Talk:The Fall of Gondolin (chapter)

From Tolkien Gateway

Looks great, Narfil! An idea: maybe you should place the maps more throughout the whole of the article, in stead of at the beginning; I think it would look better, lay out wise speaking. --Earendilyon 07:14, 13 May 2006 (EDT)

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. They are not all at the beginning, but rather in the place in the text that they occur. --Narfil Palùrfalas 20:11, 13 May 2006 (EDT)
Looks fantastic Narfil! I don't think Earendilyon anticipated the future renderings as now they are sprinkled throughout the article quite nicely. Keep up the great work. --Hyarion 00:34, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
Narfil, Hya's correct: when I wrote that, only the maps of Gondolin, Attack 1, and (the space reserved for) Attack 2 were present in the article. --Earendilyon 07:20, 14 May 2006 (EDT)

Adding 'The' to title[edit]

Hm, do you think we should relocate this article to The Fall of Gondolin and have this one redirect there? I think the exact title of the chapter is with the "The". --Hyarion 11:10, 21 July 2006 (EDT)

I always thought that was the better title. I never mentioned it though.
Well, I'm back from Louisiana. Could someone tell me what has been going on during my absence? I noticed the amount of spammers by looking in the "Recent Changes" section. --Narfil Palùrfalas 14:29, 22 July 2006 (EDT)
It's been pretty crazy. Hyarion got kidnapped, Earendilyon tried out for American Idol, Mr. Burns blocked out the sun, and Christopher Tolkien admitted that he made most of HoME up while on a bender in South Africa. But things have quieted down since. --Ebakunin 14:40, 22 July 2006 (EDT)
Don't listen to Ebakunin, he has gone mad from having to make all those edits without you. Glad you're back though, how was Louisiana? There was one rather annoying spammer yesterday but he finally gave up. I've started working on the Comic-Con 2006 page and hope to get a bunch of information and images on the collectibles on there. I started adding an article for every year since Tolkien's birth, such as 1896. GaramondBophîn has been hard at work at Amon Hen journal back-issues. I made a page over at Main Page/Development where we can discuss changes to the layout of the main page. will be publishing (with a link back) some of our articles in their future newsletters. And I'm sure there's other things I'm forgetting. --Hyarion 14:50, 22 July 2006 (EDT)
Louisiana was great (if a little hot for building a house with no shade). The people were really friendly (and Pastor Kenneth let me shoot off his 45mm and 1944 M44). Anyway, I hope I'll be back to work tomorrow or the day after (I have to unpack). The new stuff looks good. I'll be focusing my attention, I think, to the screenplays and Lay of Leithian cantos. I also need to get around to finishing this article. --Narfil Palùrfalas 16:57, 22 July 2006 (EDT)


Is there anyway to reposition/remove the "contents" box? It sort of. . . obscures/dwarfs the top of the article. It just doesn't look good. --Narfil Palùrfalas 15:03, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I've gone ahead and removed the TOC, to do so you can just add __NOTOC__, preferably at the bottom of the article. --Hyarion 15:09, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. --Narfil Palùrfalas 15:27, 1 April 2007 (EDT)


