Narn I Chîn Húrin 1: Túrins Fostering - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Aran e-Godhellim · 04-08-2009, 11:32 AM

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 · 04-08-2009, 11:42 AM

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 · 04-08-2009, 01:12 PM

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 · 04-08-2009, 10:48 PM

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 · 04-09-2009, 12:44 AM

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 · 04-10-2009, 01:59 AM

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 · 04-10-2009, 07:57 AM

Quote:

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 · 04-12-2009, 01:04 PM

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 · 04-13-2009, 09:37 PM

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

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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 · 04-15-2009, 01:08 PM

Oh yes, these lines were a bit rough edited.

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

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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

Aran e-Godhellim · 04-15-2009, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Findegil

Oh yes, these lines were a bit rough edited.

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

700: I tried 'the brotherhood' instead of 'his brothers' but that is probably to long. What about:
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:
702: Not that easy either. But probably this is a good try:
to have a probably smoother read, hear a cleared version of complete add from the Lay:

Respectfully
Findegil

Not bad, but I'd alter it a bit. I think a new line is needed:

Quote:

<Lay of the Children of Húrin {The}the dawn over {Doriath}[Narog] __ dimly kindled {695}
saw {Blodrin Bor's son}[Mîm the betrayer] __ by a beech standing[.]
{with}[His] throat {thriléd}[was thriled] __ 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 for gold}[for gold __ the blood of his leige]: {700}
this his meed meted __ in {the mirk at random}[meeting with Húrin];
[Andróg, oathbreaker, __ at last was avenged]
by {an}[a] {orc-}[cruel] arrow __ his {oath}[curse] came home.

I added a line in, and altered the third line to get rid of a literary device Tolkien almost certainly would have removed. (the use of "ed" as a syllable)

I also changed "an cruel" to "a cruel," and proposed my own change to the "blood of his brothers" line. Here's an unmarked version:

Quote:

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

04-12-2009, 01:04 PM	#8
gondowe Wight Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 247	Hello again 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.

04-08-2009, 11:32 AM	#1
Aran e-Godhellim Haunting Spirit Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The Halls of Mandos Posts: 86	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.

04-08-2009, 11:42 AM	#2
Findegil King's Writer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,721	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

04-08-2009, 01:12 PM	#3
Aran e-Godhellim Haunting Spirit Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The Halls of Mandos Posts: 86	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.

04-08-2009, 10:48 PM	#4
Aiwendil Late Istar Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,224	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).

04-09-2009, 12:44 AM	#5
Findegil King's Writer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,721	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.

04-10-2009, 01:59 AM	#6
Aiwendil Late Istar Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,224	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.