achieve it. We could perhaps be ambiguous here.

FD-SL-08: This is one of the two really tricky parts in my view. I fear we can only go so far with ambiguous sentences. I am not at all satisfied with any of the possibilities:

1. The outlaws are killed on the way to Doriath, as in Q30. The trouble with this is of course that it ruins Hurin's gesture. We have what might be interpreted as an indication from JRRT that it was rejected; we also have the strong condemnation of the story by Christopher.

2. The outlaws battle with the Elves in Menegroth. This was the story in TT, but was rejected; there is no reason to think that it would ever have been re-introduced. It seems out of place in the later Silmarillion; also it seems likely that the inadequate story found in Q30 was devised to avoid this.

3. The outlaws leave peacefully. This is not found in any text; also there may be a problem with them escaping the curse of Mim.

FD-SL-11: I definitely don't think that we can re-introduce Ufedhin; nor can we invent a new character in his place. I don't see any reason to doubt the Q30 story here - nor in fact any reason that we need to elaborate on what is said there.

FD-SL-12 and FD-SL-13: Again, Q30 ought to be taken as authoritative. What we have there is ambiguous. I wonder about the necessity of re-introducing Lost Tales material merely for the sake of detail, when that material is so highly dubious. Again, I think that this is a place where we may have to just use Q30 as it is.

FD-SL-17: I don't know whether to consider The Hobbit in contradiction with Q30 or not. Christopher certainly didn't seem to think it was, at any rate. The statement in The Hobbit is quite general and clearly not intended to say anything about the precise sequence of events. I guess in the end I don't really see the contradiction - the Dwarves can go to war after the slaying of their kin and still be going to "retrieve their treasure".

FD-SL-19: Would the news of Mim's death really have point for the Dwarves of Nogrod, considering the later conception of the Petty Dwarves?

FD-SL-20: I don't think we can use the treachery of the Elves. It's simply out of place in the later Silmarillion. Putting it back in may be possible, but there's insufficient justification for it; it would be little better than fan fiction.

FD-SL-21: Tolkien could have revived the hunt story but did not. I don't see why we can't simply follow Tolkien's idea - that he was "induced to go to war beyond his borders". It becomes a problem only if we insist on investing every portion of the story with the level of detail found in the Lost Tales. Why not use the bald statement that "Thingol was induced to go to war beyond his borders"? Or, if we permit a stylistic revision, "Hearing of the anger of the Dwarves, Thingol went forth to war beyond the borders of Doriath."

FD-SL-22: I wonder about using Mablung here. In the 77 he defends the Silmaril to the last, but as I recall I could find no precedent whatsoever for this in any of JRRT's writings.

FD-SL-23: I think we can follow the note, much as Findegil suggests, in having Melian depart immediately. But I don't see a definite need to delete the Q30 story that she brought the message to Beren and Luthien before she departed for Valinor. Though I do understand the awkwardness of that solution. If that's deemed unworkable, I would go with Findegil's suggestion that she immediately goes to Valinor and that the message is brought to Beren and Luthien by some anonymous messenger.

FD-SL-27: This is indeed problematic. I'll think about it.

[Maédhros]

That was what I tried with the secret bridge over Sirion. But it is clearly not quite sufficient since the Gridle protected Nivrim. I am sure that we can find some solution.

FD-SL-06: The only logical way that Hurin can have gotten into Doriath is if he was led through the Girdle; so in an abstract sense I agree with Maedhros. I am not sure, however, that either lifting text from elsewhere in TT or inventing a secret bridge over Sirion to match that over Esgalduin is the way to achieve it. We could perhaps be ambiguous here.

I think that we are all on the same page in here.

FD-SL-08: This is one of the two really tricky parts in my view. I fear we can only go so far with ambiguous sentences. I am not at all satisfied with any of the possibilities:

1. The outlaws are killed on the way to Doriath, as in Q30. The trouble with this is of course that it ruins Hurin's gesture. We have what might be interpreted as an indication from JRRT that it was rejected; we also have the strong condemnation of the story by Christopher.

2. The outlaws battle with the Elves in Menegroth. This was the story in TT, but was rejected; there is no reason to think that it would ever have been re-introduced. It seems out of place in the later Silmarillion; also it seems likely that the inadequate story found in Q30 was devised to avoid this.

3. The outlaws leave peacefully. This is not found in any text; also there may be a problem with them escaping the curse of Mim.

