![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |||||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
With that let’s start with Aiwendil’s specific reactions: CE-SL-11.5b: Agreed. CE-EX-28b: I do not think that the similarity between LT and MT is ‘superficial’. Some motives have long roots, and Manwë leaning always rather to peace and treaty than to victory by violence, is clearly one such long rooted motive. Considering MT storyline, how could we think that Melkor asking for pardon in the moment of obvious defeat, could have changed Manwë’s mind, if he had not believed that a true repentance of Melkor was possible? But none the less your criticism is right, since there is big difference of what Manwë might have hoped for and what the Valar in conclave did plan. For the storyline of MT VI work, where the Valar in conclave do deny the immediate freedom of Melkor, the earlier conclave can not hope to ‘entreat him to better deeds’. CE-EX-28.2: If ‘tilkal’ has to go as a name that is okay with me. The actual idea of this editing was to adopt the name without giving the meaning. I still think that ‘magic’ was in Tolkien’s later vocabulary reserved for the ‘deceits of the enemy’ (black magic). But I am open exchange it by some other fitting word instead of ‘power’. But my feeling is that the Greece-roouted ‘theurgy’ is totally out of tone. CE-EX-28.4: My knowledge of Quenya is clearly weaker than yours. If you think the names have to go that is ok for me. CE-EX-28.6: Agreed. CE-EX-37b: Okay, I see your point. We have to change this. CE-EX-37.5: Is there a contradiction? In AAm immediately after ‘the halls are unroofed’ ‘Melkor took refuge in the uttermost pit’. That wording suggests for me at least strongly that not all caverns where laid open. Specially if we look to the corresponding LQ text: ‘Nonetheless the fortress of Melkor at Utumno had many mighty vaults and caverns hidden with deceit far under earth, and these the Valar did not all discover nor utterly destroy, and many evil things still lingered there; …’ CE-EX-38.1b and following: I accept you criticism. The exchange with Melkor’s messenger has to go. CE-EX-38.6b and following: This is clearly the core issue and there is no way around at least some of these materials, if (as I still think we should) we want to tell the story as given in MT VI. Let’s see if I can do better below. CE-EX-45, CE-EX-39e: I think this can be amended by some ‘clever editing’. As the result is the same, we do not really need the actual text of MT VI here. Okay, here is my next try: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Respectfully Findegil |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
CE-EX-28b: Perhaps "superficial" was the wrong word, but my point (which I think we agree on) is that while the story in LT resembles the MT story in some ways, it also differs from it in important ways.
CE-EX-28.2: Sorry, I think I misread the proposed edit and missed that the etymology was removed. I'd need to do a little research to decide whether tilkal is OK - I'm afraid my Quenya knowledge is not as deep as it once was! CE-EX-28.4: No, what I meant was that I think these two names are good and we can keep them. CE-EX-37.5: I don't necessarily think there is a contradiction, for the reasons you give - my point was only that, in any case, th statement about the halls being unroofed should not be deleted. But to the main point, CE-EX-38.6b and following. I've taken a few days to think this over before replying, because it seems to be a real sticking point, and I'm not sure how to resolve it. Insofar as less of the text of MT VI intrudes here, I think it's an improvement. But the real crux of the issue for me, I think, is that no matter how we slice it, we inevitably have the critical moment of this story being narrated via a non-narrative text. It's a very jarring change in tone, and I'm afraid that the only way to avoid that would be to modify the text to the point where we're no longer editing Tolkien but rewriting him. To be honest, I'm even still a little bit uneasy about how much we're chopping up and adding in the LT, which also has a different tone, of course, from LQ and AAm, though in the end I think that that disparity is not great enough to warrant its wholesale exclusion. But when we add in MT text, especially to convey critical plot developments, it feels to me as if we've constructed Frankenstein's monster, an ungainly assemblage of pieces from obviously very different places sewn together. And the thing is, I don't see the necessity of doing it that way. I suppose you could say it's incumbent on us to try, since MT is later than AAm, and since we can't really know that a change is unworkable unless we try to work it. But the conclusion I'm drawing from these attempts is that it is, in fact, to be classed as an unworkable projection. So, I don't know. Left to my own devices, I certainly would not take up this particular element of MT VI, but the goal here is, of course, consensus. It seems that you feel pretty strongly in favour of incorporating this version of the story, so maybe you could explain why you see it as so worthwhile? Perhaps if I could see some real benefit to following MT in this instance, I would be willing to accept the scarring that this surgery is doing to the text, but as of now I just don't see it. Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
CE-EX-26b: Okay.
