Ruin of Doriath - Final Part

[Aiwendil]

Well, it's a moot point as far as this project is concerned. But it still seems to me that admitting Hurin to Doriath was not an evil deed but only a foolish one. Moreover, if we are considering Morgoth's curse, it had already been admitted to Doriath years earlier when Turin was accepted as a fosterling.

If I'm analyzing the story in a writerly mode, the danger I see with the "evil deeds" explanation is that it may feel too ad hoc - that it feels as if the Girdle fails for no reason other than that this is the moment in the story when the author needs Doriath to be invaded by a hostile force. For me, the notion of the cursed treasure itself being the thing that gnaws away at the strength of the Girdle from within offers a satisfying narrative solution.

Again, though, this is neither here nor there as far as the project goes.

[ArcusCalion]

Activity on the forum!!! a miracle!! I would love to join in, but I must admit that the Ruin of Doriath text is particularly difficult for me to parse at this time. Is there a way to post a full update to the text including the most up-to-date revisions instead of just editing little pieces here and there? It would be very helpful for making sense of it all.

[Val Balmer]

Hi everyone,

As I said in the other post, I'd like to try and give my contribution if I can.

For me the most logical explanation for the girdle not working anymore is the presence of the cursed hoard on which Glaurung (in which a good part of the power of Morgoth has been spent) as slept on the treasure for so long... it makes him a powerful enemy even from dead...

The combiened curses of the dragon and of Mim, triggered by evil (the blood of elves and men spilled on the treasure) in a way activate the curse or increase its power...

[Findegil]

ArcusCalion I have heard you! And I agree that it would be good to have new version in the privat forum. I will work on that as soon as time allows. But bear with me, if it is some days. I am ab it out of training for that kind of exercise, and have to re-check up to which point I work in the new material into my working copy.

About the points discussed: I have read them once, but without the actual text in mind our beside the discussion. So my answers need a new and fresh day.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Findegil]

Before I start editing an updated version for the private forum, lets settle some points:

RD-SL-03.5: The Nauglamír made for Felagund or Thingol? as Said before I am open both ways. And since in Books Forum and here some strong opinions have be raised against a pre-existing Nauglamír I will prepare the text with the Necklace made for Thingol.

RD-SL-05: Okay, we skip the quarrels on the road, even so I found them a nice example of how the curse of Mîm did work.

RD-SL-12: The 'weight beyond belief of gold was used in the making' of the Nauglamír: Sorry, my bad, this must for sure be changed to silver, but the argument that the 'beyond belief' is a supporter for the strife about the agreed 'price of one tithe of the unwrought metals' is none the less valid.

RD-SL-13: Okay, I see what you mean here. As nothing in the newer sources shades any doubt on the earlier decision, the two smithies are out and the dwarves work just once to fashion all the nice things and the Nauglmír.

RD-SL-21: I agree to the last proposal that only the evil deeds should be taken as a reason. I see the logic behind the argument that Húrin brings the curse of Morgoth over all that he deals with even so that will not be mentioned in our text. But more weight has the curse of Mîm and Glaurung on the treasure: Letting Húrin in is done out of pity and can't be an evil deed (it nonetheless can be foolish as Aiwendil said). But in dealing with the treasure Thingol and his Elves start to act evilly: They argue with Húrins men about it (Avarice) and thus in the end kill them (Wrath). And when Melain steps in to warn Thingol about the treasure he still does not follow her advice and hoards it (Pride, Gluttony). Then he goes even farther by inviting the Dwarves to work on it and thus making some use of it, which means showing it forth as his own (Pride). So we can find at least 4 of 7 cardinal sins done inside Doriath by Thingol all trigerd by the accursed hoard.

RD-SL-22: The hunt had been controversially discussed even before we got the new material. Now at the long last I must agree, there is no longer any reason for the hunt of being useful for the story line. I would wish that we could still hold some of the details of Thingols death being caught with the Nauglamír in a bush and rendered helpless in that way, since it is again an excellent example of how Mîm's curse works, but I don't see how we could do that inside Menegroth.
Any how my reasoning for reinstalling Melain’s scenes was that they fitted very well with the girdle being rendered useless and the attack on Menegroth coming as a surprise. I agree that the plan of Naugaldur to carry her is to be skipped. But Naugladur bringing Thingols head on a pole and Melian thus learning of his death and blaming Naugladur and in the same instant telling him that he has domed himself (by taking the Nauglamír) seem very much in agreement with the later conception.

RD-SL-54: I do not see why this shouldn't be said. That the Downfall of Doriath brought some lasting estrangement between Elves and Dwarves is matter of fact. And shown in many conversations in [i]LotR[/b]. And that some Dwarves sided with the evil forces before and after these events is as well attested in earlier and later writings.

I will prepare the text for the private forum to reflect this stand of the discussion, but mark it as 'in progress'.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Val Balmer]

Originally Posted by Findegil

Before I start editing an updated version for the private forum, lets settle some points:


RD-SL-22: The hunt had been controversially discussed even before we got the new material. Now at the long last I must agree, there is no longer any reason for the hunt of being useful for the story line. I would wish that we could still hold some of the details of Thingols death being caught with the Nauglamír in a bush and rendered helpless in that way, since it is again an excellent example of how Mîm's curse works, but I don't see how we could do that inside Menegroth.
Any how my reasoning for reinstalling Melain’s scenes was that they fitted very well with the girdle being rendered useless and the attack on Menegroth coming as a surprise. I agree that the plan of Naugaldur to carry her is to be skipped. But Naugladur bringing Thingols head on a pole and Melian thus learning of his death and blaming Naugladur and in the same instant telling him that he has domed himself (by taking the Nauglamír) seem very much in agreement with the later conception.
Respectfully

Findegil

Sorry if I came back to this point, but I don't understand why we should remove the hunt. In absence of any explicit statement of Tolkien removing it, I would keep the whole scene as in TN. The theme of tragedy during important festival is important to Tolkien. Furthermore the fact that Thingol cannot organize the defense of Doriath, explains better why the dwarves are able to sack it.

[Aiwendil]

RD-EX-54: That the ruin of Doriath led to an estrangement between Dwarves and Elves is not, I think, in dispute. The part I object to is "and drawn more nigh in friendship to the {kin}[following] of {Melko}[Morgoth]". Even if some Dwarves did turn to Morgoth, in the later conception this seems to have been an infrequent thing, and it doesn't seem appropriate to state it here as if it applies broadly to all or most Dwarves. Whereas "Concerning 'The Hoard'" says of the Dwarves that they were "no servants of the Evil Vala".

So I would make this:

RD-EX-54 <TN This then was the design; and by his deeds have the Dwarves been severed in feud for ever since those days with the Elves{, and drawn more nigh in friendship to the {kin}[following] of {Melko}[Morgoth]}.

Originally Posted by Val Balmer

Sorry if I came back to this point, but I don't understand why we should remove the hunt. In absence of any explicit statement of Tolkien removing it, I would keep the whole scene as in TN. The theme of tragedy during important festival is important to Tolkien. Furthermore the fact that Thingol cannot organize the defense of Doriath, explains better why the dwarves are able to sack it.

"Concerning 'The Hoard'" strongly implies, to me at least, that Thingol was killed during the attack on Menegroth. Reintroducing the hunt from TN seemed justified to me as a way of implementing the idea of Thingol being lured beyond the Girdle. With that idea gone, I don't see any compelling reason to reintroduce it, and I see a reason against it in "Concerning 'The Hoard'".