If I'm not mistaken, Findegil and me agree on the fact that the outlaws are the ones who take the treasure of Nargothrond to Menegroth and that there is no battle there. Our difference seems to be in what happens to the outlaws after they leave. Do they live with some of the treasure or not? My opinion is that they do take some of it and that it is said that most of them died in quarrels on the road as to not escape the curse of Mîm.

FD-SL-11: I definitely don't think that we can re-introduce Ufedhin; nor can we invent a new character in his place. I don't see any reason to doubt the Q30 story here - nor in fact any reason that we need to elaborate on what is said there.

This is one of the two points in which I disagree with Findegil. I have argued against using either Ufedhin nor a betrayal of the Elves.

FD-SL-12 and FD-SL-13: Again, Q30 ought to be taken as authoritative. What we have there is ambiguous. I wonder about the necessity of re-introducing Lost Tales material merely for the sake of detail, when that material is so highly dubious. Again, I think that this is a place where we may have to just use Q30 as it is.

I would definitely in the whole Ruin of Doriath would introduce as most Lost Tales material as possible within our rules, considering that the Q30 account is very general.

FD-SL-17: I don't know whether to consider The Hobbit in contradiction with Q30 or not. Christopher certainly didn't seem to think it was, at any rate. The statement in The Hobbit is quite general and clearly not intended to say anything about the precise sequence of events. I guess in the end I don't really see the contradiction - the Dwarves can go to war after the slaying of their kin and still be going to "retrieve their treasure".

I agree with Aiwendil in here, and having the fight between the dwarves and elves would makes us follow the Q30 account as it was written.

FD-SL-20: I don't think we can use the treachery of the Elves. It's simply out of place in the later Silmarillion. Putting it back in may be possible, but there's insufficient justification for it; it would be little better than fan fiction.

I agree with this.

FD-SL-21: Tolkien could have revived the hunt story but did not. I don't see why we can't simply follow Tolkien's idea - that he was "induced to go to war beyond his borders". It becomes a problem only if we insist on investing every portion of the story with the level of detail found in the Lost Tales. Why not use the bald statement that "Thingol was induced to go to war beyond his borders"? Or, if we permit a stylistic revision, "Hearing of the anger of the Dwarves, Thingol went forth to war beyond the borders of Doriath."

I would personally want to follow the idea of the old hunt story but now I think that I can follow that because of the slaying of the Elves in Menegroth, Thingol was induced to go to war beyond the borders of Doriath.

FD-SL-22: I wonder about using Mablung here. In the 77 he defends the Silmaril to the last, but as I recall I could find no precedent whatsoever for this in any of JRRT's writings.

I would use Mablung here with no trouble. He is mentioned in the Tale of the Nauglafring as dying with Thingol.

FD-SL-23: I think we can follow the note, much as Findegil suggests, in having Melian depart immediately. But I don't see a definite need to delete the Q30 story that she brought the message to Beren and Luthien before she departed for Valinor. Though I do understand the awkwardness of that solution. If that's deemed unworkable, I would go with Findegil's suggestion that she immediately goes to Valinor and that the message is brought to Beren and Luthien by some anonymous messenger.

To put it simple: The problem is the Girdle. Remove Melian and the problem is solved. Do not remove her, and you have to argue the Girdle away in some very risky fashion.

Findegil is correct in this. But there is another factor to consider. Melian is a wise and great queen. I just can't see her that if she had the ability to keep the Girdle in place after Thingol's death, she would choose not to do it and leave and Valinor at once. I know that she would be in shock at the death of Thingol but not as to leave all of Menegroth vulnerable to such a devastating attack. I would rather follow CT as he did in the QS77 riskier as it might be.

[Findegil]

First of all: Aiwendil it is nice to have your attention in this discussion.
Posted by Aiwendil:

I had been thinking that I would avoid commenting at all until Earendil was finished, but as things here look to be going ahead with or without me, I will see if I can make some kind of response later today.

My appologies if I by posting my storyline posts,I robbed you of the last free minutes of the day. I consider my self for nearly 2 weeks in which I had the posts nearly ready on my PC to hold back until Eärendil was settled. But in the end thought the situation would have been even worth if it would have gone further with me commenting in privat to Meadhros more and more elaborated drafts of FoD. Seeing that Maedhros had worked out in "secret" 2 further drafts of the story, I strongly felt the need of an open discussion.

Your generall remark that you would rather would like to go with Q30 than add things without need from TT and TN I can accept concerning the storyline and I would in some points even go further than you have done in this, as will be seen below. But as ever when the storyline is once settled I would go and fetch details of the text from LT to elaborat our text as far as possible. But still that is not the goal of the discussion in this thread.

