Douglas Charles Kane’s “Arda Reconstucted: The Creation of the Published Simarillion”

[jallanite]

This is a book which ought to be considered by those interested in this thread.

The book is Arda Reconstructed: The Creation of the Published Silmarillion. It is published by Bethlehem: Lehigh University Press, 2009.

The book largely duplicates this group of threads, providing the details which might be used to create a superior version of the Silmarillion. It resembles more closely Lindil’s idea of a book that contains a commentary on all passages from Tolkien’s writing that connect to the Silmarillion.

After a short introduction, Kane introduces a chapter corresponding to a chapter on the Silmarillion. Each of the chapters mostly contains a table containing the Silmarillion chapter or chapters broken down into individual paragraphs, the words that begins each section, the page number where the section begins, the primary source for that section, and secondary sources for that section where they exist.

For examples, the first listing in the first table, using “ ¦ ” to mark column spacing, is:

1 ¦ “It is told among…” ¦ 35 ¦ §31 of version D of the Ainulindalë ¦ AAm §13: “Arda was filled with the sound of his laughter” and “Melkor fled before his wrath and his laughter, and forsook Arda”

Kane then, in the associated chapter, comments on the text of Christopher Tolkien’s text as compared to the arguably more genuine texts. Kane does not usually use material from the first three books of the HOME series and usually gives precedence to Tolkien’s latest writings on any matter, although not always.

Kane finds that Christopher Tolkien’s work is mostly justifiable, but sometimes is not. Christopher Tolkien often omits what Kane feels should have been included. In particular, Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay often reduce the role of females in the work. Kane suggests a coherent account of the Nauglamir (Neclace of the Dwarves) that does not include the inventions of Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay. Kane also believes that most of the Second Prophecy of Mandos should be included, that Tolkien only intended part of it should be removed.

For references to Kane’s work, see:http://www.amazon.com/Arda-Reconstructed-Creation-Published-Silmarillion/dp/0980149630 (check reviews),

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Arda-Reconstructed-Creation-Published-Silmarillion/dp/1611460565 (check review),

http://middle-earth.xenite.org/2011/11/18/an-interview-with-douglas-charles-kane/ (interview),

http://themidhavens.net/heretic_loremaster/2009/05/a-review-of-douglas-charles-kanes-arda-reconstructed/ (review),

http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/press/897-Review_Arda_Reconstructed.php (review).
This book is almost essential for this project as almost all of the research work has been done, and has been done well.

[Findegil]

Thank you for pionting us to this book, but as you can see in the thread "Have you read or the intention to read Arda Reconstructed" we are already aware of it.

It is true that it is a very helpful book for those still interested in this project, but it does not really provide one with additional sources that should be considered.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[jallanite]

It is true that it is a very helpful book for those still interested in this project, but it does not really provide one with additional sources that should be considered.

I never claimed that the book provided any additional sources.

Nor should it.

What it does do is organize material so that it is more easily found rather than by searching through thread after thread and book after book of the HOME series and other books edited by Christopher Tolkien. And it does so accurately and (at least mostly) completely for the material it covers, the later material.

[Galin]

(...) Christopher Tolkien often omits what Kane feels should have been included. In particular, Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay often reduce the role of females in the work.

And as for the claim that CJRT reduced the role of females... I further suggest this discussion (especially that between Doug Kane and Carl Hostetter [Voronwe and Aelfwine]):

http://www.thehalloffire.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2184&start=0

[jallanite]

And as for the claim that CJRT reduced the role of females... I further suggest this discussion (especially that between Doug Kane and Carl Hostetter [Voronwe and Aelfwine]):

http://www.thehalloffire.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2184&start=0

I don’t see that that thread helps at all. I see that my own statement is actually somewhat weaker than what Kane claims.

I doubt that Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay consciously decided to reduce female rolls and Kane never claims they did.

[Galin]

I don’t see that that thread helps at all. I see that my own statement is actually somewhat weaker than what Kane claims.

Well I do think the thread helps in explaining what you've simplified here (however purposely, for brevity no doubt) in but one sentence.

I doubt that Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay consciously decided to reduce female rolls and Kane never claims they did.


I don't believe that anyone in any way decided to reduce female roles specifically, and the point in the thread is not whether or not Doug Kane explicitly claims so, but his choice of presentation in raising this issue. Even possibly raising the question of misogyny is serious stuff in my opinion, so how one presents the matter, specifically, is important.

[jallanite]

I don't believe that anyone in any way decided to reduce female roles specifically, and the point in the thread is not whether or not Doug Kane explicitly claims so, but his choice of presentation in raising this issue. Even possibly raising the question of misogyny is serious stuff in my opinion, so how one presents the matter, specifically, is important.

I really don’t understand what you are on about. I could equally claim that “even possibly raising the question of free speech is serious stuff in my opinion”, implying that you are against free speech.

Note, that I am NOT doing this. The point of this thread for me, and I started it if that matters, is not particularly Kane’s “choice of presentation in raising this issue”. That issue was only one of many points I raised. Is it your contention that any discussion of anything beyond Kane’s “choice of presentation” is not to the point of the thread? I disagree.

It was Hofstetter who originally “raised the question of misogyny” and who later rather backed down from his accusations. I don’t see that Kane is accusing Christopher Tolkien of misogyny.

Kane does indicate that Christopher Tolkien did not do a perfect job of editing his father’s work. Christopher Tolkien has explicitly said the same. This project itself is partly based on that premise.

Kane again and again expresses his puzzlement about some of Christopher Tolkien’s choices. Most of those cases also puzzle me.

[Galin]

I really don’t understand what you are on about. I could equally claim that “even possibly raising the question of free speech is serious stuff in my opinion”, implying that you are against free speech. Note, that I am NOT doing this.

What I'm on about there is merely that if one is going to raise an issue like 'reducing the roles of women' I think he or she should be very careful to avoid the implication of misogyny, especially if it's not what one intends to say or imply.

And you didn't raise the matter or present it, Doug Kane did of course; you simply referred to it briefly, and I invited readers here to see, at least in more detail, how Mr. Kane presented the issue, and his responses to Mr. Hostetter's points and opinions particularly (and others in the thread too of course).


If you're not interested in the linked thread, or don't think it helps at all then that's fine. I assume other people might read this thread however, and maybe they might be interested.


