Tales of Nolduryon

[Halasían]

(Original post of mine in 2006)

I love the era this is set in as too little is said or written of Arnor.

I have to say in my humble opinion; in trying to reach that tolkienishness of tale-telling, it seems to have a dry, 'forced aire' feeling to it. I want to get engaged into this story, but I just can't seem to get excited about the characters. You should try putting more feeling into the characters instead of the seeming distant narrativishness it has, which style fit much better into the 'Letters to Firiel' write. I do like the overall story and the work in the timeline and some of the names you came up with.

Valandil, I re-read this again some 16-17 years later and it reads much better than it obviously did back in the day.

 

[Ent]

Good grief, I'm just stumbling onto this thread for the first time.
I'll give it a read. Will be awhile. I'll also be printing it all out so I can read it at a 'convenient time' in a 'convenient setting'. (With some tea and cakes.)
I'll get back to it and give it some comments when I'm done.

 

[Valandil]

Good grief, I'm just stumbling onto this thread for the first time.
I'll give it a read. Will be awhile. I'll also be printing it all out so I can read it at a 'convenient time' in a 'convenient setting'. (With some tea and cakes.)
I'll get back to it and give it some comments when I'm done.

I wouldn't wish to rush you, but are the tea and cakes ready yet?

 

[Ent]

are the tea and cakes ready yet?

I fear I spilled the tea and burnt the cakes..!! Thank you for reminding me I need to try again.

 

[Ent]

Well, @Valandil - Eldacar and Teleriel have wed, followed by the score of noble weddings soon after, and 3 parts of the people have come down and settled at the shores of Evandim. The Record of Dates is most useful.

I have the remainder to peruse, and will begin at Tarcil soon.

It has my attention. Difficult it is, to handle the role of essentially a 'translating historian,' done in the first person. Very clever, and being cleverly handled. Difficult too, the expression and proper maintenance of the 'older style' of language expression.

One commenter notes a little 'woodenness' in the presentation, yet as essentially a historian, 'translating of historical records and stories,' I'm not sure that can (or should) be attributed. A historian and translator can only render what one sees/finds, and one's interest is in the 'facts of the case being presented,' not in the emotional aspects possibly contained therein. Given the Author as historian is essentially translating written and spoken historical records, there is little conflict with a certain level of 'emotional aspect' not being present. In fact, it seems to make it all the more plausible for me.

There is more I might say as an editor, but I refrain publicly here as it does not pertain to this review of your work.

I very much look forward to 'the rest of the story' as time permits.

 

[Ent]

In addition @Valandil, I want to express my unbounded thanks on one point - a particular use of a particular archaic form you've chosen, I determined to go back and research in more depth etymologically (and philologically).

I find in spite of my initial belief, there may well be some justification for its use in the way you have applied it, particularly with reference to a 'much older history' than the traditional thinking applies to it.

Therefore, I have changed my initial impression of its POSSIBILITY of choice and application - though I will need to review each to be sure of its precision, as well as do a little more study to be sure I have solidified the 'revised ground upon which I now (can most likely) stand' with regard to it.

(Again, I withhold the specifics publicly - in this case, just at the present time, though at some point when the ground is concrete rather than quicksand, I may speak to it in more depth.)

Oh how I love language.

 

[Valandil]

@Ent - thank you for all the kind... words! If you're enjoying this, may I recommend my own "Visitors Come to Court"? I believe that one to be a superior effort to Tales of Nolduryon.

On another site, everyone seemed to like my first story in Tales (Eldacar), but not so much my second (Tarcil). Especially the ladies. I've been meaning to do a total re-write. I'll get to it though - it's only been about 20 years so far.

 

[Valandil]

In addition @Valandil, I want to express my unbounded thanks on one point - a particular use of a particular archaic form you've chosen, I determined to go back and research in more depth etymologically (and philologically).

I find in spite of my initial belief, there may well be some justification for its use in the way you have applied it, particularly with reference to a 'much older history' than the traditional thinking applies to it.

Therefore, I have changed my initial impression of its POSSIBILITY of choice and application - though I will need to review each to be sure of its precision, as well as do a little more study to be sure I have solidified the 'revised ground upon which I now (can most likely) stand' with regard to it.

(Again, I withhold the specifics publicly - in this case, just at the present time, though at some point when the ground is concrete rather than quicksand, I may speak to it in more depth.)

Oh how I love language.

I may need to go back and re-read my own story to be certain of what you're refering to. And possibly re-research it myself for the source. But I think I know what it is - possibly uses of; "thee, thou, etc"? It's been awhile, and the rust and cobwebs are forming obstacles - but I believe I found reference to this in a footnote of an Unfinished Tales story, and tried to apply it here. I'm not certain which story at the moment, though it almost certainly was one involving Numenoreans or the Dunedain.

 

[Ent]

The thees and thous didn't strike me as too much out of place.
it was the 'ye' applications, which is the form used generally only in PLURAL application - but at a couple points, it has been used when its reference is to the singular Eldacar. (So immediately striking me as 'out of place.')

However, etymologically and philogically, there HAVE been applications of the 'ye' to the singular in certain instances, when the expression is intended as one of 'formality' or 'recognition of place.' (Philogically, there may be other instances too - it's a little harder to follow.)

I can't say yet whether 'ye' would apply "father to son" as in the cases you have used it here - even if the 'target' of the 'ye' is a prince - give the father is the King - so familiarity and position both would suggest "thee or thou" - the singular form - rather than 'ye' - but more study is needed.

there is also one case where you have applied "you" in the conversation, followed shortly thereafter by 'ye' (or "thee" I don't recall.)