Now to the points you commented on:
FD-SL-03: I am okay here with the story of Q30. But I would have a hard time to use the text of Q30 without any addition.

FD-SL-05: I think the evidence we have against Q30 in having the outlaws killed in quarrels on the road is hard enough. Of course we could argue that the change is not workable since the fate of the outlaws could not be solved by us, but that seemed a to conservativ fiew to me.

FD-SL-06: The secret bridge was not an invention of mine! UT; Part one: The First Age; chapter II: Narn I Hîn Húrin; sub-chapter: The Journey of Morwen and Nienor to Nargothrond:

... Hope then returned to Mablung; and they went on now together steering northward and eastward, for there was no road back into Doriath in the south, and since the fall of Nargothrond the ferry-wards were forbidden to set any across save those that came from within.
...
And now at length after many days they came nigh to the west border of Doriath, somewaht south of Teiglin; for they intended to pass the fences of the little land of Thingol beyond Sirion and so come to the guarded bridge near the inflowing of Esgalduin. ...

The bridge would be the natural choice to come into Doriath from the west. The only other way would be to go back north, cross the Brithiach
and enter Doriath from Dimbar. The weckness of my idea is that not only the bridge is guarded but there are also "the fences of the littel land of Thingol beyond Sirion", Nivrim as it is called on the map.

FD-SL-08: For 3 is the option to go. We will have a hard time to produce the text for that, but it is the most promissing way at least. If we in the end find out that it is really un-workable than and only than 1. must be the chioce in my view.

FD-SL-11: Posted by Aiwendil:

I don't see any reason to doubt the Q30 story here - nor in fact any reason that we need to elaborate on what is said there.

In my view I did not contradict anythink that was siad in Q30. But I am reading you right here, that you would even drop Melains warning about the hoard?

FD-SL-12 FD-SL-13: Posted by Aiwendil:

Again, Q30 ought to be taken as authoritative. What we have there is ambiguous. I wonder about the necessity of re-introducing Lost Tales material merely for the sake of detail, when that material is so highly dubious. Again, I think that this is a place where we may have to just use Q30 as it is.

Talking about storyline I am willing to accept that, but when it come to the actual text I can not imaging how we can go with a Q30-like version of Fod between a full told Narn plus WH and a full told FoG.

FD-SL-17: Okay, it might be that I have ofer interpreted here the lines in The Hobbit. If you both like to have the battle between the Dwarven-simth and the Elves we will use it.

FD-SL-19: About the death of Mîm: I think it would have some point for the Dwarves of Nogrod. Considering that the killing of the Pety-Dwarves by the Sindar was a grive just laid to sleep between the Sindar and the Dwarves as is told in Quendi and Eldar. Thus we have Thingols people hunt the Petty dwarves down to a few, and the Húrin killed the last and Thingol as the one who gets the advantage of all that. But it is a minor point and I could go without it.

FD-SL-20: Posted by Aiwendil:

I don't think we can use the treachery of the Elves. It's simply out of place in the later Silmarillion. Putting it back in may be possible, but there's insufficient justification for it; it would be little better than fan fiction.

It is interesting how the view point is changed here. The treachery of the Elves is in full flavor in Q30! How can it be consider fan-fictional to hold it, if as you have argued as jet Q30 is the leading text for our storyline? The note about the passage of the Girdle of Melian does only provide evedence that the treachery was a sufficent tool to surround the problem of the Girdle of Melain, but does not say that there was no treachery involved.

FD-SL-21: Here we have the same situation as before. The hunt is part of the Q30 narrative. Thus it was never droped in the fulltold narrative. It is clear if we will use the second opption given in the note ("Thingol is lured outside or induced to go to war beyond his borders") we must skip the hunt. But were is the reason for not using the first oppoin given in the note and stick to the hunt? Beside the fact that we would be more true to Q30 which is Tolkiens latest telling of the story, we would get some additional advantages: As I see the millitary situation in Beleriand the Dwarves of Nogrod would not have been able to fight a war against the army of Doriath with out some trick. And that is also hinted at in TN and Sil77. But if the attack is unfore-seen it can be argued that they would had have a chance to gain the success they clearly had.
Posted by Maedhors:

I would personally want to follow the idea of the old hunt story but now I think that I can follow that because of the slaying of the Elves in Menegroth, Thingol was induced to go to war beyond the borders of Doriath.