The point of this thread for me, and I started it if that matters, is not particularly Kane’s “choice of presentation in raising this issue”. That issue was only one of many points I raised. Is it your contention that any discussion of anything beyond Kane’s “choice of presentation” is not to the point of the thread? I disagree.

That's not my contention, for the record.

It was Hofstetter who originally “raised the question of misogyny” and who later rather backed down from his accusations. I don’t see that Kane is accusing Christopher Tolkien of misogyny.


Ok, that's your opinion and characterization. No problem of course. And I'll let other readers here decide for themselves as well; again if they are interested in this particular matter.

[jallanite]

What I'm on about there is merely that if one is going to raise an issue like 'reducing the roles of women' I think he or she should be very careful to avoid the implication of misogyny, especially if it's not what one intends to say or imply.

Kane didn’t raise the issue of misogyny. In the discussion which you cite, Kane very clearly points out that he never raised an accusation of misogyny in his book and never speculated on Christopher Tolkien’s thoughts on any of the issues which Kane did raise. Kane seems to me to have been very careful in what he wrote. That can’t prevent others from making inferences, sometimes even wrong inferences (and possibly correct inferences). I admit fully that it is very easy to infer that Kane intended to attribute misogyny to Christopher Tolkien.

One might also claim that Christopher Tolkien should have avoided the implication of misogyny or that J. R. R. Tolkien should have avoided the implication of misogyny by including more women. Something called an implication may be in fact be only a reader’s inference, and even an unfounded inference. Yes, one should be careful in writing to avoid providing unintended ideas to the reader. Similarly one should avoid making unfounded inferences from what another debater claims. If I have done so, I apologize.

And you didn't raise the matter or present it, Doug Kane did of course; you simply referred to it briefly, and I invited readers here to see, at least in more detail, how Mr. Kane presented the issue, and his responses to Mr. Hostetter's points and opinions particularly (and others in the thread too of course).That is fair enough. But your other comments appear to support Hofstetter’s side. So I commented. I don’t read the debate as a victory of Hofstetter. Others might, I suppose.

If you're not interested in the linked thread, or don't think it helps at all then that's fine. I assume other people might read this thread however, and maybe they might be interested.Where did you get the idea that I was not interested? I commented on the thread. Being interested is not necessarily at all the same as being in agreement, sometimes quite the opposite. And, yes, I am inferring here.

That's not my contention, for the record.You contended:

... and the point in the thread is not whether or not Doug Kane explicitly claims so, but his choice of presentation in raising this issue.I am pleased that you are withdrawing this contention.

Ok, that's your opinion and characterization. No problem of course. And I'll let other readers here decide for themselves as well; again if they are interested in this particular matter.Fair enough.

[Galin]

Kane didn’t raise the issue of misogyny.

I didn't say he did, I noted he raised the matter or 'reducing the roles of women', which he did.


In the discussion which you cite, Kane very clearly points out that he never raised an accusation of misogyny in his book and never speculated on Christopher Tolkien’s thoughts on any of the issues which Kane did raise. Kane seems to me to have been very careful in what he wrote.

It seems then that you think Mr. Kane 'very carefully' writes (to quote Aelfwine)...

'Saying that "it appears that the roles of female characters are systematically reduced" (which you write at least twice in the book) is not the same thing as saying that "a significant number of editorial choices together have the effect of reducing the role of women in the book". The former implies deliberateness ("systematic") and comprehensiveness ("female characters" -- not, I note, "some female characters" -- and, again, "systematic"). The latter, while still arguable,* at least avoids those implications. It's a great pity that you didn't write the latter instead of the former.'





Jallanite wrote: That can’t prevent others from making inferences, sometimes even wrong inferences (and possibly correct inferences). I admit fully that it is very easy to infer that Kane intended to attribute misogyny to Christopher Tolkien.

So it's 'very easy' and 'very careful' is yet in there somewhere? Can you think of ways in which Mr. Kane could have been more careful that readers not very easily infer this?


You contended: '... and the point in the thread is not whether or not Doug Kane explicitly claims so, but his choice of presentation in raising this issue.'

I am pleased that you are withdrawing this contention.


I'm not withdrawing that, as all I'm saying there, or attempting to say, is that the linked thread is not really about anyone reacting to an explicit accusation -- the linked thread is rather generally about the presentation (of this idea that the roles of women have been reduced), and obviously includes specific citations from that presentation.


And incidentally, the exchange was:

Jallanite wrote: 'The point of this thread for me, and I started it if that matters, is not particularly Kane’s “choice of presentation in raising this issue”. That issue was only one of many points I raised. Is it your contention that any discussion of anything beyond Kane’s “choice of presentation” is not to the point of the thread? I disagree.

Galin wrote: That's not my contention, for the record.

[jallanite]

I didn't say he did, I noted he raised the matter or 'reducing the roles of women', which he did.


You said (emphasis mine):I don't believe that anyone in any way decided to reduce female roles specifically, and the point in the thread is not whether or not Doug Kane explicitly claims so, but his choice of presentation in raising this issue. Even possibly raising the question of misogyny is serious stuff in my opinion, so how one presents the matter, specifically, is important.
You also said:Even possibly raising the question of misogyny is serious stuff in my opinion, so how one presents the matter, specifically, is important.
I do not believe that writers should be held to account for every possible interpretation or misinterpretation of their work. I find that idea absurd.

It seems then that you think Mr. Kane 'very carefully' writes (to quote Aelfwine)...
'Saying that "it appears that the roles of female characters are systematically reduced" (which you write at least twice in the book) is not the same thing as saying that "a significant number of editorial choices together have the effect of reducing the role of women in the book". The former implies deliberateness ("systematic") and comprehensiveness ("female characters" -- not, I note, "some female characters" -- and, again, "systematic"). The latter, while still arguable,* at least avoids those implications. It's a great pity that you didn't write the latter instead of the former.' “Systematically” does not for me necessarily imply deliberateness. I simply don’t agree with Hofstetter’s nitpicking to such a degree, and there’s an end.

So it's 'very easy'... and 'very careful' is yet in there somewhere? Can you think of ways in which Mr. Kane could have been more careful that readers not very easily infer this?A writer is not to blamed for everything that a reader might infer. People infer racism and sexism in The Lord of the Rings (and their arguments are not entirely without merit). The only real answer is not to write anything. If one finds that female roles are significantly reduced in the Silmarillion, then perhaps one shouldn’t write about it. One should be dishonest and hide the data. One shouldn’t dare say anything that would be controversial to anyone.

Of course you don’t believe that.