CE-EX-28.2 & CE-EX-28.4: If you find some linguistical doubts about any of these names, we can edit them out. CE-EX-37.5: Agreed, and my new version has it included. CE-EX-38.6b and following: Good that you see an improvement, otherwise it would have been a bit of a disappointment 😊. Quote:
Quote:
When ever Tolkien during his work on the Legendarium wrote at length about (e.g. LT, Laws and Customs) or analyzed (e.g. MT) the character of Manwe, the picture is that of a “thinker” rather than a “maker”. Manwe searches always for compromise not for conflict and avoids violence by all possible means. That picture does not come through in the shorter Sil77. There the focus is, somewhat naturally due to its shortness, on his actions: He gainsays Melkors claim for Arda in the beginning, he it is that resolves to attack Utumno and we assume that he send Eonwe to bring down Morgoth at the end of the first age. In our editing we do in some places already include a kind differentiation, like Manwe’s reluctance against the hiding of Valinor or the story of his concourse with Manwe about elvish re-embodiment. But the analysis in MT VI does much more: It set him in a sharp contrast to Melkor and in that way reveals a lot about both characters. (By the way LT did the same, but with a different characterization of Melko as it stood at that time.) A similar argument could be made about Melkors characterization, but since he is a “maker”, he is much more in the focus of the story and we can learn much more about him by judging his actions. None the less are the directness of MT VI about Melkors “dispersing” and the immediacy in which it tells us about Melkors “trembling moment” unique. That said it is clear (now) that we can not include that analysis in our main narrative. But there is still our famous Volume 3: THE LORE OF THE WISE. We could assume that we could include MT VI there, what ever we do with the storyline here, we “just” would have to edit it accordingly. But I think that will not work. Once Melkor is bound by Angainor, I do not see a chance for that reveling first encounter between Manwe and Melkor since ages nor for the trembling moment of near repentance of Melkor once Tulkas has stepped forward as champion of the Valar to fight him down. I hope, I could make my motivation clearer this time. Respectfully Findegil |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Thank you for explaining your reasoning. I certainly agree that, if possible, it would be nice to include as much of this elaboration of the characters of Manwe and Melkor as possible. I'm just not sure how much is possible.
It seems to me, though, that the more crucial point here is not so much Melkor's deceptive surrender at the climax of the battle as it is Manwe's inclination toward lenience and forgiveness. What if we were to keep the AAm/LQ narrative for the battle, with Melkor defeated and chained, but also keep the LT council where the Valar debate what to do with him? Then we would still have the strong characterization of Manwe as the seeker of reconciliation, but without having to rely on a sentence from MT to narrate a critical part of the story. We might even find it possible to touch up the LT council scene with bits from MT to suggest Melkor's feigned repentance at this point, and highlight Manwe's attempt at compromise. Thus, while rejecting the part of the MT story that contradicts AAm/LQ as an unimplementable projected change, we could use it to enrich the depiction of character and motive inherent in the earlier story. This would, in my opinion, do far less damage to Tolkien's texts than changing the whole story of the battle by splicing in sentences from MT. I'd also note that I don't see the chaining of Melkor here as precluding the moment of realization by him and Manwe about his dispersal of power, nor the moment of near repentance. The only difference is that in this case, despite the realization, Melkor at first tries to fight anyway, and it is only after he is defeated that he has his trembling moment. I wrote the above a week ago and intended to try my hand at editing the text in the way I suggest, but haven't had the time to sit down and do so. So I thought I might as well just post the suggestion so that you can think about the idea, and I'll try to provide a text to show what I have in mind later this week. Not sure if this idea is at all tenable for you, but I thought I'd throw it out there. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
Thank you for charring your thoughts. You may already anticipate that I will consider your idea only a second-best solution at best. But second best is sometimes what we have to accept for finding a consensus. And I am a professing combiner, so I am generally open for your idea.
But I have some doubts, that I may name here, for the sack of your editing process: - The timing and setting of the moment of realization is critical: I think it is an important factor that it is first time meeting after the beginning of Arda. And I don’t see Melkor realize the real reason for his own shrinkage directly after a “physical” defeat by the hand of Tulkas. In such setting he would probably blame his weakness rather to that defeat than to his ‘dispersion’. I could accept that Manwe did not meet Melkor in person at or around Utumno, even if we can only tell that implicit. (we could at least use MK IV to mention that Melkor was led to Valinor at the end of the row, as anybody would assume that Manwe as leader of the homecoming victorious forces would be at the front.) As you plan the moment of realization come at the council of the Valar that would decide about Melkor’s ‘doom’, I think we have to assume that he was led there not chained by Angainor. That item is at least for me more than a physical mean for chaining: It must have some mental binding characteristics to restrict one of the Valar (we have to take into account that it is still Melkor, who could by his own will leave the physical world behind, we are dealing with and not the later Morgoth who was bound to his physical body for good). Being chained by such an item would again weaken Melkor at least in his own perspective, and I at least have some problems to see him realize the real reason for his inability to daunt Manwe by his gaze while being bound by Angainor. Anyhow ‘knelling before Manwe’ seem improbable after he was ‘arraigned before all the {Vali}[Valar] great and small, lying bound before the silver chair of Manwë.’ But material to work with that issue is there, since MT IV states: ‘Then he … would have … burst out into flaming rebellion - but he is now absolutely isolated from his agents and in enemy territory. He cannot.’ I would not use that to explain before hand why Melkor was not bound at the council but if we can use it later at its proper place (when the ‘doom’ is set) it will explain it in retrospect. - That said, if we can handle it, we should as well include Melkor’s accusing Manwe of being faithless. - I can see that at the council the insertions from MT IV will break the action much less, but the gap in style is still there and may be even worth with the text formed out of LT and MT. So, for the sake of your own idea beware of the ‘Frankenstein’-effect! ;-) Looking forward to reading you editing. Respectfully Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
Greetings after such a long absence! With the new Nature of Middle-earth book coming out in the next month, I have been thinking once again of this project, and realized I never caught up and reviewed Aiwendil's proposed version of this chapter, and have not taken into account any of your discussions on the matter since. As it has been quite some time since I partook in this project (several years!) my familiarity with the chapter is next to none. I will start from the beginning of the thread and try to gather my thoughts on all the changes, and hopefully share my thoughts on it soon. I just wanted to let everyone know that I am going to return before I embarked on that project. I look forward to continuing!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |