![]() |
|
|
|
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
|
|
|
#1 | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
We'll have to come back to the big unresolved issues regarding Myths Transformed, but for now here are some more comments up to CE-EX-52.
CE-EX-44: Typo "brook" for "broke": Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
CE-SL-15: Another instance where, if we follow my suggestion, Melkor will be chained and the change won't be needed. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
CE-EX-47: If we accept my argument, this statement should be reinstated. CE-SL-17: Quote:
CE-EX-48: Is "Tuivana" still a valid name for Vana? I can't recall if it's used outside of LT. CE-EX-49: I'm not sure about these "unelvish spirits", much less about Mandos's folk roaming Middle-earth. CE-EX-50: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
CE-EX-51: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
Nice to have your input Aiwendil.
CE-EX-44: Thanks for pointing out these typos. Maybe we should first address the real issue, before we go farther. I think, we have boiled it down already to the following question: Do we follow MT and thus let Melkor pretend to submit an following the Valar into Aman by his own free will or do we leave that aspect of MT out and follow the earlier AAm and LT account in which Tulkas defeats Melkor which is than bound by Againor and forced to Valinor? Gandalf85 did already state his opinion that he leans more to the MT storyline and found my first chronological editing better than the later. By reading both versions again, I fully agree with him. Maybe we have to skip some parts of the text or some footnotes as to analytic, but even of that I am not so sure. If we take up the MT version here, we have a shift in the story from a physical struggle between the Valar and Melkor’s agents to a much more mental struggle between Melkor and Manwe. That in such a case the style of the narrative changes from a more direct description of the battle action to a more analytic style is a necessity (how else can a mental struggle be told if not by analyses?). To be honest, the analytic comments greatly enhance for me at least the characterization of both Melkor and Manwe. Melkor is shown in the moment he finally rejects repentance and Manwe in his struggle to keep Eä functional for Eru’s propose (or on a smaller scale, Ardar inhabitable for the children of Eru) for this he has to keep Melkor at bay without eliminating the Melkor ingredient to much, as that would rob Eä of very much of its potential. The Word of Eru that no one can change the tale against his will, where a warning for both Melkor and Manwe. Melkor did not heed that warning and struggle on until he had spent his full potential without a benefit for him (so it greatly enhanced the ‘Story of Arda’, which otherwise could have been very booring). But Manwe heeded that warning and did only make an end to the inhabiting of Arda by Melkor when Morgoth had personally via dispersion shrunk to insignificance. Maybe Aiwendil, you could explain a bit more what makes you feel so strongly against the MT stuff here. Respectfully Findegil |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
My objection comes down to my view that MT VI text is not a narrative; it's an outline for a new narrative that Tolkien never wrote. For me, this is a clear case for principle 2b, "proposed changes that do not clearly indicate the exact details that must be changed and how they are to be changed." That is, it tells us that Tolkien was going to re-write this material, but it does not give us any actual text to use. The phrases that, in the current proposal, we take from MT to effect this change are, in my opinion, not at all suitable to stand in a narrative. This is Tolkien writing in his own modern, colloquial voice, and there's no way that he would have considered describing Melkor as "isolated in enemy territory" or "swallowing a bitter pill" in an actual rewrite of this story.
Now, yes, it's true that we have explicitly said that we are not to be concerned about stylistic inconsistencies within our text. But when we hashed that out, we were talking about the differing styles of narratives written over the course of Tolkien's life. The key example we dealt with early on was the juxtaposition between the very different styles of the Lost Tales and of stuff like the later 'Tuor'. I don't think that this in any way obligates us to treat the text of notes or analyses written in Tolkien's own 'external' voice as if they are real narratives. So, that's my main objection - that as I see it, we simply don't have a text that is suitable for taking up this new element of the story - and in trying to force MT VI to fill that role, we end up doing great damage to the text. Now, for many of the other projected changes in MT, as we've discussed, I think the intervention required to achieve the change is much less, and in those cases and many others, we've used the expedient of taking a minimal amount of wording from a note or analysis and inserting it into a text. In some cases, I've been a bit uneasy about how much manipulation of the text is needed, but of course it's hard to draw a clear line between what is acceptable and what is too much. But for me, the situation with this story of the feigned submission of Melkor is clearly on the "too much" side. Does that help explain my view on this? Last edited by Aiwendil; 11-05-2020 at 05:23 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | ||
|
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
Thank you very much for that explanation. Your reasons are now much clearer to me. And it has to me become clear that the first answer to your concerns can only be a text that demonstrates that we can take the story line of MT IV without introducing its ‘outside voice character’. It clear that this text is still questionable since it will involve a lot of ‘fragmenting’ textual changes and probably some switching the sense of the actual words.