This needs to be split into "The Fall of Gondolin (writing)" and "The Fall of Gondolin (event)". The former would contain discussions about canonicity and the development of the writing, while the other should be a completely in-universe description of the event itself. A reason for this is because while the writing found in The Book of Lost Tales is not canon, the event itself is certainly canonical. Furthermore it makes a finer distinction between the writing and the actual occurence. —Tar-Telperien 03:00, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Hmmmmm, well personally i would argue that the event and the writings concerning it are so tied in with each other that you cannot conclusively seperate one from the other. Considering that pretty much every scrap of information concerning it was published posthumously one cannot present a truly 'canonical' article on the event since it would miss out virtually every detail about the event itself. I prefer the 'open format' in this sense where the accuracy of the writing is challanged in relation to the event. This rather ties in with the sources 'drive' that we're rumbling on acheiving sometime soon.
Now if we were to make articles for the chapters in HoME then i could see the argument for a page on the writing itself since we could present it as Christopher Tolkien presented it himself. But The Fall of Gondolin is an event inextricably linked with the dubiousness of its canonicity and pushing that issue into a seperate page would over-simplify the complex web of versions that consist it. Dr Death 06:38, 24 November 2007 (EST)
The specifics of the event are not very canonical, but the event itself is on quite solid footing. In any case, I am against having the text and the event solely discussed in the same place (obviously they will be linked in some areas of the article, especially in this case), because it may make it sound to some readers like the entire thing is noncanon, which it isn't. Furthermore, it is against wiki policy to randomly break the fourth wall like this article does (i.e., put discussion about out-of-universe information right in the middle of an in-universe description). Additionally, there is a precedent of separating events from the documents that tell of them; cf. Music of the Ainur vs. Ainulindalë and Downfall of Númenor vs. Akallabêth; view also the talk page of Akallabêth, in which you were in agreement with me in a like case.
It's not like the "primitive" (to use Tolkien's term) document found in the Book of Lost Tales is the only information we have about Gondolin's Fall, anyway. The retelling found in the published Silmarillion is, as I recall, from the 1930 version of The Silmarillion, which is not perfect but canonical enough. It provides an overview of the event that could easily be made into a decently sized wiki article. In fact, that is the problem with leaving the article as one; is the 1930 version even talked about in this article? It just focuses on the Book of Lost Tales writing. I definitely think another page is needed. —Tar-Telperien 08:13, 24 November 2007 (EST)
You make some fine points. I do indeed agree that the events and the chapters that tell of them should be seperate. However, first of all we have not ventured into giving early forms of the tales independent pages (the most suitable way being to present them as chapter articles for the HoME book applicable). That itself is a project to be agreed upon and all the rest of the beaurocratic hoo-ha that a site like this demands.
Your point on the article only applying to the BoLT version is entirely true and on that point i completely agree. My focus when rewriting this article was on the most complete text and not on presenting more traditionally canonical sources like The Silmarillion's account (out of clerical error rather than purposeful suppression.
On the point of breaking the fourth wall however i am unrepentant. A site which attempts to explain in any level of detail the creative process behind the in-universe results must explain things to the reader. I approached the matter in much the same way as i would write an essay on any given subject: introducing the questions, presenting possible solutions and quoting regularly from the text. The only difference is unlike an essay i did not present my own conclusion since personal opinion should not affect the article. Indeed part of the reason that i rewrote the article was because Narfil's glorious efforts almost mirrored the text too closely including the use of Tolkienesque use of language, denying the reader with any framework. Indeed the first time i read it i (having not read the source at that point) wondered if the author was quoting the text rather than summerising or synopsising it.
In conclusion, by all means write an article for the BoLT chapter (i wouldnt mind a stab at writing up synopsis' of the Tale of Tinuviel or Turambar and the Foaloke), but to my eye it's a project that has to have some discussion before charging in.Dr Death 10:23, 24 November 2007 (EST)
I agree to such a split. I was thinking of suggesting the same thing, but never remembered to bring it up. While the account of the Fall is most definitely and unavoidably linked to the writing discussed, it does refer to something different. The Fall of Gondolin should be seperated from the Fall of Gondolin. One is a writing, the other an event. Of course, what we could do for the latter is divide it into two sections: the meager canonical account, and the fuller noncanonical account. Then let this article be mainly devoted to the writing itself. --Narfil Palùrfalas 10:54, 24 November 2007 (EST)
This is something I've been meaning to do for a while. Fall of Gondolin should focus on the event, and The Fall of Gondolin should focus on the chapter in The Book of Lost Tales Part Two, as we should have an article for all of the chapters of the books written by Tolkien. --Hyarion 15:07, 24 November 2007 (EST)
Thanks, everyone. When the new article is made I will try to move the infobox and as much data from this article as is applicable.
Dr Death, discussion on the canonicity of an event or document, and other forms of out-of-universe description, is perfectly welcome. I object to the random breaking of the fourth wall, as I tried to make clear before, because it is jarring to read and furthermore is against the policy of this wiki (probably for that reason). The history of Arda is to be told with as much inner verisimilitude as possible, as Tolkien himself told it. Thus, when we break the fourth wall, it is to be done in specific, well-marked parts of the article such as "Other Versions of the Legendarium" and "Inspiration" sections. —Tar-Telperien 19:03, 24 November 2007 (EST)
I was thinking of this as well. Maybe The Fall of Gondolin (chapter)? I was thinking that it should be divided because one is talking about the actually JRR Tolkien writings and the other is talking about an event that happened within Arda. --Pinkkeith 16:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this should be split, too. Just as in Scouring of the Shire/The Scouring of the Shire, Battle of the Pelennor Fields/The Battle of the Pelennor Fields etc. etc. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 16:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I'd split it now if I had the time. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  17:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
+1 --Amroth 15:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


I just finished the main synopsis. I removed all the info from other versions, so this is only about the Lost Tale, adding when necessary. Seeing it finished now, I wonder if the synopsis is too long? I know it is a long and complex text, but maybe it would be nice that the MoS included some indications on summarizing chapters. Btw, is it "Synopsis" or "Summary"? I've seen both terms around and we should stick with one. Now I'm gonna work with the Commentary. --LorenzoCB 12:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the synopsis is a bit too long IMO, it should be a few paragraphs depending on the content of the chapter. But since there is no proper guideline for this I guess it should be up to the reader. "Synopsis" or "Summary" mean the same really but I think Synopsis is better word to use for such things. Gaetano 15:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)