Tolkien Gateway

Talk:Orodreth

(Difference between revisions)
Line 9: Line 9:
 
There was nothing factually wrong in it. And it's completely arbitrary to use as main source the later notes, giving a version of the story that wasn't introduced in any narrative and it's pretty much obscure. Not to mention the confusion for readers.
 
There was nothing factually wrong in it. And it's completely arbitrary to use as main source the later notes, giving a version of the story that wasn't introduced in any narrative and it's pretty much obscure. Not to mention the confusion for readers.
 
Following the same logic, you should change as well the article about Finrod Felagund and state that he was married, because that's what the last notes on the matter say (HoME vol. XII: "On Dwarves and Men", "The Shibboleth of Fëanor"), even when this contradicts everything that is said in the main narratives.
 
Following the same logic, you should change as well the article about Finrod Felagund and state that he was married, because that's what the last notes on the matter say (HoME vol. XII: "On Dwarves and Men", "The Shibboleth of Fëanor"), even when this contradicts everything that is said in the main narratives.
The question is, why is given preference to quickly written notes (that we don't even know if were definitive or not) over the big bulk of narratives that is extant?
+
The question is, why is given preference to quickly written notes (that we don't even know if were definitive or not) over the big bulk of narratives that is extant? That would require that all references to the making of the Sun and the Moon are removed as well from the articles, because that's what the last notes on the matter say. But what's the point of talking about the stories that "could" have been, but never were? We would be talking about a fictional book that was never written.

Revision as of 16:40, 4 April 2013

Move

Move to Orodreth? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 20:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And before you start asking, Finduilas of Nargothrond too. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 20:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Silmarillion vs. Late notes

Why was my revision, which placed the genealogy from Silmarillion above the later one, removed? There was nothing factually wrong in it. And it's completely arbitrary to use as main source the later notes, giving a version of the story that wasn't introduced in any narrative and it's pretty much obscure. Not to mention the confusion for readers. Following the same logic, you should change as well the article about Finrod Felagund and state that he was married, because that's what the last notes on the matter say (HoME vol. XII: "On Dwarves and Men", "The Shibboleth of Fëanor"), even when this contradicts everything that is said in the main narratives. The question is, why is given preference to quickly written notes (that we don't even know if were definitive or not) over the big bulk of narratives that is extant? That would require that all references to the making of the Sun and the Moon are removed as well from the articles, because that's what the last notes on the matter say. But what's the point of talking about the stories that "could" have been, but never were? We would be talking about a fictional book that was never written.