That said, I still think that we should in some way present the more analytical parts of MT IV to our (imagined) readers. But if that finds approval by the group and how and where (most probably in volume 3) is quiet an independent question. Okay, that is what the following text tries to do. Since I wished on the one hand to have documented where I skipped part of the MT IV that was included before and none the less show how much more storytelling the text has become I provide here under a clean text version: Quote:
Quote:
CE-SL-11.5b: Here we acknowledge the fact from MT; IV that the Valar had no hope of real victory. CE-EX-28b: I nominated this change b because I took up a bit more at the end. LT has here already Manwe’s reluctance to fight Melkor. Instead already this early in the writing history of Middle-Earth Tolkien establishes Manwe as seeking to ‘entreat’ Melkor to ‘better deeds’. It is interesting to see how Tolkien’s sometimes comes back to such idea’s in full circle. CE-EX-28.2: I introduce this marker to nominate our discussion about the name ‘tilkal.’ ‘Vorotemnar’ and ‘Ilterendi’. CE-EX-28.4: I introduce this marker to nominate our discussion about the names ‘Vorotemnar’ and ‘Ilterendi’. CE-EX-28.6: This is the only part of MT; VI I actually used here. It does introduce the motive to fight that we need after we made clear that the Valar did not hope for real victory. CE-EX-37b: I shifted the integration here a bit, therefore the b. Specially at the end I wove the passages a bit more fluent into on another. As it stands now Orome opens the gates, Melkor sends out his Balrogs and only after the Valar had fought that onslaught down Manwe calls Melkor who is now attested to be alone to come out. CE-EX-37.5: I think we have to change this, since later we took up that Tulkas and Ulmo broke the gates and piled rock on them but that the caverns where not utterly destroyed. CE-EX-38: These changes are generally accepted, I think. CE-EX-39f: I left this maker in the text, since here in earlier version we had big parts of MT; VI introduced, but in this version I left it out. CE-EX-38.1b: We already decided to leave out the guile the Valar used to bring Tulkas and Manwe into Melkor’s chamber, but the exchange via the servant I used to trigger the Valar to lay down their weapons and go in for negotiation. CE-EX-38.2: I left that marker because in the last version we skipped ‘unawares’, but here it fits in well. CE-EX-38.3: As mentioned above we did not include this ‘cunning deceit’. CE-EX-38.4b: I changed ‘Then’ to ‘Therefore’ to use the lay down of the weapons instead of the ‘cunning deceit’ from LT. CE-EX-38.55: As my text stands at this point Manwe has introduced Melkor to come with him to Valinor as it seems without any prerequisite. But I think from the new developed context it is clear enough that this offer is one for cooperation in consensus. I skipped the rest of the conversation since if we follow MT; VI Manwe and Melkor in this moment when they face each other in person must have understood who was now ‘in command’. And that is what I let follow here: CE-EX-38.6b: He start the parts of MT’; VI that I found necessary. But I tried to strip that passages of as much text as possible. Thus, giving us a chance to use it full size later on and reduce the essay character it has. The first used scene is that of Manwe and Melkor perceiving the decrease of Melkor. CE-EX-38.7b: The second motive I found necessary is that of possibility of the humiliation and chaining of Melkor. By the changes I introduced I tried to avoid the out side point of view that is used in MT; VI to explain the motives of Melkor and Manwe. CE-EX-38.8b: The third scene used here is that of Melkor’s (feigned) surrender and Manwe’s granting it. But again, I removed the analyses of the motives. In that way the reader is left as unclear as Manwe if the repentance is real or feigned. CE-EX-38.9: This passage from LT fits very well to explain Manwe’s motives at least a bit, and since it comes from a source that is everything but an essay, I don’t see that Aiwendil’s objection against the majority of the MT; VI stuff could be applied to it. CE-EX-38.91b: I found the ‘Nonetheless’ not really fitting here. CE-SL-17b: In the older versions we had only changed the text here from singular to plural and skipped the name of Utumno. But I thought, it might be better to introduce the name of Angband here, as it makes clear that there was a difference between what the Valar made at Angband to how they ‘sealed’ Utumno. CE-EX-44b: Here we tell the sealing of Utumno. CE-EX-44.5: I left that maker in because it marks a place where text of MT; V had been in other versions. CE-EX-45 & CE-EX-46: These are unchanged. CE-SL-14: I came back here to the original text, following Aiwendil’s arguments. CE-SL-15: It is clear, that this passage has to follow what ever we decided about Melkor being chained in Utumno. CE-EX-39e: If we introduce MT; VI with the (feigned) repentance of Melkor we need that passage, since it makes clear that Manwe’s was in a way overruled by the Valar in assembly during that court. But again, I remove the analyses of Melkors motives as they are clearly from an outside view point. CE-EX-47 & CE-SL-16b & CE-SL-18: These are unchanged from the last version. Respectfully Findegil |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
It's a well-worn refrain by this point, but once again, I'm sorry I haven't been around in a while.