So the conclusions currently are: 1. Ther is a slight inconsistency in application of "you", "thee" and "ye" and 2. more research is still needed for me to be settled about the "ye" use... but there is a likelihood there is proper application of it, if I can drill down and clearly define the cases accurately so I can correctly, historically, apply them. (The distinctions were largely gone by the Old English, 'ye' being nearly always plural, and were certianly gone by the Middle English.)

I'll shut up now.

 

[Valandil]

The thees and thous didn't strike me as too much out of place.
it was the 'ye' applications, which is the form used generally only in PLURAL application - but at a couple points, it has been used when its reference is to the singular Eldacar. (So immediately striking me as 'out of place.')

However, etymologically and philogically, there HAVE been applications of the 'ye' to the singular in certain instances, when the expression is intended as one of 'formality' or 'recognition of place.' (Philogically, there may be other instances too - it's a little harder to follow.)

I can't say yet whether 'ye' would apply "father to son" as in the cases you have used it here - even if the 'target' of the 'ye' is a prince - give the father is the King - so familiarity and position both would suggest "thee or thou" - the singular form - rather than 'thee' - but more study is needed.

there is also one case where you have applied "you" in the conversation, followed shortly thereafter by 'ye' (or "thee" I don't recall.)

So the conclusions currently are: 1. Ther is a slight inconsistency in application of "you", "thee" and "ye" and 2. more research is still needed for me to be settled about the "ye" use... but there is a likelihood there is proper application of it, if I can drill down and clearly define the cases accurately so I can correctly, historically, apply them. (The distinctions were largely gone by the Old English, 'ye' being nearly always plural, and were certianly gone by the Middle English.)

I'll shut up now.

Thank you for the comments. I’m not sure I was so tuned in to the distinction, nor if I realized the proper use of ‘ye’. I’ll try to find out more.

And please, do not keep silent. Your feedback is both helpful and stimulating. Not just to fine tune this one. I have a long list of stories I hope to write about the Northern Dunedain. Dozens! And here I’ve let 20 years slip by without doing it. Sigh - mostly raising the princes… entlings, I suppose.

 

[Ent]

recommend my own "Visitors Come to Court"?

I have located this, and duly added it to my list of things to peruse.

Please do pardon an aging Ent for his nit-picking at the 'older applications of the language.' While I'm no master myself, I have spent a small deal of time in it, and as with the abominable word "that" so frequently misapplied, (and we won't speak of the "useless 'do'" and its partners,) I find an overabundance of the 'misuse' of the former English forms can chap my bark just a bit.

There was a time here when we had a whole troop making daily (mis)use of the older applications in their regular discussions - I was thankful I had an ample supply of sap salve on hand to keep my bark somewhat supple, or I would have lost entire sections. I did end up with a few new knots..!

 

[Valandil]

I have located this, and duly added it to my list of things to peruse.

Please do pardon an aging Ent for his nit-picking at the 'older applications of the language.' While I'm no master myself, I have spent a small deal of time in it, and as with the abominable word "that" so frequently misapplied, (and we won't speak of the "useless 'do'" and its partners,) I find an overabundance of the 'misuse' of the former English forms can chap my bark just a bit.

There was a time here when we had a whole troop making daily (mis)use of the older applications in their regular discussions - I was thankful I had an ample supply of sap salve on hand to keep my bark somewhat supple, or I would have lost entire sections. I did end up with a few new knots..!

I will humbly listen to any suggestions. I’m sure all my writings could use an editorial review by a second set of eyes. All the better if they’re experienced.

 

[Valandil]

Are we supposed to put discussion in a different thread?

 

[Ent]

Are we supposed to put discussion in a different thread?

It is not 'required' to do so.
However, those who want their writing posts to just be their writing posts, unencumbered,, do set up a 'discussion thread' for "the rest of the story."

It can be helpful. Especially if a link is imbedded in each to allow switching back and forth between the "story post" and the "discussion thread" etc.

 

[Valandil]

It is not 'required' to do so.
However, those who want their writing posts to just be their writing posts, unencumbered,, do set up a 'discussion thread' for "the rest of the story."

It can be helpful. Especially if a link is imbedded in each to allow switching back and forth between the "story post" and the "discussion thread" etc.

Alright. Since these stories are "finished" (for now), it's nice to have the discussion right here in the same thread. Then I get notifications when there's a comment. Plus - other members have noticed that new comments come in and I think have begun reading the stories.

Thanks.

 

[Ent]

Well, there may be a wrinkle there as it turns out.
It MAY be I can only respond here because I'm a Mod. (Although I thought I saw a couple other posts earlier - but that may have been before the change?) I need to probe the situation to be sure, and haven't gotten to it yet. Maybe the illustrious @Erestor Arcamen or @Squint-eyed Southerner can clarify.

 

[Ent]

Yes, I think the comments were before the change.
I believe "discussion threads" ARE now a 'requirement' and the 'stories' posted to the Red Book are protected so they remain just the 'stories.'

A discussion thread should be set up. And i can move all the discussion stuff there.

They get posted here: https://thetolkien.forum/forums/discussions-of-the-red-book-of-westmarch.182/

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

I don't believe there's there's a lock on people posting. As said above, it's really up to the OP whether they want a separate discussion thread. If Valandil prefers it this way, so it should be.

But EA should know for sure.

 

[Erestor Arcamen]

In Red Book we had set it up the Mods and OP should be able to reply, that's why we have the discussion section, for discussion of the posts in here. A certain member from down under had requested this as it's bad form to reply on someone's fanfic/personal writing.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Not the first time I've been wrong. 😄