Henneth Annûn Story Archive

Hi, I've occasionally seen information in the Resources section that I'm not sure is a) intended or b) accurate. Is there a thread somewhere in one of the Resources discussions (hint, hint), where I can bring up a question and have one of the Resource Managers review the entry? I do have the abilty to make changes, but am loath to use it (except fixing an obvious typo) on other people's entries: it's always possible that what I consider a glaring error is someone else's carefully-researched fact (but the background research just isn't obvious from the entry)! Let me give you a couple of examples, one trivial and one not-so: 1. The Things entry for "A Walking Song" is listed under H, not W. Okay, maybe the H stands for Hearth in "Upon the hearth the fire is red..."? Or, maybe the H is silent in "Hwalking Song"? ;-) 2. Elanor Gamgee is listed under Elanor Gardner. This is an area of confusion, but I truly believe that only Frodo-lad, of all the Gamgee children, has the last name Gardner. If you would like to read my justification for this opinion, I'll be glad to dig up (or try to re-create) my old HA post on this subject... it'll just take a while. What do you think about having a new request thread, similar to the one that requests the addition of info to bios? And is this the right discussion for the new thread? - Barbara P.S. I'm not just trying to make work for the Resource Managers... really!

 

As a fellow obsessive, I welcome your interest in accuracy...even when it makes work. Yes, absolutely, errors occur and should be fixed! I like the idea of a discussion thread instead of just emailing, as we can learn something in the process. You can change the title of this one if you like, to Reference Library corrections, or something like that. "A Walking Song" is listed under H, not W. Okay, maybe the H stands for Hearth in "Upon the hearth the fire is red..."? Or, maybe the H is silent in "Hwalking Song"? ;-) I wish I could claim that, but it's an error pure and simple. [Or one could argue hidden references to raptors, and it was really supposed to be the Hawking Song?] Elanor Gamgee is listed under Elanor Gardner. This is an area of confusion, but I truly believe that only Frodo-lad, of all the Gamgee children, has the last name Gardner. For Elanor, I don't remember why it was done that way, I suppose it really should be Elanor the Fair, shouldn't it? If you have something that clarifies what it should be, educate me! Lyllyn

 

As a fellow obsessive, I welcome your interest in accuracy...even when it makes work. Yes, absolutely, errors occur and should be fixed! Glad you agree... Since I'm messing about in Resources anyway, I fixed A Walking Song. I assume that even we obsessives can agree on W? (Edit: Or should it be S??) For Elanor, I don't remember why it was done that way, I suppose it really should be Elanor the Fair, shouldn't it? If you have something that clarifies what it should be, educate me! Maybe somebody used Gardner in their story, and thus requested her under that name? I'll try to find my post, which explained my reasoning, but it will take a day or two. I'm still trying to research the Forest Path for Sulriel (do you know whether it's called the Elven Path or Elvish Path in canon anywhere?), which caused me to stumble upon info for the Beornings, which caused me to update that entry and create a new one for Honey-cakes of the Beornings (can you tell I'm a baker?), and also caused me to stumble on the fact that The Lord of the Eagles (who really needs a bio, don't you think?) (who is not Gwaihir, BTW, according to the footnote in The Annotated Hobbit, which really belongs in that aforementioned bio) is also called The King of All Birds, which caused me to update my Genealogies and add four new entries to the Genealogy Index spreadsheet, which contains over 2500 entries already... Um, what were we talking about? Obsessive? Moi? - Barbara P.S. I renamed the thread to, um, Resource Library Corrections, I think...

 

{{hugs}} for Barbara. .. its wonderful to see someone who thinks the way I do, in an endless string of loosely connected unrelated subjects. Gwaihir is the Windlord? is he not? The Lord of the Eagles being the mighty Thorondor? (sp?) Is Gwaihir listed as Thorondor's son or am I imagining that I remember that?

 

I'm still trying to research the Forest Path for Sulriel (do you know whether it's called the Elven Path or Elvish Path in canon anywhere?), I can't find any reference to it as the Elven path, and the closest I can get is the Path of Dreams which is of course quite different... ... caused me to stumble on the fact that The Lord of the Eagles (who really needs a bio, don't you think?) (who is not Gwaihir, BTW, according to the footnote in The Annotated Hobbit, which really belongs in that aforementioned bio) is also called The King of All Birds, I don't have the annotated Hobbit, what name does it give? I know Thorondor was the Lord of the Eagles in the first age, and there is no date of death given. He does have a bio, but you probably know that already! Obsessive? Moi? Oui. C'est bien. Lyllyn

 

{{hugs}} for Barbara. .. its wonderful to see someone who thinks the way I do, in an endless string of loosely connected unrelated subjects. Connected? Moi? Gwaihir is the Windlord? is he not? The Lord of the Eagles being the mighty Thorondor? (sp?) Is Gwaihir listed as Thorondor's son or am I imagining that I remember that? Oh, bless you for asking a question that I can answer! *Browses through her Family Tree called, suitably, "The Eagles"...* Yes, Gwaihir is the Windlord. Yes, he is descended from Thorondor, the King of Eagles (though I assume there are generations in between, unless you've seen the actual word "son" somewhere...), as is Landroval, his brother. (It's not clear whether Meneldor, the third one rescuing Frodo and Sam, is also a descendant of Thorondor.) The Lord of the Eagles (and King of All Birds) that I am referring to is the one in The Hobbit, and he was not given any other name. But my rule is, if there is a name/epithet/moniker/nickname that refers to a single individual (e.g. Durin's Bane, The Last Prince of Cardolan, Stinking Morgul-rat), then I can put that individual into my Genealogies if they otherwise meet my very strict inclusion criteria [to wit: a) Tolkien gave them a family member, or b) they're a member of the Fellowship of the Ring or the Quest of Erebor, or c) they're a Ring Bearer (eg Círdan), or d) they're of an interesting race with only a few named individuals (eg The Ents), or e) they slew or were slain by somebody else in the Genealogies (eg Ecthelion & Gothmog's Mutual Annihilation Society). I haven't thought of a good excuse to include Glorfindel yet -- unfortunately, his Balrog didn't have a name.] Come to think of it, The Lord of Eagles is most likely also a descendant of Thorondor... I'll put him in that way and document the "source" as being speculation... Just like I did for my guess that Firefoot is a Meara. Hey, I at least will *document* when something's a pretty good guess, but not canon... (Edit: I even turned out to be right. Once.) - Barbara

 

