Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes... - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Boromir88 · 11-09-2004, 07:23 PM

I think we can pretty much all agree there is a difference between need not, and do not. This clearly effects whether the elves, do or don't count the years.

I do agree with SpM on this point.

Quote:

But I do not think that this difference alters the essential nature of Elves.

It effects whether they "can" or if they just plain out don't count the years, but I don't see it effecting the nature of the Elves. I also, agree with SpM, in saying that the correct word should be need. Since, they do need to count the years, to have certain interactions with mortals. SpM, makes this clear with his quote from Celeborn (nice quote SpM). So the correct word would have to be "need not."

davem · 11-10-2004, 03:26 AM

Sorry, but 'do not' is emphatic, 'need not' isn't. What I like about 'do not[/i]' is that its actually quite mysterious - why would it be that they do not count the running years? Perhaps because by the end of the Third Age Time itself has come to seem an 'enemy', a thing to be avoided, in thought at least. Perhaps Time is something they have decided to have as little as possible to do with. Time may pass in the 'world outside' their realms, but within them (& within their own minds) it has no place. Time takes away everything they love, time will drive them into exile from Middle-earth (only the Noldor are 'going home' when they pass into the West, the Sindar will be leaving the only home they've ever known.)

So, the words Legolas uses in relation to Time are significant, in that they reflect his (& other Elves') attitude to the running years. 'Do not' is a stronger expression than 'need not'. 'Need not' is too passive - it expresses a kind of unconcern with Time, as though its irrelevant to Elves - they can take notice of it or ignore it, as they choose. But it seems to me that Time & what it means to Elves is a central theme in Tolkien's works. Why are they so driven to 'embalm', to stop time, to hold back change, if Time & the change it brings isn't a central concern to them?

Aiwendil · 11-10-2004, 10:56 AM

Davem wrote:

Quote:

'Do not' is a stronger expression than 'need not'. 'Need not' is too passive

And yet, one cannot alter the fact that Tolkien wrote "need not". I still think it highly improbable that Christopher's accidental omission of the word "need" should precisely coincide with a change that his father was going to make anyway. In all likelihood, he either intended "need not" or felt that there was no significant difference between the two.

Lalwendë · 11-13-2004, 06:24 AM

I have to say that such tiny differences in wording can, and do make an immense difference to the meaning of a text. In my work, much time is spent mulling over the meaning and context of words, to the extent that the writing of just one sentence in a document can necessitate a meeting and much heated discussion. This can be an utterly depressing thing to have to sit through, but I fully appreciate the importance of it. If I was to write that people are 'entitled' to something then it might mean hordes of people demanding that very entitlement, and thus costing the taxpayer x millions of pounds more than they should have paid.

To put the actual words being debated into this context, if I was to write: "the responsibilities of the Department do not include answering letters" then this would mean that any letter which is received can be sent straight back without a reply - and this would further mean less staff would be need to be employed as it was not in the Dept's remit. But if I was to write: "the responsibilities of the Department need not include answering letters" then this is nowhere near emphatic enough and any member of the public could argue that in fact the Dept ought to be answering those letters. I'm sure anyone who knows about Law will also appreciate this!

There is a saying where I work "You don't have to be a pedant to be a policy officer but it helps". I think this can also apply to writers, especially where they are attempting to express such complex concepts as perceptions of time and space.

Boromir88 · 11-13-2004, 08:09 AM

Quote:

I have to say that such tiny differences in wording can, and do make an immense difference to the meaning of a text.

Exactly Lalwende, also the tone in which you say it is important. When we are on the internet "posting/iming/e-mailing..etc" you don't get a tone, so it's hard to understand how I'm coming across. It could seem as if I'm angry at someone, but really I'm not. Depending upon the tones that one uses, influences what type of mood one is in, and it's hard to do that when you are communicating over the internet.

There is obviously a difference between the "do not" and "need not," as SpM has given us some wonderful examples the clear word should be "need not." The question is whether this effects the nature of the elves.

The destinction is elves simply "don't count the years," or they "need not count the years," which implies, they don't need to, but suggesting that some elves do indeed count the years. So, the way I think it is, it has an effect of whether the elves do not, or need not count the years. But, that doesn't effect the elves very nature because, whether they "do not," or whether they "need not" both come off as, counting the "passing years" isn't a big deal of theirs. "Do not" clearly comes off as elves simply don't count the years, it's not something that's important to them. "Need not," to me, I see as, ok they don't "need" to but they may, if they wish to have interactions with mortals. Still, it comes off as not a big deal to them. SpM, has already pointed out that there are those elves who do "count the passing years," again to have interactions with the humans. But, then there are those elves, who just don't care about mortals, and simply don't count the years.