If Findegil or anyone else is still around, I'm going to make an effort to get back to work on this. My general feeling after reading the last proposal is that I still don't find it satisfactory, but I will try to re-read it and identify my objections more specifically. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
Hi Aiwendil,
nice to read from you again! Yes, I am still here to discuse what so ever specific critisem you can bring forward. Respectfully Findegil |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
All right, here are my comments on the latest proposal.
CE-SL-11.5b: I gather that the point of this is to remove mention of "taking up again the mastery of Arda" to bring this in line with MT VI, but it introduces a redundancy, since the Valar's trepidation about the hurts they will cause to Arda is then mentioned twice. Also, the editing of Manwe's speech makes him repeat "Melkor" unnecessarily. If we do edit this to agree with MT, I think better would be: Quote:
CE-EX-28.2: I'm still unsure about "tilkal". Even if we accept tambe, latuken, ilsa, and kanu (and I have doubts about the phonology of latuken and ilsa in later Quenya), laure, I'm pretty sure, only refers to the colour, not the metal after the Lost Tales. But I'd need to refresh myself on Quenya, or consult someone more knowledgeable, to be sure. Again, though, I don't see a problem with the word "magic" here. CE-EX-28.4: I think that Vorotemnar and Ilterindi are fine in later Quenya, though again, my Quenya knowledge is very rusty. CE-EX-28.6: I still feel that the language here is very much that of an analytical note by Tolkien, not a narrative. You rightly remove "covering action", but "sphere of influence" still grates. However, I'm not sure that this addition is needed for the purpose you use it for - already above, we say that they wish to make war upon Melkor "and deliver the Quendi from the shadows" (of Melkor). So I suggest that even if we are taking up this part of the <b>MT</b> story, we do not actually need this addition. CE-EX-37b: There is still confusion here caused by merging the LT and AAm stories. In the latter, and in our text, it is told that the siege lasts for years. In AAm this is followed by the statement that at last the gates of Utumno were broken. In the proposal here, however, it's followed by the statement from LT that the Valar came to the gates of Utumno and Melkor shut them before their faces. In LT, this describes the beginning of an altogether far shorter battle, but it rings very odd here. I suppose one could posit that in all the war up to this point, the Valar had never actually come close enough to the gates that Orome's horn could have blasted them open, but this seems like quite a stretch to me, especially since AAm specifically locates the fighting before the gates of Utumno. As nice and vivid as the LT imagery is, I still think it has to go in this instance. CE-EX-37.5: The statement that the halls are unroofed is from AAm, whereas unless I'm mistaken the description of Tulkas and Ulmo breaking the gates but not utterly destroying the caverns is from LT. If there's a contradiction, then, the halls being unroofed has to take precedence. CE-EX-38.1b and following: The addition from LT is, I gather, intended to help achieve the story of MT VI. But the character of the interaction between Melkor and the Valar here is quite different from anything in the later sources, and I don't think that it quite works. In LT (and CE-EX-38.1b), Melko somewhat comically speaks to the Valar as if they were friends he was inviting to tea, and this kind of fairy-tale naive guile doesn't at all fit with the later conception of Melkor, much less with that in MT. But more importantly, this doesn't actually do anything to achieve the story in MT VI, for there Melkor's deception is one of feigned repentance and abasement, not feigned congeniality. In LT, the Valar then decide that they cannot overcome Melkor by force (which you have edited out here) and therefore they pretend to accept his "fawning insolence" in order to come at him unawares, even to the point of saying they have come to salute him. This, too, is gone in the later sources and nothing in MT suggests that it was resurrected. CE-EX-38.6b and following: As I've argued above, I think the LT material doesn't actually do anything to establish the story from MT, which means that these insertions are doing all the work. And I'm afraid they still simply don't read as narrative to me. The first part (38.6b) is less problematic, but the rest (38.7b, 38.8b) is very much in the voice of Tolkien making notes for himself, not that of a narrative - on top of which the many (necessary) deletions make it read somewhat oddly. 38.9 is certainly fine narrative prose, and in fact of all the LT additions so far is the only one that seems to me to go some way toward telling the story Tolkien outlined in MT VI - but it is not enough. CE-EX-45, -39e: Again, the distant, analytical writing of MT VI is very jarring against the vivid narrative of LT. But I don't think this is as problematic as the section at CE-EX-38.1b. Those are my specific reactions to the current proposal - but to step back slightly, my view of this is that I don't really see the value in going to heroic lengths to adopt the story as projected in MT VI, when it requires such drastic interventions in the text and - even in the best case - results in a text that is stylistically and tonally incoherent. I don't see that we have any obligation to follow MT in places where it radically departs from the story of LQ, AAm, and other late texts. I'm sorry to return from such a long hiatus with such an argumentative post! I hope you're doing well - I heard from a friend who lives in Germany that COVID was pretty bad there for a while; I hope your friends and family are safe and healthy. |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
|
|