I can't find any reference to it as the Elven path, and the closest I can get is the Path of Dreams which is of course quite different... Thanks, I appreciate you checking for me... My laptop isn't working, and the book copies you sent me aren't on my desktop computer... which means I'm reduced to typing in all my research tidbits. DOH! I don't have the annotated Hobbit, what name does it give? I know Thorondor was the Lord of the Eagles in the first age, and there is no date of death given. He does have a bio, but you probably know that already! The Lord of the Eagles *is* the only name given (in either version of The Hobbit, annotated or not). See my message to Sulriel. But here's the really interesting footnote: Some Tolkien commentators, including Robert Foster in his Complete Guide to Middle-earth, have been tempted to equate the Lord of the Eagles in The Hobbit with Gwaihir the Windlord, the eagle who rescues Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings. However, this cannot be the case, for in Chapter 4 of Book V of The Return of the King, "The Field of Cormallen", Gandalf says to Gwaihir: "Twice you have borne me, Gwaihir my friend." The two previous times were demonstrably Gandalf's escape from Orthanc and when Gwaihir bore Gandalf to Lorien after finding him on the peak of Zirakzigil subsequent to his fight with the Balrog. These two instances exclude the possibility of Gwaihir being the eagle who rescued Gandalf in The Hobbit. The Annotated Hobbit, Ch 7, Queer Lodgings, Note 2 Now, wouldn't you just love a chance for the HASA Resources library to contradict one of the (many) errors in Foster's book? - Barbara P.S. I'm making notes for his bio. Please tell me where I can put them when I'm finished.

 

References to the Elf-path: On the map in the front of The Hobbit Tolkien labeled the path to the Elvenking's halls "Elf-path". The western entrance to the path, he labeled "Forest Gate" Gandalf referred to "the path" and "the forest-track" Thranduil called it "the road my people made." I'll see what i can dig up on date ranges for the road. Ithildin *(

 

On the map in the front of The Hobbit Tolkien labeled the path to the Elvenking's halls "Elf-path". The western entrance to the path, he labeled "Forest Gate" Oh, excellent, Ithildin! It's canon! Woohoo! *Barbara does a happy dance.* Thanks! I'll go back to working on a Resources entry for The Elf Path. - Barbara Ooops! Make that The Elf-path, as you wrote. Just found the map (it's in the back of The Annotated Hobbit)... ;-)

 

Should the Enchanted River be listed under "R" (as it is now), or "E"? - Barbara

 

"E" please. We've been trying to standardize more. No river should be listed under "R" unless the other name begins with "R", ie the Ringló. A few months ago I moved several place names from "The XYZ" to "XYZ, The" also. Any other things you notice or thoughts you have would help! The plan is to develop a researcher tutorial, so it would be clear step by step, and that should improve consistency. Lyllyn

 

"E" please. Fixed it. Speaking of researcher tutorial, did you know that when you click on "Resources Admin", a box appears that says somethng like "Text goes here"? I like that... straightforward and to-the-point. Off to bed... too punchy to remember what I was researching that caused me to update Shelob, Orcs, Beornings, The Enchanted River, The Old Forest Road, Mirkwood, add Honey-cakes of the Beornings, and start notes for The Lord of the Eagles, The Ford of Carrock, and Dol Guldur History. I just focused in like a laser light on... whatever it was... Had something to do with The Hobbit, I think... - Barbara P.S. If you really want to improve consistency, you should just make everyone do everything the way I do. Really need sleep now... Way beyond rambling, even...

 

P.S. I'm not just trying to make work for the Resource Managers... really!

Coming in late - as usual. I'm always delighted to find a fellow obsessive when it comes to accuracy, so have at it. Lyllyn and I have been talking about putting together a tutorial/article outlining guidleines for contributions to Resources, and you've made reference to several of the points I want to include. One is that all information needs to be attributed to the source, so that if a question arises, it can be verified. The other relates to what is considered a primary source, what is a secondary source, and what sources may be questionable - Foster's is a good example (I once had a beta reader insisting that Silmarien had to have the diacritic - i.e. Silmaríen because Foster's had it that way. I said no because in The Silmarillion it doesn't have the diacritic - primary source vs secondary). Should the Enchanted River be listed under "R" (as it is now), or "E"? I think this is one of the problems we had talked about before about the ability to cross-reference things - right now entries can only be listed under one letter. IIRC the determining factor re: which letter to list something (or someone) would be the one people would be most likely to look under. I think this one may have been listed under R because if someone was looking for a river but couldn't remember it's name, they could look under R for river. I trust Lyllyn will correct me if I'm mistaken in this. Another thing to include in the tutorial/article. ~Nessime

 

"E" please.

Oops! I missed your post, Lyllyn. I had thought I rembered this being under R for those people who were looking but couldn't remember the correct name of the river, especially since the text search will return Enchanted River for those who do know the name. If someone types in river, will they get a list of all the rivers? (I'll have to try that one out?) See all the information we need for that tutorial, Lyllyn? We should start a list for ourselves (or do you have one already?) ~Nessime PS added - I tried typing just river into the search box and got back 130 places (not to mention the people,things and events). It's a good thing there is more than one way to find the information. At least the drop-down search limits it to Rivers and Lakes. ::whew::

 

See all the information we need for that tutorial, Lyllyn? We should start a list for ourselves (or do you have one already?) Not yet.... Lyllyn

 

Coming in late - as usual. You're not late. I haven't been to bed since posting the original thread, so you're not late. ;-) One is that all information needs to be attributed to the source, so that if a question arises, it can be verified. Yay! Agreed! There seem to be two styles of entries. One is when people like to write things, pulling together a lot of different pieces of info, and maybe some quote(s) and citation(s) at the end. I like to pull together a lot of quotes, but I leave them in the original form (with citations), and just try to group them so that they make sense (e.g. by adding subheadings, like "History", "Language", "Skills", etc). That's mostly because I'm too lazy to write anything myself unless it's absolutely necessary. (See The Beornings for an example.) I've even recently (yesterday) decided to change the way I do editorial insertions for clarity: Instead of: [Gandalf] said "xyz" to [Thorin Oakenshield's company]. I now (when possible) try to say: He [Gandalf] said "xyz" to them [Thorin Oakenshield's company]. That way, you get the original wording, as well as the clarification. The other relates to what is considered a primary source, what is a secondary source, and what sources may be questionable Yup (and Foster is particularly squirrelly in that regard ;-} ). Speaking of primary/secondary sources, would you look at something for me and tell me if you think it's a good idea? I have The Annotated Hobbit, and a few of the footnotes give useful, high-quality info (eg etymologies). I've included some of these notes in the bios for Mirkwood, Shelob, and Orcs. If you get a chance, would you or Lyllyn take a look and let me know if you'd like me to continue including these (when I get a chance)? I have to type them in myself (the horror!), so if you don't think they're a source worth including, I'll leave them out in the future. They (the interesting footnotes, that is) range somewhere between a low primary (excerpts of JRRT's letters) to a high secondary source (credible etymologies). I've also quoted Karen Fonstad's Atlas of Middle-earth in Place entries. I've seen errors in it, also, but the maps are incredibly helpful for visualizing and describing places. (See The High Pass of Rivendell for an example of where I quote the Atlas -- then quibble with it.) (Obsessive? moi?) Okay, it's past 7am. I really need to stop typing Resource tidbits and questions and hie me off to bed. I really mean it this time. - Barbara

 

Barbara, I'll take a look and get back to you. I probably should know this, but who did the annotation for The Annotated Hobbit? ~Nessime

 

Not yet....

Okay, I'll bite. The Concerning Pipeweed article can stay in beta of awhile longer - and Avon innocently enough has inspired a compilation of the exact titles or forms of address Tolkien used for each of the major characters in LotR - Barbara, if you read this, I would love to have your input on this at some point. If you haven't got it already, you'll see a missive in your e-mail presently. I think an outline would be the best way to start; that will allow us to organize the information we want to include, then fill in the specifics. I'll start that as soon as I clear out the other tasks I absolutely need to take care of today. ~Nessime

 

Barbara, I'll take a look and get back to you. I probably should know this, but who did the annotation for The Annotated Hobbit? Some fellow by the name of Douglas A. Anderson. The front cover says "Winner of the Mythopoeic Society Scholarship Award" The back flap says "Douglas A. Anderson is a renowned Tolkien scholar whose expertise in the complicated textual history and evolution of both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings has led to the inclusion of his essays on these topics in most editions of those works published in English since 1987. ..." Judging by the quality and precision of his footnotes, either he's a real scholar or I'm a dummy. Okay, maybe those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive... Bed. Now. P.S. It's a very nice book. You might want to browse through it at your library sometime...

 

*Blinks* Pipeweed? No thank you. I need sleep. Now.

 

Speaking of primary/secondary sources, would you look at something for me and tell me if you think it's a good idea? I have The Annotated Hobbit, and a few of the footnotes give useful, high-quality info (eg etymologies). I've included some of these notes in the bios for Mirkwood, Shelob, and Orcs. If you get a chance, would you or Lyllyn take a look and let me know if you'd like me to continue including these (when I get a chance)? I have to type them in myself (the horror!), so if you don't think they're a source worth including, I'll leave them out in the future. They (the interesting footnotes, that is) range somewhere between a low primary (excerpts of JRRT's letters) to a high secondary source (credible etymologies). I looked at Shelob and Orcs, and I am 100% in favor! I also quietly muttered at you for siccing something on me - I remembered seeing the orc-neas and orc-pyrs in Tom Shippey's "JRR Tolkien Author of the Century." I'll now have to go through it again, since he has several other etymologies worked out - he did hold the same linguistics Chair as Tolkien. I've also quoted Karen Fonstad's Atlas of Middle-earth in Place entries. I've seen errors in it, also, but the maps are incredibly helpful for visualizing and describing places. (See the High Pass of RIvendell for an example of where I quote the Atlas -- then quibble with it.) I think quoting the Atlas is fine, and I do the same, referencing it in the text. (Obsessive? moi?) Oui. And We, as well. Lyllyn

 

Some fellow by the name of Douglas A. Anderson. The front cover says "Winner of the Mythopoeic Society Scholarship Award"

::blinks:: Duh! Of course! I should have remembered. Douglas Anderson is the one who wrote the Note on the Text that is found at the beginning of every copy of LotR that's been published since 1980-something. He's also the one who confirmed for me that it was a proofreader at Harper-Collins who mistakenly changed froward to forward. As far as I'm concerned, anything he's written is second (or is it third?) only to JRRT himself and CT. No, that's good enough for me. As long as you cite the source, feel free to add anything from The Annotated Hobbit that is pertinent. ~Nessime

 

Pipeweed?

Only if you want to. I was really referencing the as yet un-posted compilation of titles and forms of address. You've no doubt seen them all in the course of your reseach for the genealogies. I won't be able to focus on it immediately, but I will gratefully accept any input you might have to offer. ~Nessime

 

He's also the one who confirmed for me that it was a proofreader at Harper-Collins who mistakenly changed froward to forward. Oh, that's soooooo funny!!! I was just thinking as I woke up this morni, er, afternoon that if anyone would have caught the froward -> forward change and documented it, it would have been him! Totally forgot that you're the one who told the list about it... - Barbara

 

I was really referencing the as yet un-posted compilation of titles and forms of address. You've no doubt seen them all in the course of your reseach for the genealogies. Probably, but unfortunately, I wasn't paying attention to the titles much. The genealogies have gone though multiple phases(*), in each of which I paid attention to some specific item, but unfortunately titles was never one of them... Though if I think of anything when I see your list, I'd be happy to pass it along. (Some forms of address, like Master Elrond or Master Underhill, made it into the genealogies as Also-Known-As names, so my Index will probably have some of them.) Will contribute what I do know, as always... - Barbara (*)Oooooh! Wouldn't it be nice if I added references to the source of each genealogy? *spends a week finding all the references again* Oooooh! Wouldn't it be nice if I added where the people lived and where they were born and died? *spends two weeks... because the sources documented are for the genealogical info only, not any other info* Oooooh! Wouldn't it be nice if I added how they died -- the name and location of the war or the battle, who/what they were slain by, or the reason (childbirth, grief).... *more work* Ooooh! Wouldn't it be nice if I added the ordinal numbers (1st, 2nd...) to the lists of kings, princes, chieftains, lords, stewards, and whatevers? And the dates when they ruled? *more work* Oooooh! Wouldn't it be nice if I added heroic/significant events? Like rescuing people, or building things, or leading battles... *more work* aaaaargh! I should have added who they slew, not just who they were slain by *haven't finished this... am dreading going back through all those deaths in the Silm... Ugh!* Ooooooh! Now I have to break up Family Trees (e.g. separate the Istari from the Maia), remove info, or shorten info because the stupid one-inch wide boxes have gotten too long to fit on a page.... *more work* Oooooh! Now I have to have a nice Index to the entries that lists every variant of every name of every entry in the Genealogies: "Dunghill Rat" and "Rat, Dunghill"... and distinguishes between duplicate names (5 Hurins, 3 Barahirs...) the spreadsheet is over 2500 entries and growing... *still more work* Oooooh! How am I going to transfer all the page numbers from the not-useful Index generated by the software to my beautiful Index? *not sure, but I figure it will involve lots and lots and lots of copy and paste... oh, my poor hands...*

 

Any other things you notice or thoughts you have would help! The plan is to develop a researcher tutorial, so it would be clear step by step, and that should improve consistency. I know it is always nice to ask (and I always do), but if you see a piece of information that is in one entry, but it would also be useful under another, is it ok to move the info without the contributor's consent, but giving his/her the credit? I know I have some more questions, but I can't think of anything right now. Something will occur to me while I enter entries (which I havn't done for a while ). ~Loqi P.S. Barbara, you are one of the greatest geeks I've ever known. I salute you.

 

I know it is always nice to ask (and I always do), but if you see a piece of information that is in one entry, but it would also be useful under another, is it ok to move the info without the contributor's consent, but giving his/her the credit? I've never had that happen (yet), because I extract tidbits from primary sources myself, compile them, and then add them to existing (or new) entries. If the original author already has that tidbit there, I leave it alone. But if I think it also belongs in another entry, I'll copy it from the original source. (Edit: ) I'm not a Resource Manager, so this is strictly my personal, unofficial opinion: *However*, if the situation came up, and the other person's tidbit appeared to be high quality (i.e. a quotation with a citation, not an opinion), then I don't see any reason not to copy it with attribution. It might be nice to email the person and thank them afterward... but I can't imagine a situation where they would object (and if they did, I would just remove the offending tidbit... then go get it from the primary source, and put it back in under my name ). P.S. Barbara, you are one of the greatest geeks I've ever known. I salute you. Why, thank you, Loqi! It is an honor to be so distinguished by a fellow traveler... - Barbara

 

I know it is always nice to ask (and I always do), but if you see a piece of information that is in one entry, but it would also be useful under another, is it ok to move the info without the contributor's consent, but giving his/her the credit? I've never had that happen (yet), because I extract tidbits from primary sources myself, compile them, and then add them to existing (or new) entries. If the original author already has that tidbit there, I leave it alone. But if I think it also belongs in another entry, I'll copy it from the original source. (Edit: ) I'm not a Resource Manager, so this is strictly my personal, unofficial opinion: Seconded! The Geek's creed: Knowledge is good. More knowledge is more good. More knowledge put in more places is even more good. Oh, and ElenaTiriel, what you are working up to in wanting to add all those things to the geneaologies? I believe I have just the place for it, so your genealogies can still fit within the boxes. This remarkable place is called The Reference Library. Any spare data that you want to store can be put there, and miraculously retrieved when you are ready! And instead of putting things in boxes next to other things, there are these wonderful inventions called links! Lyllyn

 

(Edit: ) I'm not a Resource Manager, so this is strictly my personal, unofficial opinion:

I see that my fellow Resource Manger has already seconded this, so I can only third it. Loqi, as Lyllyn said, information is good; more information - and information more widely disseminated - is even better. IMO as long as the information can be verified in a primary source (and if the source is cited that should be a simple matter), I don't see any problem with copying it to another related entry. As Barbara said, I can't imagine anyone objecting to sharing information - isn't that what Resources is all about anyway? ~Nessime

 

Knowledge is good. More knowledge is more good. More knowledge put in more places is even more good.

I like it. Do you think we can have The Geek's Creed t-shirts made for the Resources team? ~Nessime

 

More knowledge put in more places is even more good. Well-stated! And that's how my Genealogies Grew like Topsy... Oh, and ElenaTiriel, what you are working up to in wanting to add all those things to the geneaologies? I believe I have just the place for it, so your genealogies can still fit within the boxes. This remarkable place is called The Reference Library. Any spare data that you want to store can be put there, and miraculously retrieved when you are ready! LOL! I put the Cliff's Notes versions of important events into the genealogies... So you can taste a bit of the history of a clan when you look at a family tree. Example, using info from the Kings of Rohan family tree: Helm slew his kinsman Freca, whose son Wulf then led a Dunlending invasion of Rohan and slew Helm's son Haleth, but (after Helm & his other son died from the Long Winter) Helm's nephew Fréaláf Hildeson recaptured Rohan and slew Wulf. (And most people think family trees are boring! This is a regular soap opera...) But I try to ensure enough similarity (in battle names and dates, for example) between them and the Resources Library that anyone who wants more info than fits in the one-inch box can find it in the library. The problem is that the Genealogies are going to be static text... basically a book (actually, a 250 to 300-page .pdf file), whereas the Resource Library is a growing, dynamic database. So, the only way to "link" information (some of which won't exist when the Genealogies are published) is to use the same or similar names for events, places, people, etc. Unfortunately, the genealogies have, um, grown so much that I can no longer ensure that anything is compatible with the Resources Library... it's beyond my power. :-( For example, I've been making up names of some battles (e.g.. Dunlending Invasion of Rohan 2758 III; Haradrim Invasion of Gondor 2885 III; (Thorongil's) Gondorian Raid on Umbar 2980 III) that aren't in the Events listing (when I last checked), but don't have the time to do the research to add those battles myself... so if/when someone else adds them, they probably won't have the same name... *Sigh* I had NO IDEA what I was getting myself into when I started these Genealogies... and now I'm too stubborn to abandon them... but I sometimes feel like I'm wresting with an Oliphaunt. - Barbara

 

Elanor Gamgee is listed under Elanor Gardner. This is an area of confusion, but I truly believe that only Frodo-lad, of all the Gamgee children, has the last name Gardner. Um, *blush* I just noticed this, and it pretty much settles the issue of what Elanor's last name is without having to resort to intellectual arguments about how to interpret Tolkien's family trees: Elanor is listed in the Index of Return of the King under Gamgee, not Gardner. That's canonical enough for me! (I can't believe I didn't notice that before...) For Elanor, I don't remember why it was done that way, I suppose it really should be Elanor the Fair, shouldn't it? If you have something that clarifies what it should be, educate me! Lyllyn Normally, I wouldn't have a problem with listing a character as "X the Y" (e.g. Círdan The Shipwright), but most of Tolkien's other characters don't have family names. It appears that even the lower classes of Hobbits (Greenhands, Gamgees, Cottons) have adopted the "given name + family name"-style of naming long before the Fourth Age. I think for consistency's sake, all Hobbits (who have a family name) should be listed in that form. So, I think Elanor Gardner really should be changed to Elanor Gamgee. - Barbara

 

Elanor is listed in the Index of Return of the King under Gamgee, not Gardner. That's canonical enough for me! (I can't believe I didn't notice that before...)

That's another reason why it is good to have many eyes looking at these things - no one person (no matter how much of a research geek ) is able to do it all. Thank goodness for teamwork. This also illustrates what we were discussing before about primary sources and the order of precedence given to information gleaned from them. For example, if information from LotR is contradicted in UT; that in LotR takes precedence (legitimate corrections to the texts excepted). On the other hand, if the information is an addition to that in LotR, it should be added along with the citation of the source. More stuff for those tutorials - yes, Lyllyn, I'm making a list, checking it twice... ~Nessime

 

For example, if information from LotR is contradicted in UT; that in LotR takes precedence (legitimate corrections to the texts excepted). On the other hand, if the information is an addition to that in LotR, it should be added along with the citation of the source. Agreed! In fact, I have an informal, personal pecking order: LoTR > Hobbit > Silmarillion > [edit:] UT > PoME > (The rest of HoME, in approximate reverse publication order). And I agree about additions vs contradictions, and corrections. legitimate corrections to the texts excepted This brought up something interesting: I remembered changing someone's birth date in response to a correction to LoTR in UT, and recalled that I had written it into The Tale of Years in my copy of RoTK. So I checked, and found this entry for the Second Age: 521 [> 548, per UT] Birth in Númenor of Silmariën. See anything odd about that entry? Like the umlaut in Silmariën? This brings up a point about precedence: If you take the precedence that I proposed blindly, then Silmariën is the correct form, because it appears in RoTK. (Which makes Robert Foster correct, which annoys me to no end... ) BUT I believe that Silmarien (no umlaut) is the correct version. Why? Because that's how it's spelled in the Silmarillion, which is where Silmarien is introduced and her story is told. In RoTK, she only appears once, in Appendix B, The Tale of Years. So, is that an exception to the rule that you wish to document in the tutorials? Or does documenting it just complicate matters too much? Or do we treat the precedence of the Appendices differently from the rest of LoTR? I'm very good at that (complicating matters), by the way. *Sigh* - Barbara

 

I remember quite a few contradictions on the Numenorean part of the Lotr Appendix, mentioned in the UT. And I just checked, of the many places Silmarien showed up in the UT, her name does not have an umlaut. That makes it two against one, even though Lotr takes precedence. ~Loqi

 

I'll see what i can dig up on date ranges for the road. Ithildin *( Assuming that the fortunes of The Old Forest Road are inversely tied to the fortunes of Dol Guldur, I added the history entries from Tale of Years for Dol Guldur into its Resource article, under Places: Dol Guldur. Hope this helps! - Barbara

 

LoTR > Hobbit > Silmarillion > PoME > (The rest of HoME, in approximate reverse publication order). And I agree about additions vs contradictions, and corrections. I agree also! What I sometimes do on contradictions that have important implications, or for date disagreements, is give both versions and the sources for each. Especially with C. Tolkien pointing out errors, I try to cite everything. Lyllyn

 

I remember quite a few contradictions on the Numenorean part of the Lotr Appendix, mentioned in the UT. I'm not surprised... Of course, I only noticed the ones that caused me to change my Genealogies... And I just checked, of the many places Silmarien showed up in the UT, her name does not have an umlaut. That makes it two against one, even though Lotr takes precedence. ~Loqi Agreed. I think the spelling in LoTR is an anomaly. - Barbara

 

So, I think Elanor Gardner really should be changed to Elanor Gamgee. Actually, what I really want here is a decision from one or both Resource Managers: I wouldn't make such a change without your blessing. - Barbara

 

Actually, what I really want here is a decision from one or both Resource Managers: I wouldn't make such a change without your blessing. You are blessed. Lyllyn

 

Lyllyn's a step ahead of me as usual. I suppose this means you may consider yourself twice blessed. ~Nessime PS - I haven't looked, but may I assume that all the other names that may be attributed to Elanor are duly noted in her bio (with appropriate citations)?

 

BUT I believe that Silmarien (no umlaut) is the correct version...

Aggh! I had never noticed that in the Tale of Years. Let me make a couple of inquiries and I'll get back to you. Baring a definitive answer from a more authoritative source like D. Anderson or David Bratman (I'm still waiting for my copy of his "A Corrigenda to The Lord of the Rings"), I agree with you and Loqi; this could be one of those cases where the appendix contains an error that has gone uncorrected - I checked my collector's edition of LotR (the red leather bound one) and it too has the umlaut in Silmarien's name. *sigh* But both The Silmarillion and UT spell it without. ~Nessime

 

I suppose this means you may consider yourself twice blessed. ~Nessime Thank you both! I'll work on it this evening (when I'm more alert) PS - I haven't looked, but may I assume that all the other names that may be attributed to Elanor are duly noted in her bio (with appropriate citations)? Um, do you mean like these (from my Genealogy Index spreadsheet)? Elanor Gamgee Elanor Fairbairn Ellie Elanorellë The Fair I'll check this evening. - Barbara P.S. Not to brag (okay, I'm bragging), but I just finished entries for The Elf-path, The Forest Gate, Black Squirrels, Butterflies, Giant Bats, Giant Moths, and Hunting Dogs, all from about two chapters of The Hobbit. This is supposed to be a children's book?

 

P.S. Not to brag (okay, I'm bragging), but I just finished entries for The Elf-path, The Forest Gate, Black Squirrels, Butterflies, Giant Bats, Giant Moths, and Hunting Dogs, all from about two chapters of The Hobbit. Hurrah! For those interested, we're approaching 300 entries for places, and 200 for Things! Lyllyn

 

P.S. Not to brag (okay, I'm bragging), but I just finished entries for The Elf-path, The Forest Gate, Black Squirrels, Butterflies, Giant Bats, Giant Moths, and Hunting Dogs, all from about two chapters of The Hobbit.

Hey, a little bragging now and then isn't a bad thing. Well done!

For those interested, we're approaching 300 entries for places, and 200 for Things!

Way to go, team! *thunderous applause* ~Nessime

 

BUT I believe that Silmarien (no umlaut) is the correct version...

When in doubt, go to the experts. I just got a response to my query from Carl F. Hostetter, whom I trust is authoritative enough on the subject of Tolkien's languages (and therefore, the proper spelling of names). I don't think he'll object to my quoting him here:

The diaeresis (umlaut) is just an orthographic convention used by Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings to indicate to the English reader that the vowel it marks is to be pronounced, not silent or diphthongized. Tolkien often did not bother using it in other writings. So either spelling is correct.

Based on this information, I would suggest that both spellings be included in her bio, with the notation that Tolkien himself used both. So Foster wasn't wrong in this case; he just didn't include all the relevant information - but we will. ~Nessime

 

When in doubt, go to the experts. I just got a response to my query from Carl F. Hostetter You don't mess around, do you? Based on this information, I would suggest that both spellings be included in her bio, with the notation that Tolkien himself used both. So Foster wasn't wrong in this case; he just didn't include all the relevant information - but we will. ~Nessime You do realize that this means that someone has to go through every Dwarf's name with an accent and mention both spellings? Tolkien added the accents after The Hobbit. (Actually, I guess that only applies to the Dwarves in the Quest of Erebor...) - Barbara

 

You don't mess around, do you?

Nope.

(Actually, I guess that only applies to the Dwarves in the Quest of Erebor...)

IIRC those are the only ones. IMO it's only names found in The Hobbit, LotR, The Silmarillion and UT where this is an issue; alternate spellings in HoM-e don't signify (if they did I'd have to add Hasofel to Hasufel's bio ). ~Nessime PS added - Just edited Silmarien/Silmariën's bio.

 

Hi, For some strange reason I was just reading the bio for Silmarien (nice work on the name, Nessime!), and found an error: The bio says: Silmarien married Elatan, the Lord of Andúnië, in S.A 548; their son was Valandil. But Elatan of Andúnië did not have the title Lord of Andúnië; I believe the title was bestowed first on their son, Valandil, presumably in honor of his royal bloodline. The UT Index says: Elatan of Andúnië Númenórean, husband of Silmarien, father of Valandil first Lord of Andúnië. and the entry for Silmarien is similar. - Barbara (Edit: ) Okay, I suppose that entry can be ambiguous, but because of its location, I think the phrase "first Lord of Andúnië" describes Valandil, not Elatan of Andúnië. I should have used Silmarien's entry instead: Silmarien Daughter of Tar-Elendil; mother of Valandil first Lord of Andúnië and ancestress of Elendil the Tall. (Edit 2: ) I propose the following wording: Silmarien married Elatan of Andúnië in S.A 548; their son was Valandil, the first Lord of Andúnië.

 

I propose the following wording: Silmarien married Elatan of Andúnië in S.A 548; their son was Valandil, the first Lord of Andúnië. I agree with your proposition, and the fact that Valandil was the first lord of Andúnië. ~Loqi

 

"...to indicate to the English reader that the vowel it marks is to be pronounced, not silent or diphthongized." I've read about this some where else (can't remember where). In that case it was on one of the Elves' name in the Silmarillion. ~Loqi

 

PS added - Just edited Silmarien/Silmariën's bio. Actually, I just thought of a question about why you added Silmarien's alternate spelling the way you did... Is there a reason that you didn't put Silmariën in the Other Name(s) field, instead of changing the primary entry name? For example, is there a difference in the search capabilities between these two fields? The reason I asked is that I just glanced at a list of bios, and my eye just sort of skipped over "Silmarien or Silmariën*". My brain saw the "shape" of the title, and interpreted it as the name of a research article (eg One Glorfindel or Two?), rather than a bio. I also think that using both names in the title gives them equal value, and I would still argue that Silmarien is the, um, preferred spelling, since that is the one used exclusively in the Sil and UT, where all her background story is written. Am I missing something? - Barbara

 

PS - I haven't looked, but may I assume that all the other names that may be attributed to Elanor are duly noted in her bio (with appropriate citations)? So, we have to put citations for all the alternate (also-known-as) names? I just noticed that the Nazgûl are missing a few alternate names* that I have in my Genealogies, but I only know where I got about two of them. Does this mean I can't add the rest? *Whine* none of the other also-known-as names seem to have citations... - Barbara *Missing Nazgûl names: The Nine Riders, The Black Riders, The Fell Riders, Winged Messengers, The Nine Servants (of Sauron), Filthy Shriekers

 

I suppose this means you may consider yourself twice blessed. ~Nessime I've changed Elanor Gardner to Elanor Gamgee, but have run into a bit of an oddity: The entry says Gamgee, but if you run a Resource Search (say, on "elanor"), the list says Elanor Gardner. (But if you click on the link, it's the Gamgee entry.) Does something else internal need to change, too? Like, when you gods have to set up a new bio before we peons can enter data, do you give it a name in a different database field from the one we can edit? I'm worried that changing the internal name might force a new ID, which means I'll have to go a change a few links to Elanor. (Stop me before I cross-link again!!) Am I making the slightest bit of sense here? - Barbara

 

Aaaaack! Lyllyn, I totally screwed up! I was trying to fix my cross-links in the section ("Mirkwood Spiders") that I added to the Spiders entry, but did a copy-and-paste of the whole entry, instead of just my part. (And, of course, I hit enter just before I figured this out...) I'm really sorry, but I clobbered your entry! I can't for the life of me remember what you had in that entry. Do you remember where you got the quotes from? If you could point me to a general direction, I'll recreate the quotes and enter them again. I am so sorry! - Barbara

 

I'm sorry to say that I don't. I suspect the Sil had something, and certainly The Hobbit. Looking in my HoMe index (soooo useful! My Precious...) VII and VIII might have something. And of course I'd check UT. Urk. Not much help, I'm afraid. You could do some of this with the "link" function to make your life easier, but it's nice to have it so direct. lyllyn

 

Is there a reason that you didn't put Silmariën in the Other Name(s) field...

It's not really an Other Name; it's an alternate spelling, equally legitimate according to Hostetter. BTW I also prefer the spelling without the diaeresis (umlaut) for the very reasons you stated, but Hostetter's point is that, since Tolkien himself used both, both are equally valid. Otherwise we would still face the argument that LotR was published in Tolkien's lifetime and should take precedence. You are right about the fact that it looks awkward - I wonder if it would look better as Silmarien / Silmariën. The only other choice would be to specify in the Other Name text box that Silmariën is a recognized alternate spellling, and point toward the note at the end of the main text to explain it. I'm not terribly picky about which way it displays as long as it''s perfectly clear to those reading the bio that both spellings are valid. As for the search capabilities, I honestly hadn't thought about that. I don't think it makes much difference either way. I run through a couple of searches just to be sure. ~Nessime PS added - For the sake of neatness I opted for the Other Name choice, with the note that both spellings are correct.

 

The entry says Gamgee, but if you run a Resource Search (say, on "elanor"), the list says Elanor Gardner. (But if you click on the link, it's the Gamgee entry.)

IIRC it just takes a little time for the list to catch up with the changes - the same happened when I changed Silmarien's bio (both times ). Everything is as it should be now (I just did the search for Elanor and it gave me Elanor Gamgee). So don't fret; all is well. ~Nessime

 

Hi Lyllyn, Well, after the initial panic and embarrassment wore off (and I slept), I did remember a little about the initial entry: Ungoliant, Shelob, and the Third Age spiders being spawn of U (which I assume applies to the Mirkwood spiders, at least the giant ones). So, I will simply start fresh and recreate the Spiders entry as if it were a new one, definitely checking the places you mentioned at least. That way, whatever I come up with will -- hopefully -- have at least as much as you did. Again, my apologies for the slip of my mouse! (The Mouse squeaks: "Oh, that's right, blame it all on me! It's not bad enough that you keep dropping me on the floor and even stepped on me, now you have to blame me for your screw-ups!" It scurries away to hide, grumbling "I should have taken the job offer with Hickory Dickory Dock! I'd be famous by now! But noooo, I wanted to work with computers and ended up with a heavy-handed slave-driving geek who keeps me on a leash...") - Barbara (Edit: ) I suspect the Sil had something, and certainly The Hobbit. Looking in my HoMe index (soooo useful! My Precious...) VII and VIII might have something. And of course I'd check UT. Wait, did you say HoME Index? Is this something you made or something you bought? Is it electronic? Do you share it, Precious? If not, can I buy it somewhere? *Geek jumping up and down*

 

You could do some of this with the "link" function to make your life easier, but it's nice to have it so direct. lyllyn Oh, I use that, too (see Honey-cakes of the Beornings)... It's just that it's the last thing I do when I declare an entry *finished* (for the moment, anyway...) I'm converting that whole bunch of entries I did the last day or two to cross-linking, so I'm not "finished"... - Barbara

 

PS added - For the sake of neatness I opted for the Other Name choice, with the note that both spellings are correct. I think it's clear, readable, and beautful! Thank you, Nessime! - Barbara (Edit: ) P.S. Do you agree with Loqi and me that the wording for that line in Silmarien's bio should be: Silmarien married Elatan of Andúnië in S.A 548; their son was Valandil, the first Lord of Andúnië.

 

So don't fret; all is well. Thank you, Nessime! That's a relief...

 

I agree with your proposition, and the fact that Valandil was the first lord of Andúnië. ~Loqi Thanks, Loqi! - Barbara

 

What I sometimes do on contradictions that have important implications, or for date disagreements, is give both versions and the sources for each. Especially with C. Tolkien pointing out errors, I try to cite everything. And I've made use of that sometimes for my Genealogies (first age battle dates, IIRC) and very much appreciated your thoroughness. - Barbara I mean that I pick one date for the Genealogies, but it is good to see all the primary sources so I can pick the most reasonable-sounding date, usually the latest one Tolkien decided upon...

 

Wait, did you say HoME Index? Is this something you made or something you bought? Is it electronic? Do you share it, Precious? If not, can I buy it somewhere? *Geek jumping up and down* I wish it were electronic. I bought it, and the only place I could find it was on the British Amazon site. By now it may available from the US site, I haven't checked. A prize above rubies for research! Lyllyn

 

Yup, amazon.co.uk only. Now, if I only knew how much £15.97 (the shipping doubles the price) is in dollars... But it's my birthday present, Precious! - Barbara They also had paperback copies of Peoples of Middle-earth! I wish I had checked there before buying the hardback... (Edit: ) Per Sulriel's request, here's the link at amazon.co.uk: The History of Middle-earth: Index

 

I re-did the Spiders entry, renamng it Giant Spiders (but still linked under "S"). You'll see why... I never found the quote that I vaguely remember from your original entry that Shelob was the ancestor of all the Third Age spiders, but the information is there indirectly from other quotes. Let me know what you think. It's a bit, um, unusual... even for me... - Barbara P.S. It hasn't had the final proofreading, nor have I checked all the links yet.

 

You have a lot of good material! It is ...unusual. Definitely approproate for an essay, but I'm not sure if it's somewhat too editiorial for database entry - what do others think? One other thing that may just be me - I'm curious. The links in the text are convenient, but when there many links in the text I get visually put off and it takes more effort to read. Possibly simply a color issue. What is the balance for most people in this? Lyllyn

 

I like the links, they are like little siren!nuzgul calling in many directions. ...and for that reason should always include target="new" in the link so readers can find their way home.

 

I like the links, they are like little siren!nuzgul calling in many directions. ...and for that reason should always include target="new" in the link so readers can find their way home. Nuzgul are always a good thing - especially when biting someone else. Does target="new" mean a new window? Lyllyn

 

Does target="new" mean a new window? yes. that instruction in the link causes it to open in a new window.

 

Definitely approproate for an essay, but I'm not sure if it's somewhat too editiorial for database entry - what do others think? Which parts do you think are too editorial? I will be glad to fix them. Consider this a beta draft, up for review and comment... a) The introductory text at the beginning (which is in flux: I might delete the history paragraph if I find the right quotes for the History section), which I wrote without attribution. b) That I mention that not all of the spiders found in Middle-earth are the giant spiders (I did NOT say: "that we all know and love", though the temptation was great... ). c) The fact that I organized all the quotes into themes/sections, instead of leaving them intact as they are in the books: Physical Characteristics History Dwelling Places Dark Nets (Webs) Magical Powers Communications Mirkwood Spiders d) That I used the term "magical" to describe the ability of the spiders to control Unlight, to cast holding spells, to talk, etc.? Perhaps I should say "unusual", "abnormal", "uncommon", "out of the ordinary", "not found in spiders outside Middle-earth" or something else? e) That I included the snarky comments made by the spiders about the dwarves? (I think the quotes rather handily describe the personalities of the Mirkwood spiders...) f) That I embellished the section headings with non-Tolkien quotes? (I could certainly do without the song and LoTR quote, but the "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive" quote is just too PERFECT to describe those two sections... But I will -- albeit reluctantly -- remove that one also if you really think it's inappropriate...) One other thing that may just be me - I'm curious. The links in the text are convenient, but when there many links in the text I get visually put off and it takes more effort to read. Possibly simply a color issue. What is the balance for most people in this? It's not just you. I've noticed this and am also concerned about it; but I've chosen to err on the side of more links because I think they're so convenient. Part of the problem is that, because I'm slicing and dicing quotes and paragraphs into separate themes/sections, I sometimes end up with too many or too few (no) links to a given item mentioned in the paragraph. What I'm trying to say is, I will go back and remove any instances of multiple links *to the same thing* within a single paragraph... anyplace where it's obvious it's the same thing. That *might* at least cut down on the number of links, I'm not sure. Any other questions/suggestions are most welcome, as usual. - Barbara

 

Let me know what you think. It's a bit, um, unusual... even for me... It's convenient, but I think it's unnecessary to link the same link twice, or link it right back to the same page (the link for "spiders") ~Loqi

 

I like the links, they are like little siren!nuzgul calling in many directions. Hee, hee, hee! Thank you! Or, should I say: Mwaaaa haaa haa haa haa! for that reason should always include target="new" in the link so readers can find their way home. Agreed! After I've followed about two links, I've completely forgotten what it was I was looking at in the first place, unless I still have the original window available... But I use: target="_blank", which I copied from the linking tutorial. I presume this is the same? It does open a new window... - Barbara

 

It's convenient, but I think it's unnecessary to link the same link The question is, twice within how big a piece of text? Because this is sliced and diced from many different quotes, I think a link should appear at least once per quote-segment, or maybe paragraph? I think it's unnecessary to ... link it right back to the same page (the link for "spiders") Aaaaggh! That's a mistake! Sorry I didn't fix it before asking for people to review that entry... I'll fix that this evening. (I create a big "Tidbits" document with all possibly-relevant quotes, add the links using search and replace, and then copy the relevant tidbits to other entries... but I forgot to remove the self-referential links on this particular entry. Thanks for pointing that out.) - Barbara

 

But I use: target="_blank", which I copied from the linking tutorial. I presume this is the same? It does open a new window... oh yes! ... sorry. I use the other one out of habit.

 

The question is, twice within how big a piece of text? Because this is sliced and diced from many different quotes, I think a link should appear at least once per quote-segment, or maybe paragraph? I just skimmed it again. IMO, I think the multiple links for Frodo, Sam and Bilbo are extras, even links for Ungoliant and Shelob may be unnecessary (but it depends on how much the reader knows). The multiple links for the Phial or Galadriel are fine because it was refered to in many different contexts. I'll fix that this evening. While you're at it, you might want to change the "Sauron" in the passage below to "Melkor". It's under the "History" section: "...but some have said that in ages long before she descended from the darkness that lies about Arda... and that in the beginning she was one of those that he [Sauron] corrupted to his service." ~Loqi Edited for typos.

 

Hi Loqi, I just finished changing that entry to remove what I consider to be duplicate links that are too close to each other. Basically, I used a single quote, or sometimes a paragraph if the quote is large, as the boundary for removing duplicates. And I also noticed and fixed the "Sauron" error. DOH! I had made the changes in batches, so you probably saw an early or intermediate version (especially if "Sauron" was still there.) Thanks for your feedback! It is quite helpful, as usual... - Barbara Edited for typos. Yeah, me too!

 

Thanks for your feedback! It is quite helpful, as usual... You're welcome! Glad I could help. ~Loqi

 

Lyllyn, I removed excess links, corrected an error, and deleted two of the quotes (the song and the LoTR quote) that I had added to the section headings. Let me know what you think, and if you want any further changes. I will abide by your wishes. - Barbara P.S. Thank you for adding The Carrock. It was on my list... I think I have an etymology for carrock lying around somewhere... (Edit: ) Yes, added the etymology.

 

Sorry, Barbara, I meant to get back to you sooner - I feel like I've been behind all month. Removing some links is helpful on my eyes - I appreciate it. I confess I hadn't looked for errors, but I know you are meticulous and will spot them! I don't have any specific other changes. I know Nessime has done some work on the spiders, and may have a few comments. Thanks for adding the etymology - I occasionally run into the right one in the books, but I'm not good on finding that sort of thing - I don't trust my language skills. Incidentally, I've been talking with Ang about your geneaologies, and we're still discussing how to present them. Aside from the actual PDF file, do you have any other thoughts? Lyllyn

 

Sorry, Barbara, I meant to get back to you sooner No problem at all! Removing some links is helpful on my eyes - I appreciate it. Good! I'm going through all the entries that I added links to, and removing duplicates that are too close to each other. It does seem to make the links less distracting. I don't have any specific other changes. I was most concerned with your comment about the entry being too editorial, so to speak. I may have a sense of humor, but do not wish to appear to diminish the credibility of the Resource Library in any way. If you have any further thoughts on this, let me know. And I will also welcome any input from Nessime, of course. Thanks for adding the etymology After typing them in by hand, I try to get as much mileage out of them as I can... Let me get back to you on the Genealogies when my head is clearer... - Barbara

 

Good! I'm going through all the entries that I added links to, and removing duplicates that are too close to each other. It does seem to make the links less distracting.

Do you think that linking the first mention of each person, place, thing or event would suffice? Otherwise I think the links are helpful, especially if they open in a new window (IIRC you've done this, yes?). I have some further thoughts, primarily pertaining to the description. A couple of things niggled at my memory, and I've been going through the various texts to see if my recollection is correct or not. I'd like to send this in an e-mail once I collect all my thoughts and relevant data together. I had most of it but the computer decided to have a brain hemorage or something, and the data got lost when I had to restart the computer. I'm now in the process of retracing my steps (I hope). I second the appreciation of the etymology - you may be interested in a note I found in HoM-e 8 from CT about a letter from JRRT that mentions the etymology:

...on 21 May (Letters no. 70) he said:.. Do you think Shelob is a good name for a monstrous spider creature? It is of course only 'she + lob' (= spider), but written as one, it seems to be quite noisome.

~Nessime

 

Do you think that linking the first mention of each person, place, thing or event would suffice? I tend to think of each excerpt as a standalone entry. Perhaps it's just my notoriously bad memory and short attention span but if a link doesn't appear in the last ~three or four linear inches of text, I forget it's there (and definitely if it's not on the same screenful of text). This, of course, applies to long entries with multiple excerpts, like Giant Spiders. I don't tend to duplicate links very much on shorter entries, like the the Red Book, although there are a couple. That entry has a lot of links, and I think it was much improved by removing all but two of the duplicates. Otherwise I think the links are helpful, especially if they open in a new window (IIRC you've done this, yes?). Yes, once I learned how (from the lovely tutorial), I always open the link in a new window. (See above comment about "short attention span" -- If I follow two links I can't remember where I started or why, unless the window is still there...) I even edited my posts in this thread to open all the links in a new window... Obsessive? I have some further thoughts, primarily pertaining to the description. I'm anxious to hear, um, read them. Sorry about the computer glitch! My laptop is ailing, which is why I don't have my beautiful electronic texts to gather excerpts from... I second the appreciation of the etymology - you may be interested in a note I found in HoM-e 8 from CT about a letter from JRRT that mentions the etymology: Oooooh! Tidbits, my precious! Lovely tidbits, so juicy sweeeet... Now where would be a good place to store that one, precious? Maybe under my good friend, Shelob? Must have it, my precious..... (I actually had seen that while doing the research, but at the time didn't think it interesting enough to copy. Now that I've finally compiled everything into a Library entry, I think it would be a nice addition...) - Barbara

 

• Forums Home
• 1 Month of Posts
• FAQs

Forum Conferences

• Challenges
• General
• Members
• Resources
• Stories

A conference is a collection of forums.

Intended for: General Audience

This forum is open to all HASA members. It is read-only for the general public.

Membership on HASA is free and it takes only a few minutes to join. If you would like to participate, please click here.

If you are already a member, please log in to participate.

« Back to Reference Library - entries, requests, etc.

• Citations for Tolkien's writings
• Maiar, The
• Valar, The