Narn I Chîn Húrin 1: Túrins Fostering

[Findegil]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).

[Findegil]

Lets count which oppions we have so fare:
Gondowe has offer a no in some way
Aran has said no clearly
Aiwendil is abivalent leaning to no.

I myself offer a clear yes.

Counting we have:
2.5 no
1.5 yes

Even if Maedhros would give a clear yes we only could reach a patt. In that situation savety has to rule. And that means we will not take the additions from the Lay up into our text of the Narn. I will restore them as part of the appendix, which documents the essential parts of our discussions here.

I think we are done with this part of the Narn. Lets move on to Beleg & Falivirn.

[Aiwendil]

I hate to let the rule here be by majority rather than unanimity, but I suppose there's little sense in having a protracted debate about this. If someone changes his mind, it's easy enough to put those excerpts back in.

[Aran e-Godhellim]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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).

While I do agree with your "three arguments," this was actually my main concern. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

[gondowe]

As to the matter above, Findegil is rigth with my vote as I explained, I think the Narn is overall, the final view of the history by Tolkien, and with the finished parts I think we must not do anything. Not with the parts not finished, that fortunately were left in the Lay, (as a premonition, I like to think).
One can say, "so for what reason in a "finished work" like the Valaquenta, you add parts of the LT?". Because I think the descriptions of the houses of the Valar, etc, relly adds a worthwhile information.

Greetings.

[Aiwendil]

Looking back at this I realize there are problems with the excerpt from the Lay used at Mim's death:

RD-EX-11.51b<editorial bridge said Húrin. And it is sung that
><Lay of the Children of Húrin {The}the dawn over {Doriath}[Narog] __ dimly kindled {695}
saw {Blodrin Bor's son}[Mîm the petty-dwarf] __ by a beech standing
with throat thriléd __ by a thrusting arrow,
whose shaven shaft, __ shod with {poison}[iron],
and feather-wingéd, __ was fast in the tree. [5]
He bargained the blood __ of {his brothers}Túrin's band for gold: {700}
this his meed meted - __ in the mirk at {random}[Narog];
by an {orc-}arrow __ his {oath}[curse] came home.>

Lines 696 and 702 no longer alliterate; also, in lines 700 and 702 don't scan so well. For line 696 what occurs to me is this:

saw {Blodrin Bor's son}[Mîm the petty-dwarf] __ {by a beech}unmoving, standing

Nothing jumps out at me for the other two lines, though; I'll look at them again when I have more time.

[Findegil]

Oh yes, these lines were a bit rough edited.

696: I do not like your solution over much what about:

saw {Blodrin Bor's son}[Mîm the betrayer] __ by a beech standing

700: I tried 'the brotherhood' instead of 'his brothers' but that is probably to long. What about:

He bargained the blood __ of {his brothers}[the band] for gold:

701: I believe you mean 701 does not scan well. And I understand your concerns. But I can not find any fitting featur of geographie or soruonding which seemed better. Probably we should change the half line completly:

this his meed meted - __ in the {mirk at random}[meeting with Húrin];

702: Not that easy either. But probably this is a good try:

by an {orc-}[cruel ]arrow __ {his oath}[Andróg's curse] came home.>

to have a probably smoother read, hear a cleared version of complete add from the Lay:

the dawn over Narog __ dimly kindled
saw Mîm the betrayer __ by a beech standing
with throat thriléd __ by a thrusting arrow,
whose shaven shaft, __ shod with iron,
and feather-wingéd, __ was fast in the tree.
He bargained the blood __ of the band for gold:
this his meed meted - __ in the meeting with Húrin;
by an cruel arrow __ Andróg's curse came home.

Respectfully
Findegil