Yes, if Kane had written to Hofstetter’s ex eventu specs, then Kane’s book would be arguably improved, but not by much. Hofstetter ended up by agreeing that Kane did not intend any explicit crticism of Christopher Tolkien and that the change of a few phrases would satisfy him. Those changes to me really don’t amount to much. It looks to me like an attempt by Hofstetter to save face after his attack crumbled.

I'm not 'withdrawing' that, as all I'm saying there is that the linked thread is not really about anyone reacting to an explicit accusation -- the linked thread is rather generally about the presentation (of this idea that the roles of women have been reduced), and obviously includes specific citations from that presentation.What you said was:... and the point in the thread is not whether or not Doug Kane explicitly claims so, but his choice of presentation in raising this issue.
I understood “the thread” to be this thread in which we are posting, not the thread you referenced. A bad inference.

One of the continued points of disagreement between Kane and Hofstetter was that Kane insisted in arguing on what he actually wrote while Hofstetter insisted on arguing on Hofstetter’s inferences from what Kane wrote.

[Galin]

I do not believe that writers should be held to account for every possible interpretation or misinterpretation of their work. I find that idea absurd.

(...) A writer is not to blamed for everything that a reader might infer. People infer racism and sexism in The Lord of the Rings (and their arguments are not entirely without merit). The only real answer is not to write anything. If one finds that female roles are significantly reduced in the Silmarillion, then perhaps one shouldn’t write about it. One should be dishonest and hide the data. One shouldn’t dare say anything that would be controversial to anyone.

Of course you don’t believe that.

Perhaps I am guilty of speaking generally when I'm really thinking about the context of Arda Constructed. That is, I would find it a bit hard to believe that anyone could be unaware that even merely stating that the roles of women have been systematically reduced wasn't probably, and at least 'possibly', going to be taken as suggestive in some negative way.


Doug Kane writes: Well, I for one understand Carl's indignation. I certainly expected that to be the most controversial part of my book, and I'm sure that Carl won't be the only person upset about it.

So no, I don't expect writers to be held to account for every 'possible' interpretation, but again (I would think that), given these fairly specific circumstances, such an interpretation would be expected as probable, and at the least possible -- that is, if one is not careful.

And why is Mr. Kane sure that Carl won't be the only person upset about this criticism? If he is being very careful as you say, and doesn't believe Christopher Tolkien deliberately reduced the role of women, why should he expect anyone to be upset here, or that the criticism should prove to be the most controversial of his book?



“Systematically” does not for me necessarily imply deliberateness. I simply don’t agree with Hofstetter’s nitpicking to such a degree, and there’s an end.

I'm curious then, as to what you think 'systematically' means in the context of Mr. Kane's statement.



(...) Those changes to me really don’t amount to much. It looks to me like an attempt by Hofstetter to save face after his attack crumbled.

What I see is Carl Hostetter taking Mr. Kane's word for it that he didn't intend certain things, despite his presentation.

[jallanite]

I don’t see any point in continuing this

You are not going to change your opinion so far as I can tell. And I am not going to change my opinion from anything said here.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

It's nice to see that people are still talking about my book! jallanite, I'm very pleased that you found the book to be helpful. That is most gratifying.

Regarding the issue of the reduction of female characters, I continue to believe that the evidence shows that there is a clear pattern of this being a result of the edits done. I obviously have no way of knowing whether this was done intentionally, or not, and I did not mean to imply in any way that I believed that it was (I honestly doubt very much that it was). There are, as I have mentioned before, a couple of phrases that I would write differently if I had the opportunity to do so to make that more clear, although I agree with jallanite that ultimately those changes would not have made much difference to people's reactions. I think that people like Carl, Galin, and others would still have been just as upset about me raising the issue at all.

[lindil]

voronwe, you wrote arda reconstructed?

really look forward to reading it!

jallanite -great to see you!

[lindil]

just read your interview with MMb @ xenite
, very well done.

How cool CJRT read and commented on it.

Love to hear/see more of his comments, especially if he refers to his own decisions he would revisit. Anyway, thanks again for such a huge undertaking!

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Lindil, I'll look forward to hearing what you think of it. I'm glad that you enjoyed Michael's interview. I hope you saw his recent one with John Garth. He does a great job!

[jallanite]

It's nice to see that people are still talking about my book! jallanite, I'm very pleased that you found the book to be helpful. That is most gratifying.

You are welcome.

Regarding the issue of the reduction of female characters, I continue to believe that the evidence shows that there is a clear pattern of this being a result of the edits done.

I agree.

I obviously have no way of knowing whether this was done intentionally, or not, and I did not mean to imply in any way that I believed that it was (I honestly doubt very much that it was).

And you very carefully did not imply that Christopher Tolkien purposely did any of the things for which you blame him. When one is attempting to make a complete book out of numerous outlines, and attempting to do so reasonably quickly, then one almost has to mess up on occasion.

Obviously Christopher Tolkien, had he taken three times as long, would have done better. But how much better would have been a work which his father had left in such an unfinished state? I was very disappointed with The Silmarillion when it first came out, and still am, but Christopher Tolkien’s further works make it clear what he had to deal with and he has largely now given us all that his father had produced, something which at the time would have seemed impossible to publish.

I do not agree with all of your personal opinions which appear in your book, but it is those personal opinions (which you make it quite plain are only personal opinions) which make the book come alive for me. And obviously its main value and appeal is its detail and accuracy.

[Galin]

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote: There are, as I have mentioned before, a couple of phrases that I would write differently if I had the opportunity to do so to make that more clear, although I agree with jallanite that ultimately those changes would not have made much difference to people's reactions.

Well phrasing can sometimes make a notable difference, and you seem to agree that you were not careful enough in general here, if you would write even a couple things differently -- and considering this matter, I would have thought you would have made yourself crystal clear and have no regrets at this point.

Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote: I think that people like Carl, Galin, and others would still have been just as upset about me raising the issue at all.

I wouldn't say 'upset' for myself, but perplexed rather.

And can we say what an implication is not? it's not something that is expressed directly... but it looks to me like it's somewhat subjective whether you did or did not 'imply' purpose with phrasing like 'clear pattern' and even the appearance of a systematic reduction, keeping in mind that you agree that you've raised the question of misogyny in your reader's minds at least. And you've stated that you don't and can't know if reducing the roles of females was done intentionally, and here you note that you doubt very much that it was -- but in your book do you give this opinion?

