|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Oct 16, 2010 22:52:58 GMT -6
Regarding the Gnomes -- As far as I can tell, these are not the bearded, pointy-hat-wearing gnomes you see in people's gardens. They are the early version of the Noldor.
According to Christopher's notes, Tolkien chose the word "Gnome" due to its origins in the Greek root word "gnosis" which means "knowledge." He was using "Gnome" as a "translation" of their actual name, much as he used "Elf" for the Eldar. But I think he quickly realized that not everyone is a philologist like him so they wouldn't get the allusion and would just picture a little man with a funny hat.
If you think it's odd to see references to gnomes, you'd be even more surprised by the mention of sylphs, sprites, brownies, fays, pixies, and "leprawns." Tolkien seems to imply that these are human names for the lesser spirits that serve under the Valar. But it's still weird to read, given the Middle-earth we're used to.
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Oct 17, 2010 4:59:12 GMT -6
That was one pf the things I remember about my quick glance, the Gnomes were one of the higher elvish breeds. Now you are getting me curious about this book!
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Oct 23, 2010 8:58:19 GMT -6
I started reading The Book of Lost Tales #1 (TBOLT1) and CT states that Eriol the Mariner who set sail on a voyage west to Tol Eressëa where the elves lived was to be a main part of the story. He was to learn hidden knowledge from them and later "report back in his own tongue". Does this mean he left Tol Eressëa and verbally told others or that he just wrote it down and it was later found somehow by others? This was not explained.
Anyway, Eriol was to be that "English" element of faerie that was to give England a really good legend rather than "* the impoverished chap-book stuff" that England was already known for where all the really good faerie tales came from Greek, Celtic, Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish writers.
JRRT had many jottings on scraps of paper. Eriol's original name was Ottor but called himself Wæfre which means restless or wandering in Old English and he lived a life on the waters. He was married and had 2 sons but suddenly was gripped by sea-longing (then CT says he was a son of Eärendel, born under his beam which would cause him to become a wanderer).
Also in the scraps that do not appear in TBOLT1, Eriol adopted the name of Angol which was given to him by the Gnomes (later to become the Noldor). He was named this "* after the regions of his home". CT says this refers to the ancient homeland of the English people before they moved over the North Sea to Britain. Old English Angel or Angul and modern German Angeln which refers to the Danish peninsula between the Flensburg fjord and the river Schlei. ----- * from CT's "Commentary on The Cottage of Lost Play" at end of first chapter
|
|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Oct 27, 2010 3:51:47 GMT -6
He was married and had 2 sons Two sons who became the semi-mythical leaders of the Saxon invasion of Britain. That still blows my mind that Tolkien was connecting Middle-earth and Arthurian legend. Geek-gasm! I've now made it through The Coming of the Valar, The Chaining of Melko, and The Coming of the Elves. I really enjoyed the description of the Valar's homes in the city of Valmar. Lots of rich imagery involving whatever elements or aspects they are associated with (buildings of sea-foam and fish-scales, vast gardens of plantlife and dream-like mist, hunting halls with living trees adorned with antlers, shadowy halls with roofs of bat-wings, etc.). I don't remember this kind of description in The Silmarillion but this book has helped me visualize the Valar and Valinor much more easily.
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Oct 27, 2010 6:23:45 GMT -6
Yes, connecting real history to his tale surprised me, too. I was going to try to get into the ties a little bit in this thread but have been pretty busy.
Looks like there is some more pretty interesting stuff ahead for me!
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Nov 14, 2010 8:40:22 GMT -6
In CT's notes at the end of the first Chapter of The Cottage of Lost Play:
CT says in his opinion the leading idea was:
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Nov 21, 2010 7:12:07 GMT -6
I also noticed when I was reading the first versions of the LOTR and also now in The Book of Lost Tales, CT mentions on some of the old drafts, his father re-wrote in ink over completely erased penciled sheets. Paper must have been something he didn't wish to waste and the first notes written in pencil must have been very rough drafts that he may have planned to be erased. It just seems strange that JRRT erased and wrote over some penciled manuscripts since it seems as if he kept every version of everything else so CT could show us the progression of the stories.
|
|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Dec 1, 2010 23:34:23 GMT -6
Just read "The Theft of Melko." We get into familiar territory here with the theft of the Silmarils and the destruction of the Two Trees. However, there were some very interesting differences in the Lost Tales version.