Quote:

Lothlorien
"Welcome!" the Elf then said again in the Common Language, speaking slowly. "We seldom use any tongue but our own ; for we dwell now in the heart of the forest, and do not willingly have dealings with any other folk. Even our own kindred in the North are sundered from us. But there are some of us still who go abroad for the gathering of news and the watching of our enemies, and they speak the languages of other lands."

So, some elves NEED to do things like "count the passing years," and speak other languages, if they wish to gather news from outer lands, or have interactions with other languages. But, then there are those who NEED NOT to, which means they can, but they simply don't care about communicating with mortals, or others not of their kind, so they don't speak in the other languages, and they don't count the passing years. To me, this shows as if it's not a big deal to the elves, if they want to communicate with other peoples, then they NEED to do these things, but if they simply wish not to, then they NEED NOT do it. It just comes off to me as not an important thing amongst the elves, and not something that effect their whole nature.

davem · 11-13-2004, 08:52 AM

Well, Legolas says they 'do not/need not count the running years, not for themselves, so the issue is not whether they can or can't count the running years per se - obviously they can do that - but whether they count them for themselves. To say they do not count them for themselves implies either something in their nature - the 'running years' do not register on them personally - or, that they have made a deliberate descision not to count them for themselves.

Changing it to need not means either that the 'running years' do register on them but that they can somehow ignore that, or that its all dependent on circumstances - sometimes they'll register the passing years, sometimes they won't.

It changes a 'definite' into an 'indefinite', a 'certainly' into a 'maybe', a 'will' into a 'perhaps', & so it alters completely what Legolas is saying.

My own suspiscion is that when Tolkien came to read over what Christopher had written down (with the missing word) he wrote in what seemed the obviously 'correct' word, whatever his original idea had been.

Bêthberry · 11-13-2004, 09:49 AM

This discussion brings to mind a discussion I once had concerning the nature of medieval texts and the kind of "close reading" which used to be taught in schools and universities.

Medieval texts are fragmented texts in that full and complete editions such as we now are accustomed to have been lost to the vissitudes of time. With scribal transmission, we also have variations in texts, variations which cannot be resolved by recourse to "authorial intention" . The upshot of this earlier discussion was that the medievalist with whom I was talking argued that we cannot use methods of textual analysis derived from "modern texts" for medieval ones. Medieval narratives work differently and they deserve different approaches. (I think likely what has happened now is that more 'medieval' aproaches to narrative are being used on 'modern literature', but that's beside the point and I've really stated this very broadly for the sake of delineation rather than definition.)

What does this have to do with Tolkien? Well, more and more as I look at his oeuvre, I see a writer whose work not just takes its themes and structure from medieval (and earlier) texts. I see a writer who own stance as "author" is being 'medievalised.' Whose texts are being 'medievalised.'

First we had Christopher Tolkien 'tieing in' pieces of The Silm to make a coherent story. Then we had him edit HoMe and UT. Now we have Christopher producing a book which he believes respresents an authoritative version (if I understand davem's point here. I haven't seen the edition).

Without meaning in any way to deny Christopher's great knowledge and expertise, I would like to suggest that what he has done instead is to create a situation where multiple versions of texts abound, as exists with earlier literature. What we have essentially are two authors, one of whom was primary and the second of whom is the interpretive author. In short, I think Christopher's work takes us farther and farther away from a single authorial intention. And it takes Tolkien Pere's work further away from such modernist ideas as coherent, consistent character.

In short, I don't think we have any Ariadne's thread which will help us out of this labyrinth. Just more and more frayed ends.

Mithalwen · 11-14-2004, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davem

My own suspiscion is that when Tolkien came to read over what Christopher had written down (with the missing word) he wrote in what seemed the obviously 'correct' word, whatever his original idea had been.

If this is true, then it shows how unimportant the change is. If the alteration was significant to his concept of the elves, I am sure he would have picked up on it and done something about it.

Also I think, that the many faceted little word 'do' is being given its strongest possible reading, whereas the fact that Tolkien did not pick up on Christopher's error suggests to me that his use of "do" is likely to have been such that the change is immaterial:elves do not count the passing years for themselves, because they don't need to. Legolas was not actually drafting the definitive Elvish world view, just giving a short explanation to friends.