A book that isn't shy of opinions, it seems to me :)

And incidentally, I think employing unconscious or unintentional (in a thread, the book aside for a moment) still leaves it open that you maybe think Christopher Tolkien unconsciously and unintentionally revealed that he has something against women.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Jallanite, thank you for your kind words!

[Bêthberry]

There's supposed to be a panel discussion on Tolkien and feminism at RotR so I'm sure this point will come up there.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Bêthberry, I will be very interested to hear of any discussion on this subject at RotR.

[jallanite]

I would have thought you would have made yourself crystal clear and have no regrets at this point.
“I would have thought” is far from crystal clear. “I would have thought you would have made yourself” is even less clear. What is the point of all those woulds? To avoid making yourself clear?

I wouldn't say 'upset' for myself, but perplexed rather.Another would.

And can we say what an implication is not? it's not something that is expressed directly... but it looks to me like it's somewhat subjective whether you did or did not 'imply' purpose with phrasing like 'clear pattern' and even the appearance of a systematic reduction, keeping in mind that you agree that you've raised the question of misogyny in your reader's minds at least. And you've stated that you don't and can't know if reducing the roles of females was done intentionally, and here you note that you doubt very much that it was -- but in your book do you give this opinion?You appear to be attempting to make an implication while trying to look like you are not making an implication. No the book does not give the opinion you are seeking, nor the opposite opinion. Kane is very careful to not attribute any opinions to Christopher Tolkien beyond occasionally quoting Christopher Tolkien. It would be a critical sin to attribute an opinion which cannot be substantiated.

You want Kane to lie.

A book that isn't shy of opinions, it seems to me :)The book contains many opinions in the nature of personal preferences by the author. It does not, I believe, contain any opinions on the unknowable opinions of others.

And incidentally, I think employing unconscious or unintentional (in a thread, the book aside for a moment) still leaves it open that you maybe think Christopher Tolkien unconsciously and unintentionally revealed that he has something against women.Maybe the reason Galin continues on this track is that Galin fears that Christopher Tolkien “unconsciously and unintentionally revealed that he has something against women.” It was not Kane who invented this possibility of interpretation. It was Christopher Tolkien who in his choices in his editing of The Silmarillion chose to include some passages in which females were less active or omitted entirely over other passages in which females were more prominent. Galin, and others of the same opinion, are classically shooting the one who is sending a message from which they infer something they don’t like.

If Galin thinks that argument is unfair, then he should stop using that same style of argument and innuendo against Kane.

Kane, in this thread very carefully wrote:Regarding the issue of the reduction of female characters, I continue to believe that the evidence shows that there is a clear pattern of this being a result of the edits done. I obviously have no way of knowing whether this was done intentionally, or not, and I did not mean to imply in any way that I believed that it was (I honestly doubt very much that it was).
Galin attempts to twist this to mean that “this still leaves it open that you maybe think Christopher Tolkien unconsciously and unintentionally revealed that he has something against women,” despite Kane’s clear statement that “I did not mean to imply in any way that I believed that it was (I honestly doubt very much that it was).”

I do not see that Kane can say more much more honestly. I do not see that Galin can say much more honestly. What does Galin want Kane to say honestly? I don’t think Galin is able to say.

Neither Galin nor Kane (and probably no-one viewing this thread) knows Christopher Tolkien well enough to be able to honestly say that at some level Christopher Tolkien is never a sexual bigot. Even if they did say it, they might just be wrong.

I accuse Galin of vicious innuendo which demands a response that almost no-one can honestly give.

If Galin is really honestly inferring what he seems to be interring, then perhaps he ought to blame himself for so inferring, if he finds the inferences he make so troubling to him.

I read Kane’s book and the inference that Christopher Tolkien was purposely attempting to get back at women by reducing their role in The Silmarillion never occurred to me. For me, it was Galin who raised that as a possibility. I took it as a given that the reduction of female roles was simply part of Christopher Tolkien often preferring a shorter version in the published Silmarillion over a longer version, and agree with Kane that this was mostly unfortunate.

[Galin]

“I would have thought” is far from crystal clear. “I would have thought you would have made yourself” is even less clear. What is the point of all those woulds? To avoid making yourself clear?

The point seems clear enough to me: given that Doug admitted he is raising the question of misogyny in his reader's minds, one might assume he would be very careful about choosing his phrasing here (especially being a fan of Christopher Tolkien after all, as he states he is) -- but yet not very long after the book is published, Doug admits he would like to alter certain phrasing.

And yes, I don't think Doug considered this argument well enough before he published his book -- in general, and not just because of certain examples of phrasing.

You appear to be attempting to make an implication while trying to look like you are not making an implication. No the book does not give the opinion you are seeking, nor the opposite opinion. Kane is very careful to not attribute any opinions to Christopher Tolkien beyond occasionally quoting Christopher Tolkien. It would be a critical sin to attribute an opinion which cannot be substantiated.

You want Kane to lie.

No, the point with the section you quoted is that Doug offers plenty of his own opinions in the book and in these threads -- so why didn't he give the opinion in his book that he doesn't think there was purpose behind this 'clear pattern'?

Again if clarity is wanted (and why not), I just wonder why he chose to readily enough give that opinion in discussion, but not in the book.

Maybe the reason Galin continues on this track is that Galin fears that Christopher Tolkien “unconsciously and unintentionally revealed that he has something against women.”

Well for the record, I fear no such thing :)


Kane, in this thread very carefully wrote:Regarding the issue of the reduction of female characters, I continue to believe that the evidence shows that there is a clear pattern of this being a result of the edits done. I obviously have no way of knowing whether this was done intentionally, or not, and I did not mean to imply in any way that I believed that it was (I honestly doubt very much that it was).
Galin attempts to twist this to mean that “this still leaves it open that you maybe think Christopher Tolkien unconsciously and unintentionally revealed that he has something against women,” despite Kane’s clear statement that “I did not mean to imply in any way that I believed that it was (I honestly doubt very much that it was).”

That's not a twist Jallanite: rather it takes Doug at his word but notes that there is a distinction that, as far as I know, he has never commented on. For all I know right now 'maybe' Doug does hold this opinion. I could have worded things better perhaps -- or simply put the matter in question form as I often enough do, and maybe by not doing so the statement seemed more to accuse Doug of something rather than raise the distinction; again even despite my use of maybe above.