I can't see the point here. Why is it less probable that Thingol goes to a hunt when some Elves are killed in the fight with the dwarve-smith? Doriath had long since been fighting at the borders as we learn from the Narn. Thus a few dead Elves in Menegroth would not stop the festival hunt. Okay, I can see the fight in Menegroth could have given Thingol a reasson to go to war beyond the borders. An dif you meant that it is clearly a point, but none that we could take up in the text.

By the way: Posted by Aiwendil:

Or, if we permit a stylistic revision, "Hearing of the anger of the Dwarves, Thingol went forth to war beyond the borders of Doriath."

If this is consider a stylistic revision, than I am the conservatist editor among us!

FD-SL-22: The detail of Mablung warding the Silmaril in Menegroth is an editorial invention of Christopher Tolkien. The question might be if Thingol does waer the Nauglamir when he is traped by the Dwarves. If not and the Nauglamir is hoarded in Menegroth we could consider Mablung as a special guard for it. But I see the scene thus: Thingols has gone to a festival hunt in his best fashion wearing the new wrought Nauglamir. Withhim are all the Lords and noble Elves of Doriath including the cheif of his thanes Mablung but not a grat army. Then he is lured out side the girdle an attacked by an superiority of Dwarves. As is everybodies duty all defend the king with their life until all are foredone with Mablung as his chief thanes dying as the last defender beside the king himself.
If the hunt is used Mablungs place is by the King as he was in the original hunt for Charcharoth.

FD-SL-22: But in Sil77 Melian does not go her self to Ossiriand but bides Mablung to send a message. It is right that Sil77suggests that here power was not removed willingly but I would fell much saver if we could left that point open.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Aiwendil]

Findegil wrote:

My appologies if I by posting my storyline posts,I robbed you of the last free minutes of the day.

Not at all. As it turned out I had plenty of time for these comments.

FD-SL-05: I'm still not altogether convinced that the evidence against the outlaws being killed on the road as in Q30 is all that compelling. But for the moment at least I think I agree with you that they should survive and reach Menegroth.

FD-SL-06: Sorry that I missed that bridge in UT! Still, I don't like inventing the fact that they entered there. I would prefer to be ambiguous rather than to invent details. And Findegil is right about the problem with Nivrim.

FD-SL-11: What I meant was that I don't see any reason to alter or elaborate on the story in Q30 by re-introducing Ufedhin or someone in that role.

FD-SL-12, FD-SL-13: Maedhros wrote:

I would definitely in the whole Ruin of Doriath would introduce as most Lost Tales material as possible within our rules, considering that the Q30 account is very general.

And Findegil:

Talking about storyline I am willing to accept that, but when it come to the actual text I can not imaging how we can go with a Q30-like version of Fod between a full told Narn plus WH and a full told FoG.

This is an old issue, of course. I've said before that, no matter what we do, there will be huge stylistic discrepancies in the later parts of our Silmarillion. There certainly is one between FoG and Earendil. There is also bound to be one between "The Wanderings of Hurin" and the remainder of RoD, even if we were to use as much of TN as possible.

Now I don't object to using the Lost Tales as a source for a more full narrative - we did that in FoG. But now it looks like in many places we have to weigh that full narrative against canonical safety. In places where the TN narrative is quite reliable, and agrees very closely with Q30, we can safely use it. But whenever there is doubt as to how precisely to implement the TN material, we ought to be able to fall back on Q30 itself.

I am wary because a lot of times so far in the discussion the inclusion or exclusion of plot points from TN seems to come down to "I would like to use this story" or "if we use this, we can justify it" rather than "this story is clearly still valid".

FD-SL-20: I expressed myself poorly in my last post. Findegil is right that, being that it appears in Q30, the treachery of the Elves idea is hard to just ignore. But in my reading, this alone is sufficient to account for the Dwarves' access to Doriath; and the famous note "Doriath cannot be invaded by a hostile army . . ." should be taken as contradicting that story and sketching out a new one. Also, the treachery of Elves in Doriath seems somewhat out of place in the later - i.e. post-LotR - Silmarillion.

The very fact that Tolkien considered having him "induced to go to war beyond his borders" might suggest that the hunt was abandoned. I can perhaps see the inclusion of the hunt though. The main point is that I would try to avoid inventing any details concerning how Thingol was lured outside Doriath, preferring a bald statement of that fact.

FD-SL-23: Maedhros wrote:

Findegil is correct in this. But there is another factor to consider. Melian is a wise and great queen. I just can't see her that if she had the ability to keep the Girdle in place after Thingol's death, she would choose not to do it and leave and Valinor at once. I know that she would be in shock at the death of Thingol but not as to leave all of Menegroth vulnerable to such a devastating attack. I would rather follow CT as he did in the QS77 riskier as it might be.