The first was an emissary sent by Melko to the Valar after the theft takes place. He's basically just a distraction while his boss beats a hasty retreat but the message he bears is quite brazen. In very lofty language, Melko declares himself ruler of the world, says he's taking the Silmarils as compensation for his "unjust" imprisonment, and refers to the Noldoli (Noldor) as the Valar's slaves.
Tulkas responds to all this by throwing the emissary off a cliff! I found this whole scene darkly humorous and kind of wish Tolkien had kept it in the later version.
The second big difference is that the Valar's reasoning for not wanting the Noldoli to re-enter the world is that the world is basically being saved for Men. The Valar don't want the two races to be in competition. When Fëanor hears this, he starts to think the Elves truly are the Valar's slaves. They were brought to paradise but then (politely) told they can't ever leave. This added a very interesting motive to the Noldor's self-exile. Seems like Tolkien changed this in the later version so the Valar wouldn't come across as jerks.
I also read "The Flight of the Noldoli." It's been a while since I read The Silmarillion but I don't remember this much detailed imagery in the Noldor's journey through the icy waters of the Helcaraxë. Not sure if my memory is just fuzzy or what but I've had this reaction a few times reading the Lost Tales.
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Dec 3, 2010 14:57:13 GMT -6
RE Fredegarh's: I also read "The Flight of the Noldoli." It's been a while since I read The Silmarillion but I don't remember this much detailed imagery in the Noldor's journey through the icy waters of the Helcaraxë. Not sure if my memory is just fuzzy or what but I've had this reaction a few times reading the Lost Tales.
That's interesting about the differences in amount of detail -- I'll have to grab BOLT1 and Sil, and look for that! Wonder if Chris Tolkien was editing things down a lot in Sil?
|
|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Dec 3, 2010 17:51:13 GMT -6
That's interesting about the differences in amount of detail -- I'll have to grab BOLT1 and Sil, and look for that! Wonder if Chris Tolkien was editing things down a lot in Sil? My memory of The Sil is that it read like a history chronicle. Many events were summarized or discussed only briefly, as if Christopher only had notes to work off of. In The Sil, it said that many were lost in the journey across the Helcaraxë. Whereas in the Lost Tales, we get descriptions of the journey, imagery of great ice floes, narrow passes, and swirling eddies that swallow up some of the ships. We're told that some elves drowned or froze to death, while others, according to legend, might be still wandering those frozen wastes, cut off from their brethren. My impression so far is that The Sil tells us what happened, but the BLT shows us. As I said earlier in the thread, I felt the same way about the description of Valmar. It was way more detailed and helped me visualize the Valar and their home better than The Sil did. It makes me wonder what Tolkien intended the final version of the mythology to be. The Sil had all the final forms of the characters' names but, in comparison, seemed to lack some of the descriptive imagery of the earlier drafts. Would Tolkien have eventually combined both?
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Dec 3, 2010 21:50:48 GMT -6
Fredegarh and Andorinha:
In TBOLT1 we are learning of the history of the world, Valar, Elves, Men, etc. through Rúmil's short tales to Eriol. They seem more lively and personal coming as stories. In The Sil, we read the history almost as if it is taking place as we read and the vision through Rúmil's telling is completely missing. JRRT (or maybe CT?) decided to eliminate the story tale effect and just go for the straight chronological events. I think that is why TBOLTs seems more descriptive and informative than the dryer straight cut version of The Sil.
|
|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Feb 24, 2011 18:14:47 GMT -6
I'm on The Book of Lost Tales 2 now. Not sure if I should keep posting here or start a new thread (this one does technically say Lost Tales 1).