There was no intentional accusation, but (and not that anyone cares, I know) recently someone stated that he/she thought I asked too many questions (I can link to the thread if anyone actually does care), and as I had just put a statement into question form (in the same post), instead I thought I would make my 'incidentally' comment a statement rather, knowing that Doug could easily speak to my 'maybe' if he desired.

But anyway, I sincerely think that only going so far as to say there was no conscious purpose does not necessarily mean that the person giving that opinion still might not believe there was some unconscious 'revelation' here.

I do not see that Kane can say more much more honestly. I do not see that Galin can say much more honestly. What does Galin want Kane to say honestly? I don’t think Galin is able to say.

If you want it more directly: Doug do you believe Christopher Tolkien unintentionally revealed that he has something against women?

You (Doug) don't have to answer obviously, even if you have an opinion to that; but again it's not necessarily the same thing as stating that you don't believe the 'reduction' in female characters was on purpose.

Neither Galin nor Kane (and probably no-one viewing this thread) knows Christopher Tolkien well enough to be able to honestly say that at some level Christopher Tolkien is never a sexual bigot. Even if they did say it, they might just be wrong.

I accuse Galin of vicious innuendo which demands a response that almost no-one can honestly give. If Galin is really honestly inferring what he seems to be interring, then perhaps he ought to blame himself for so inferring, if he finds the inferences he make so troubling to him.

I'm rather, and simply, looking for an opinion Jallanite. Earlier Doug gave his opinion about 'purpose' -- despite that he yet can't say he knows for sure, as he doesn't know Christopher Tolkien well enough -- and I'm asking for an opinion about a distinction that goes beyond that.

I've heard plenty of opinions about Christopher Tolkien in various threads, from people who don't know him.

I read Kane’s book and the inference that Christopher Tolkien was purposely attempting to get back at women by reducing their role in The Silmarillion never occurred to me. For me, it was Galin who raised that as a possibility. I took it as a given that the reduction of female roles was simply part of Christopher Tolkien often preferring a shorter version in the published Silmarillion over a longer version, and agree with Kane that this was mostly unfortunate.

Well, while that may be true for you given the circumstances here, if you or anyone will read (or read again) the linked thread, it will be obvious that I am not the only one who raised the question of implied misogyny, and am certainly not even the first to do so in the linked thread.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

If you want it more directly: Doug do you believe Christopher Tolkien unintentionally revealed that he has something against women?


No.

I believe that the edits that Christopher Tolkien was responsible for (though won't don't know to what extent Guy Kay contributed to them) had the effect of significantly lessening the role of women in the published Silmarillion and in my opinion that has a detrimental effect on the book. I doubt very much that this was done intentionally (as I have said repeatedly. I don't know Christopher well enough to have any idea about whether it somehow reflects on his attitude towards women in general.

I respect the massive effort that Christopher has dedicated to preserving his father's legacy and making as much of his writing available as possible. By all accounts, he is a man of courtesy and principle, both of which I appreciate. I recognize that in working on publishing The Silmarillion he faced many challenges that contributed to its deficiencies (some of which he himself has subsequently acknowledged, although I wish he would provide more information about the editing process and the decisions that he made).

[Galin]

OK, thank you Doug. So given your full answer, I take it that your initial 'no' essentially means that you don't have an opinion either way -- as you don't know Christopher Tolkien well enough to have any idea about whether this pattern, as you call it, somehow reflects on his attitude towards women in general.

And I also wonder if you agree...


Jallanite wrote: I read Kane's book and the inference that Christopher Tolkien was purposely attempting to get back at women by reducing their role in The Silmarillion never occurred to me. For me, it was Galin who raised that as a possibility. I took it as a given that the reduction of female roles was simply part of Christopher Tolkien often preferring a shorter version in the published Silmarillion over a longer version, and agree with Kane that this was mostly unfortunate.

... that this last sentence could stand as an accurate enough summation of your argument in Arda Reconstructed -- that the reduction in female roles was 'simply' part of Christopher Tolkien 'often' preferring a shorter version over a longer one.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

It would be easy for me to say "yes, that's it" and let that be the end of it, but I'm not sure that I can say that it is that simple. Yes, many of the edits that affect the role of female characters result from Christopher choosing shorter versions. But not all of them. For instance, the two removals of the description of Galadriel as "valiant." Or substituting the Quenta passage in which only Ossë teaches the Teleri sea-lore for the Annals text in which both he and Uinen do so, despite the fact that the Annals is the main source for the that portion of that chapter (Chapter 5). Neither of those edits are a result of choosing a shorter version over a longer one. Nor is using the older story of Melkor being the one that wounds the Two Trees rather than the new story of Ungoliant destroying them on her own while Melkor cravenly stands in the shadows. I don't know why those choices were made, but they can't be so simply explained away.

[Galin]

OK but you name 11 characters in all, and can't we add at least 3 more characters, leaving 6 (in addition to your Galadriel, Uinen, Ungoliant)?

I mean I'm not sure that the choice to not include the Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth (which leaves out Andreth but reduces the presence of Finrod, and leaves out an interesting detail about Aegnor) as an appendix to The Silmarillion easily falls into a characterization of choosing a shorter version of something over a longer version. The 6 I would list so far...

Galadriel
Uinen
Arien
Andreth
Beleth
Ungoliant

Arguably leaving (short versions versus long)...

Miriel
Nerdanel
Indis
Indis' daughters (although merely a footnote, at least in FM4 in any case)
Nellas (the long version here is the Narn)

But not all of them. For instance, the two removals of the description of Galadriel as "valiant."

Please forgive me for restating a point here about Galadriel, but I'm guessing not everyone is going to read the linked thread. For now I won't go into my full case for why I think Galadriel has not been reduced in character, but I'll just note (and not that you said otherwise of course) that despite the changes you are referencing from HME here, the Silmarillion version that Christopher Tolkien published nonetheless specifically describes Galadriel as '... the only woman of the Noldor to stand that day tall and valiant among the contending princes, was eager...'


Or substituting the Quenta passage in which only Ossë teaches the Teleri sea-lore for the Annals text in which both he and Uinen do so, despite the fact that the Annals is the main source for the that portion of that chapter (Chapter 5).


For that portion yes, but is not the Quenta the main source for chapter five in general?