But I don't see how the note can be interpreted other than as saying that Melian's departure allowed the Dwarves to enter. I don't see why Melian's power should disappear after Thingol's death. But I don't think that it's absolutely necessary that we choose between the two alternatives. There's no need for our text to specify whether the Girdle is gone and therefore Melian departs or Melian departs and therefore the Girdle is gone. And in any case, why should she not go and bring the message to Beren and Luthien?

[Findegil]

FD-SL-05: Okay, that means we will try the outlaws im Menegroth and if that does not workout we will go back to Q30.

FD-SL-06: Agreed, the bridge is to risky and does not work due to the Nivrim problem.

FD-SL-11: Okay, even if I don't see that fit the later Thingol we will not introduce any one to urge Thingol not to thrust the hoard away.

FD-SL-12 & FD-SL-13: Posted by Aiwendil:

Now I don't object to using the Lost Tales as a source for a more full narrative - we did that in FoG. But now it looks like in many places we have to weigh that full narrative against canonical safety. In places where the TN narrative is quite reliable, and agrees very closely with Q30, we can safely use it. But whenever there is doubt as to how precisely to implement the TN material, we ought to be able to fall back on Q30 itself.
I am wary because a lot of times so far in the discussion the inclusion or exclusion of plot points from TN seems to come down to "I would like to use this story" or "if we use this, we can justify it" rather than "this story is clearly still valid".

My reason to go back to a storyline discussion was very similar to that: Working on the text it self one is often carried way by the details and lose the validity out of sight. I see the further work done on this chapter now in quiet a nother way than before: First I saw that we would take a draft from Maedhros or my one and start working form that, but now I would rather take Q30 change what must be change to creat the storyline produce here and then start to add details in accordance to our rules form whatever source. Our preliminary drafts will in the end only help to identify the materials that could be added for the sake of details.

FD-SL-20 Posted by Aiwendil:

But in my reading, this alone is sufficient to account for the Dwarves' access to Doriath;

That is clearly the case in Q30. But the famous Note does not give any information how Thingol was lured outside the girdle. It does also not deny that treachery played a part in that fight. I do niether say that we should specify the "how" nor do I support that we should go back to the simple plot that the treason of the Elves circumvented the girdle. As I said before, if we take the second opption given by the note that Thingol is lured to go to war outside, than the treason of the elves has no place. But if we hold the hunt and take the first opption given in the note, the Dwarves would need very exact information about the hunt planed for that year, and that was exactly what the elves brought to Naugladur in TN. Thus I think, if we stick to the hunt the treason of some elves is still a valid story.
It all comes down to the question if we will take "Thingol is lured outside {...}" or "Thingol is {...} induced to go to war beyond his borders". The first could incooperate much more of the old plot (like the hunt and the treason of the Elves). The second would be a reduction to that statment without any further detail. And it would in my view at last creat a problem of believability since it sems impossible for me that the Elves of Doriath are defeated in a katastrophic way by the host of Nogord in an planed and open war.
How we can use the note without choosing one of the opptions in a narrative is beyond my imagination.

FD-SL-23 Posted by Aiwendil:

There's no need for our text to specify whether the Girdle is gone and therefore Melian departs or Melian departs and therefore the Girdle is gone. And in any case, why should she not go and bring the message to Beren and Luthien?

I agree fulheartedly on the first part and I will try to answere the second part: If Melian does not remove the girdle and goes after the death of Thingol to Ossiriand to find Beren and Luthein and than departes we have a timeline problem: during the time that elapsed between Thingols death and Melians depeature, what would the dwarves do? linger on the border of Doriath? That would ruin the surprise effect that is in my view needed for their success. If we have Melian by choice remove the girdle before she goes to Beren than we creat a problem of motiv: Why should she remove the girdle or if she did why should she then send Beren to a revenge. Thus the only logical explanation as Maedhros has understood for Melian to bring the meassage to Beren would be that she losed here ability to protect Doriath and sought his help to rescue what ever could be rescued.
This would in my view mean that when we let Melian bring the message to Beren we would however ambiguous or text meight be implicit state that Melian lost her power with the death of Thingol. I do not say that this is impossible, but I would aviod any statement in that direction even if only given implicit.
For that reason I find it savvest to let her depart without a visit in Ossiriand as it si in Sil77.

Respectfully
Findegil