Board Thread:General Mod Discussion/@comment-28852094-20170615060634/@comment-25101089-20170615164723

No, I don't really like the idea of adding the Dark Land any more. Not that we have scrapped the idea of the Dark Land altogether, but it's safe to say that it's very close to the end of my priority list, which is a very long list indeed.
 * Middle-earth is a mythology for the 'Old World', i.e. Afro-Eurasia, which the Dark Land does not correspond to.
 * The Dark Land has precisely zero relevance to even the least relevant aspects of the story and the world.
 * The Dark Land only appears on a very early map, before even the Hobbit was written (let alone LOTR) so it's questionable whether Tolkien would have included it in the 'revised' First Age had he ever finished revising the Silmarillion legends. (From the equivalent in-world perspective, there is no reason to assume it still existed during the Third Age.)
 * And perhaps most importantly: everything that could be reasonably added to the Dark Land without just completely making things up (e.g. ancient spawn of Ungoliant, great dark forests, prehistoric beasts, savage tribes, lost Númenórean colonies) could also be fitting additions in Rhûn and/or Harad, so what's the point of creating a whole new landmass and grasping at straws to find a few things to put there when we could make the existing lands more interesting instead?