In any case, I have read "The Tale of Tinuviel," which mostly followed the version I remember but with some very big differences. For one thing, Beren is an Elf, so their love affair doesn't have quite the significance that it took on later (i.e. the first union of Elf and Man). For another, there's no Sauron, just a giant Lord of Cats named Tevildo! Bizarre. That whole sequence appears to be a parable explaining why cats and dogs don't get along. Very odd to see Tolkien in Aesop's Fables type territory. This one has (sort of) the first appearance of Gimli. Or at least an Elf with that name. Guess Tolkien liked it.
"Turambar and the Foaloke" follows the plot of the later Children of Hurin pretty closely. Not too many differences, just a shorter, more condensed version of it and some different names for the characters. This is now the fourth version of Turin's story I've read. Still incredibly depressing.
I just finished "The Fall of Gondolin." If I recall, this is the only full narrative of this story that exists (the one in Unfinished Tales is, well....unfinished and The Silmarillion just gives a synopsis). This was freakin' epic! A hidden city under siege, armies of Orcs, Balrogs riding Dragons, beast-like metal war machines with their own guiding spirits, Elf battalions with elaborate heraldry, the treachery of Meglin, the love of Tuor and Idril (the original first union of Elf and Man in this version), etc.
The Balrogs in this story are wimps compared to Durin's Bane. Tuor kills, like, five of them on his own and Ecthelion of the Fountain gets a few too, including their boss Gothmog (though he dies doing so).
In addition to the First Age-only characters, there are a few familiar faces in this one. Glorfindel makes his first appearance -- and dies! This was a continuity glitch that Tolkien spent a lot of time trying to unravel, as I recall. Rather than just revise "Gondolin," he came up with an elaborate "reincarnation of Glorfindel" story, possibly having him re-embodied by Mandos and sailing back to Middle-earth with the Wizards. Never understood that. The Sil hadn't been published yet in Tolkien's lifetime. Why didn't he just rewrite Glorfindel's death? Why did he have to take the more difficult route?
There's a Galdor in here as well. Not sure if this is the same one that was at the Council of Elrond or just a recycled name. Speaking of the latter, one Legolas Greenleaf is present at the Fall of Gondolin as well. I doubt this is same character. Legolas had some years behind him but never struck me as being that old.
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Feb 25, 2011 7:16:06 GMT -6
Might as well continue on the same thread for BOLT2. I just changed my subject line when I opened it up to start this new post. I will have to look and see if I can change the original first Subject for include both books. This book sounds much more interesting than the first one. More action! Good ole Tevildo! I remember reading that a while ago. I think we have a thread started here somewhere where we were trying to figure out how old Legolas Greenleaf was! What year and age (First) was the Fall of Gondolin anyway? I'm still reading BOLT1 and now I want to jump ahead to book 2!
|
|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Feb 25, 2011 19:03:02 GMT -6
I think we have a thread started here somewhere where we were trying to figure out how old Legolas Greenleaf was! What year and age (First) was the Fall of Gondolin anyway? Well, bear in mind that in the Lost Tales version, Tolkien hadn't come up with the idea of the multiple Ages. That was a later invention. The Encyclopedia of Arda lists the Fall of Gondolin as being in the year 510 of the First Age (the Age ends in 590 so it's the last century of that era). I doubt Tolkien would have kept Legolas in the revised story. That would have made him older than Elrond!
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Feb 25, 2011 20:17:32 GMT -6
Tolkien and "re-cycled" names, in addition to Galdor, Gimli, Glorfindel, and Legolas, the Balrog Lord, Gothmog shows up again as Gothmog "the lieutenant of Morgul," possibly a Man or even an Orc, who takes charge of the battle at Minas Tirith after Eowyn and Merry slay the chief Nazgul.
I'm not sure what Tolkien was up to with the Cat, the giant mice, etc., very different idea set here, unlike him, I would say, except for his "Roverandom," Father Xmas tales where animal fairy tales are to the fore. I'm not sure, even, who he thought his audience might be at this point, was he writing, at least in his mind, for his own kids again? Very strange...
|
|