If memory serves, on your chart you list it as the main source more often than the Annals of Aman at least. And unless I've missed something (possible, obviously), the Quenta passages for this part of the story do not mention Uinen at all, neither as present with Osse on the coasts of Middle-earth, or later upon Eressea. In the Quenta tradition (MR sections 36, 37) it is Osse not Uinen who comes to the coast to befriend the Teleri, and it's only Osse who instructs them at this point. And it is Osse not Uinen who later teaches them upon Eressea, and later again (43 and commentary) Osse alone teaches the Teleri the craft of ship building.

That's the Quenta tradition. The Annals however note (again, some Teleri having remained on the coasts of Middle-earth): 'And Osse and Uinen came to them and befriended them and taught them all manner of sea-lore and sea-music.' Annals of Aman section 66

But again, in the Quenta it is Osse alone who taught the teleri 'strange musics and sea-lore' -- although here when upon Tol Eressea -- as earlier it is only said in the Quenta that Osse instructed the Teleri generally. Thus when Christopher Tolkien merges the two texts it seems to me that he decides to give Uinen her presence with the Teleri, but keep Osse as the instructor of these specific things...

'... and Osse and Uinen came to them and befriended them; and Osse instructed them, sitting upon a rock near to the margin of the land, and of him they learned all manner of sea-lore and sea-music.' 1977 Silmarillion

Thus the result of Christopher Tolkien employing the Annals for this portion of the story gives Uinen a presence in the book here, but Osse, who is much more weighted as instructor of the Teleri in the overall scenario, is given his specific teaching of music and lore -- taken from the Eressean passage in the Quenta.

Again, unless I've missed something here about the Quenta tradition.



By the way (something else I've wondered about), may I ask is there anyone outside of Uinen and Galadriel that you feel cannot be characterized as a minor character with respect to the Silmarillion?

[jallanite]

Finally, Galin, your are getting down to the discussions in Arda Reconstructed itself moving away from what I perceive as innuendo against the messenger which surely misses that point. If the messenger has presented the data mostly correctly, then the fact that occasionally he or she has stumbled occasionally becomes no more than a minor flaw such as the greatest of us are liable to make. If the messenger has grossly misrepresented the data then blaming the messenger in himself or herself is unnecessary. It is the misrepresentation that will put the blame on the messenger over any heated words.

No statement made by myself can every fully represent my ideas (imperfect as they must be) on the composing of the published Silmarillion. Again and again one thinks one has found some principle that guided Christopher Tolkien, and then one comes across a passage which goes against the proposed principle.

But certainly that Christopher Tolkien so often did not select from the fullest account means that along with often matters dropped, obviously matters pertaining to females were dropped, sometimes only a word or phrase. But I do not mean anything I might put forth to be taken as something that must have guided Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay at all times throughout their work. But yes, loss of female-oriented material as part of general shrinkage is in itself sufficient to explain why the loss appears to be systematic, though it does not explain every case.

Why, for example, did Christopher Tolkien remove Findis, Finvain, and Faniel, the three daughters of Finwë by Indis? Possibly because they only appear in a single footnote and can easily be seen as simply more clutter in a work arguably already overstuffed with minor characters.

And would The Silmarillion have included most of the dropped material on females if at the time when Christopher Tolkien was working on it some criticism had appeared blaming J. R. R. Tolkien for sexism in his work? Most notably, The Hobbit contains only one named female, Bilboʼs mother Belladonna Took, who was deceased by the time the story takes place.

That some others are bothered by Kaneʼs supposed insinuations about Christopher Tolkienʼs supposed misogyny. doesnʼt impress me at all, having read the discussion. That is only a weak form of the appeal to authority fallacy,: some people were discussing something and some of them agreed with me, so there must be something to their position.

Nor is there any one method of identifying major or minor characters in The Silmarillion. It depend where one draws tjhe line and diffferent people will draws in in different places if they try to definitely distinguish between major and minor?

[Galin]

Finally, Galin, your are getting down to the discussions in Arda Reconstructed itself moving away from what I perceive as innuendo against the messenger which surely misses that point. If the messenger has presented the data mostly correctly, then the fact that occasionally he or she has stumbled occasionally becomes no more than a minor flaw such as the greatest of us are liable to make. If the messenger has grossly misrepresented the data then blaming the messenger in himself or herself is unnecessary. It is the misrepresentation that will put the blame on the messenger over any heated words.

You're obviously entitled to your perceptions about the thread Jallanite, and I think I have already responded to what you perceived to be innuendo. And as for presenting data mostly 'correctly'... for example have I misrepresented the data with respect to my commentary about Uinen and Osse above? I don't think so (and I certainly didn't intend to if I did), but my presentation is different from that found in AR in any case, and which would be part of a notably different presentation in general (in theory), when dealing with the same data.

That some others are bothered by Kane's supposed insinuations about Christopher Tolkien's supposed misogyny. doesn't impress me at all, having read the discussion. That is only a weak form of the appeal to authority fallacy,: some people were discussing something and some of them agreed with me, so there must be something to their position.

I was just pointing out (in reaction to the way you chose to phrase something) that I am not alone in my reaction to the way the argument is presented in Arda Reconstructed. I realize that the fact that others share my opinion in no way makes me right and others wrong; nor would even the majority opinion, if it could be known, automatically make those who hold it ojectively correct. That said, I likely never would have posted on the subject if I had been the only person to have reacted to Arda Reconstructed in this way, as I would be very strongly second guessing my personal reaction...

... so let's say: for what it's worth, despite that for you 'Galin' raised this possibility (and Galin alone in that context, as you chose to put it), again, someone else raised it well before I did.

Nor is there any one method of identifying major or minor characters in The Silmarillion. It depend where one draws tjhe line and diffferent people will draws in in different places if they try to definitely distinguish between major and minor?

Well if it's subjective, I note that I asked Doug Kane for a more complete list (out of the 11 female characters) of who he thinks cannot be called a minor character. He certainly doesn't need to answer, even if the reason is simply that the expects me to disagree with him about some example and doesn't want to discuss the matter further.


Voronwe wrote: 'Yes, many of the edits that affect the role of female characters result from Christopher choosing shorter versions.'

Edit: I just realized you might be (and probably are) talking about each specific edit, thus 'many'... while above I was looking at things differently. I guess what I'm saying is that: Arda Reconstructed does not appear to argue that the majority of the cases of 'reduction' (out of 11 cited) result from Christopher Tolkien choosing a shorter version over a longer version.

In that sense Andreth, Beleth (merely missing on a genealogical table) and Arien, which seems akin to the case of Galadriel in my opinion, are three more cases, leaving 6 out of 11 (as you agree with Uinen, Galadriel and Ungoliant it seems).