Lalawende - you gave a fine example elsewhere of how LOTR might have been if written by a committee. May Eru save us from that. I was going to say more but I have a sudden and overwhelming feeling that, not being Elvish, my life is too short

11-10-2004, 03:26 AM	#2
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	Sorry, but 'do not' is emphatic, 'need not' isn't. What I like about 'do not[/i]' is that its actually quite mysterious - why would it be that they do not count the running years? Perhaps because by the end of the Third Age Time itself has come to seem an 'enemy', a thing to be avoided, in thought at least. Perhaps Time is something they have decided to have as little as possible to do with. Time may pass in the 'world outside' their realms, but within them (& within their own minds) it has no place. Time takes away everything they love, time will drive them into exile from Middle-earth (only the Noldor are 'going home' when they pass into the West, the Sindar will be leaving the only home they've ever known.) So, the words Legolas uses in relation to Time are significant, in that they reflect his (& other Elves') attitude to the running years. 'Do not' is a stronger expression than 'need not'. 'Need not' is too passive - it expresses a kind of unconcern with Time, as though its irrelevant to Elves - they can take notice of it or ignore it, as they choose. But it seems to me that Time & what it means to Elves is a central theme in Tolkien's works. Why are they so driven to 'embalm', to stop time, to hold back change, if Time & the change it brings isn't a central concern to them? __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."

11-13-2004, 06:24 AM	#4
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	I have to say that such tiny differences in wording can, and do make an immense difference to the meaning of a text. In my work, much time is spent mulling over the meaning and context of words, to the extent that the writing of just one sentence in a document can necessitate a meeting and much heated discussion. This can be an utterly depressing thing to have to sit through, but I fully appreciate the importance of it. If I was to write that people are 'entitled' to something then it might mean hordes of people demanding that very entitlement, and thus costing the taxpayer x millions of pounds more than they should have paid. To put the actual words being debated into this context, if I was to write: "the responsibilities of the Department do not include answering letters" then this would mean that any letter which is received can be sent straight back without a reply - and this would further mean less staff would be need to be employed as it was not in the Dept's remit. But if I was to write: "the responsibilities of the Department need not include answering letters" then this is nowhere near emphatic enough and any member of the public could argue that in fact the Dept ought to be answering those letters. I'm sure anyone who knows about Law will also appreciate this! There is a saying where I work "You don't have to be a pedant to be a policy officer but it helps". I think this can also apply to writers, especially where they are attempting to express such complex concepts as perceptions of time and space. __________________ Gordon's alive!

11-13-2004, 08:52 AM	#6
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	Well, Legolas says they 'do not/need not count the running years, not for themselves, so the issue is not whether they can or can't count the running years per se - obviously they can do that - but whether they count them for themselves. To say they do not count them for themselves implies either something in their nature - the 'running years' do not register on them personally - or, that they have made a deliberate descision not to count them for themselves. Changing it to need not means either that the 'running years' do register on them but that they can somehow ignore that, or that its all dependent on circumstances - sometimes they'll register the passing years, sometimes they won't. It changes a 'definite' into an 'indefinite', a 'certainly' into a 'maybe', a 'will' into a 'perhaps', & so it alters completely what Legolas is saying. My own suspiscion is that when Tolkien came to read over what Christopher had written down (with the missing word) he wrote in what seemed the obviously 'correct' word, whatever his original idea had been. __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."

11-13-2004, 09:49 AM	#7
Bêthberry Cryptic Aura Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 6,003	This discussion brings to mind a discussion I once had concerning the nature of medieval texts and the kind of "close reading" which used to be taught in schools and universities. Medieval texts are fragmented texts in that full and complete editions such as we now are accustomed to have been lost to the vissitudes of time. With scribal transmission, we also have variations in texts, variations which cannot be resolved by recourse to "authorial intention" . The upshot of this earlier discussion was that the medievalist with whom I was talking argued that we cannot use methods of textual analysis derived from "modern texts" for medieval ones. Medieval narratives work differently and they deserve different approaches. (I think likely what has happened now is that more 'medieval' aproaches to narrative are being used on 'modern literature', but that's beside the point and I've really stated this very broadly for the sake of delineation rather than definition.) What does this have to do with Tolkien? Well, more and more as I look at his oeuvre, I see a writer whose work not just takes its themes and structure from medieval (and earlier) texts. I see a writer who own stance as "author" is being 'medievalised.' Whose texts are being 'medievalised.' First we had Christopher Tolkien 'tieing in' pieces of The Silm to make a coherent story. Then we had him edit HoMe and UT. Now we have Christopher producing a book which he believes respresents an authoritative version (if I understand davem's point here. I haven't seen the edition). Without meaning in any way to deny Christopher's great knowledge and expertise, I would like to suggest that what he has done instead is to create a situation where multiple versions of texts abound, as exists with earlier literature. What we have essentially are two authors, one of whom was primary and the second of whom is the interpretive author. In short, I think Christopher's work takes us farther and farther away from a single authorial intention. And it takes Tolkien Pere's work further away from such modernist ideas as coherent, consistent character. In short, I don't think we have any Ariadne's thread which will help us out of this labyrinth. Just more and more frayed ends. __________________ I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away.