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Galin, I couldn't even begin to make a list of who I thought were "minor characters". Sorry.

[Galin]

Well I just meant out of the 11 characters noted above.

In other words, in addition to Galadriel, who do you think out of these 11 females should not be characterized as a minor character.

[jallanite]

You're obviously entitled to your perceptions about the thread Jallanite, and I think I have already responded to what you perceived to be innuendo. And as for presenting data mostly 'correctly'... for example have I misrepresented the data with respect to my commentary about Uinen and Osse above? I don't think so (and I certainly didn't intend to if I did), but my presentation is different from that found in AR in any case, and which would be part of a notably different presentation in general (in theory), when dealing with the same data.
In short, claim you have already answered. And the only words I intended to apply to your discussion of Uinen and Osse were complimentary. That I am to some extent entitled to my perceptions of this thread or anythng else should also go without saying. And no, I have not edited my perceptions of this thread, except to note that you no longer so free to put forth your inferences as facts.

I was just pointing out (in reaction to the way you chose to phrase something) that I am not alone in my reaction to the way the argument is presented in Arda Reconstructed. I realize that the fact that others share my opinion in no way makes me right and others wrong; nor would even the majority opinion, if it could be known, automatically make those who hold it ojectively correct. That said, I likely never would have posted on the subject if I had been the only person to have reacted to Arda Reconstructed in this way, as I would be very strongly second guessing my personal reaction...

Then why point out something that you admit does not really support the supposed correctness of your position that Doiuglas Charles Kane was wrong not to have stated openly in his book that he believed (without evidence one way or the other) that Christopher Tolkien was not pushing a misogynous viewpoint.

Is it because you do not anything better to use?

... so let's say: for what it's worth, despite that for you 'Galin' raised this possibility (and Galin alone in that context, as you chose to put it), again, someone else raised it well before I did.

And neither is worth anything beside the real question which is whether this possibility is true, which you avoid discussing because you have no evidence at all outside empty inferences.

Well if it's subjective, I note that I asked Doug Kane for a more complete list (out of the 11 female characters) of who he thinks cannot be called a minor character.

And Kane answered what comes down to the same answer I gave.

He certainly doesn't need to answer, even if the reason is simply that the expects me to disagree with him about some example and doesn't want to discuss the matter further.

More innuendo.

[Galin]

And no, I have not edited my perceptions of this thread, except to note that you no longer so free to put forth your inferences as facts.

I don't agree I have put forth inferences as facts.

Then why point out something that you admit does not really support the supposed correctness of your position that Doiuglas Charles Kane was wrong not to have stated openly in his book that he believed (without evidence one way or the other) that Christopher Tolkien was not pushing a misogynous viewpoint.

That is an incorrect characterization of my position Jallanite.

And neither is worth anything beside the real question which is whether this possibility is true, which you avoid discussing because you have no evidence at all outside empty inferences.

Well, you posted earlier:

I don’t see any point in continuing this

You are not going to change your opinion so far as I can tell. And I am not going to change my opinion from anything said here.

I've already posted my opinion about Doug's presentation, and I largely agree with Carl Hostetter's points with respect to the 'evidence' in Arda Reconstructed.

And Kane answered what comes down to the same answer I gave.

Which answer in no way means one cannot arrive at an opinion about who is, or who is not, a minor character.

Galin wrote: He certainly doesn't need to answer, even if the reason is simply that the expects me to disagree with him about some example and doesn't want to discuss the matter further.

Jallanite responded: More innuendo.

innuendo: 'an indirect intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature.'

There was no negative intent behind my statement Jallanite, in any case.

[Galin]

Doug, I don't recall at the moment, but is there any evidence that reveals which followed the other with respect to Annals of Aman and the early 1950s revision to Quenta Silmarillion?

I am thinking more specifically about the Arien case here -- if this section was possibly later than the QS revisions noted in Morgoth's Ring.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Looking at the handy Table 1 of Arda Reconstructed, I see that I dated (based on Christopher's comments, of course) the first phase of the later Quenta to c. 1950–52, whereas I dated the Annals of Aman to c. 1951–52. I'd have to look closer to see if there is any evidence as to which is later with regard to Arien. I'll post again when I get a chance to that.

Regarding your question about minor characters, I honestly don't think in those terms, so it is really difficult for me to pin down which of that list I could call "minor" and which I would not. Obviously, Finwe and Indis' daughters would fall into that category! Beyond that, I'm not sure that I could say. I'm not trying to evasive, it just isn't really something that I have thought about.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Regarding Arien, I'm not sure why you are asking that. The edits that I identify regarding Arien are that two references to her beauty are removed from passages taken from the Annals, but there was not substituted passages added in from teh Quenta.

Turning back to something that you wrote earlier.

If memory serves, on your chart you list it as the main source more often than the Annals of Aman at least. And unless I've missed something (possible, obviously), the Quenta passages for this part of the story do not mention Uinen at all, neither as present with Osse on the coasts of Middle-earth, or later upon Eressea. In the Quenta tradition (MR sections 36, 37) it is Osse not Uinen who comes to the coast to befriend the Teleri, and it's only Osse who instructs them at this point. And it is Osse not Uinen who later teaches them upon Eressea, and later again (43 and commentary) Osse alone teaches the Teleri the craft of ship building.

That's the Quenta tradition. The Annals however note (again, some Teleri having remained on the coasts of Middle-earth): 'And Osse and Uinen came to them and befriended them and taught them all manner of sea-lore and sea-music.' Annals of Aman section 66

But again, in the Quenta it is Osse alone who taught the teleri 'strange musics and sea-lore' -- although here when upon Tol Eressea -- as earlier it is only said in the Quenta that Osse instructed the Teleri generally. Thus when Christopher Tolkien merges the two texts it seems to me that he decides to give Uinen her presence with the Teleri, but keep Osse as the instructor of these specific things...



Thus the result of Christopher Tolkien employing the Annals for this portion of the story gives Uinen a presence in the book here, but Osse, who is much more weighted as instructor of the Teleri in the overall scenario, is given his specific teaching of music and lore -- taken from the Eressean passage in the Quenta.

Again, unless I've missed something here about the Quenta tradition.

It is true that the Quenta is the main source for the latter part of Chapter 5, but only for portions that turn to matters having nothing to do with Osse and Uinen. For the part of the chapter that they appear, the Annals are the main source. So it doesn't really make sense to me to say that the reason why Christopher changed the text to have only Osse instructing the Teleri is that it is consistent with the Quenta tradition. By including that statement that Osse and Uinen befriended them, but then changing it from saying that both of them instructed them to just saying that Osse instructed them, it lessens her role, and implies that it is not a female's place to be instructing in these matters. That is as clear as can be to me.

[jallanite]

I don't agree I have put forth inferences as facts.
I disagree.

That is an incorrect characterization of my position Jallanite.Then you might try stating your position clearly.

I've already posted my opinion about Doug's presentation, and I largely agree with Carl Hostetter's points with respect to the 'evidence' in Arda Reconstructed.I largely don't agree with Carl Hostetter’s points at all. Anyone can read them at http://www.thehalloffire.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2184&start=0 .

Hostetter says to start with: … your unsupported and scurrilous implication (and only just barely that, as opposed to an explicit charge) that in his editorial changes Christopher deliberately set about to "reduce" female characters in The Silmarillion.
By using the word implication Hostetter admits up front that his opinions are based entirely on inference and not based on anything that Kane has said. In short, Hostetter is making it up, though he probably doesn’t altogether know it. Hostetter dmits that he does not find anywhere his inference as an “explicit charge''. Would it be wrong to refer to Hostetter’s unsupported and scurrilous inference?

Hostetter later remarks: I'm astonished that you didn't realize this, and even more that none of your reviewers or editors pointed this out to you.
Why should Kane or his editors realize Hostetter’s inferences? I am astonished myself that anyone would take Hostetter’s rant seriously. Because that is what I see. A vicious rant without foundations decorated with inflammatory language. No substance at all. Most of the remarks by others in the forum don’t indicate that Hostetter was successfully making his point.

Hostetter later states: If Christopher Tolkien really were given to deliberately reducing the roles of female characters, just because they are female (as Doug seems really to believe), then why would he stop with The Silmarillion? Why not in other works? Indeed, why not in HoMe itself? It simply makes no sense.
Kane is supposed to believe something which Hostettter himself admits does not make any sense in Hostetter’s mind. The word seems is a giveaway that Hostetter’s argument is subjective. The reason why I and others didn’t twig to what Hostetter claims to see in the book is that the ideas were simply too absurd to arise.

Hostetter raises an idea which he admits “makes no sense” and then insists on interpreting two(?) sentences in the book as though Kane believed that senseless idea. I and, I presume, the reviewers, did not make such a silly assumption. We read the book as the author intended, without prompting.

Hostetter continues:But when you write that "it appears that the roles of female characters are systematically reduced", you are making a far different kind of statement, and one that I cannot read as anything but an implication of deliberate reduction of female roles simply because they are female (which sure sounds like misogyny to me). Now, you may not have intended this implication (i.e., the use of the word "systematic" here may only have been an unfortunate and unconsidered choice); but in the event this statement as written does make that implication (nor is this statement the sole source of that implication).
More indications that Hostetter is only talking about what he has inferred, not about what Kane says. And if we are going down to the level of individual words, then it was dishonest of Hostetter not to note the word appears, which is often used to indicate that what follows is an appearance only. This statement is at worst only ambiguous. That Hostetter reads it as in implication of an idea that he finds absurd is a choice that Hostetter has made.

Hostetter admits:I didn't address the nature of the edits themselves, and deliberately so, since I need to sit down with the books and study the specifics of a change for myself before I can offer a (possible) explanation for them, and I haven't had time to do that.
That speaks for itself. Hostetter appears to have only skimmed the book and been enraged because of a single inference Hostetter made from very few (two?) remarks without looking at them in context and without considering that Kane was probably unlikely to have meant to imply something which was obviously absurd. Hostetter thinks it absurd. I think it absurd.

Hostetter then admits:Doug, I do accept your claim that you did not mean to imply deliberateness. But I nonetheless maintain that what you wrote in your book does in fact imply deliberateness, and very strongly, even though that was not your intent.
One cannot usually cannot prove implication, or it would not be implication but a definite statement. One might take a poll among people who have recently read Introduction to Arda and see what they each felt. If a majority of those polled felt as Hostetter did, then he has a strong point, that two(?) statements in the entire books have been shown objectively to be too strong and ought to have been further modified or explained.

Possibly even if only a few people have so understood the statements so that would also apply.

Going on and on and on about what was at worse a single error of judgment only makes the person going on and on and on about it look bad. Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger.... There are few books of supposed fact outside of books containing mathematical or logical proofs that are intended to reach the level of absolute perfection you call for. You appear to demand that no book should contain any statement from which you might infer something which the author did not intend.

How dare J. R. R. Tolkien allow readers to infer that a Balrog has wings?

The discussion you posted hardly supports Hostetter’s complaint. I see him as the clear loser.

Which answer in no way means one cannot arrive at an opinion about who is, or who is not, a minor character.

In theory yes. But I know of no writing or literary study which attempts to arrive at such an opinion even from people who use the terms.

One could assign a number to each character in a book based on number of mentions, including references of personal pronouns and aliases, and say that the numerically higher half of the list are major characters and the numerically lower half of the list are minor characters. But should the dividing point be at the halfway point of the numbers, or the median value, or something else? And what of characters like the gatekeeper in Macbeth who is a minor character but one of the most memorable characters in the play for most viewers. Should not being memorable also count, though it this case I doubt that it makes the gatekeeper a major character.

Its a silly idea in any case.

innuendo: 'an indirect intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature.'

There was no negative intent behind my statement Jallanite, in any case.

You have continually made negative remarks about Kane’s book, specifically about what you and Hostetter think some remarks in the book imply, despite Kane’s statements and Hostetter’s admission that he accepts that what Hostetter inferred was not what Kane intended.

Innuendo.

I did not infer the same meaning as you, nor did apparently Kane’s editors nor did the reviews that I have seen. If you accept Kane’s statements that the meaning you infer was not intended and accept that many readers did not and do not see the meaning you infer, than you really ought to accept that Hostetter was perhaps just pressing a point for far more than it was meant, as are you.

[Galin]

Voronwe wrote: Regarding your question about minor characters, I honestly don't think in those terms, so it is really difficult for me to pin down which of that list I could call "minor" and which I would not. Obviously, Finwe and Indis' daughters would fall into that category! Beyond that, I'm not sure that I could say. I'm not trying to evasive, it just isn't really something that I have thought about.

OK :)

Regarding Arien, I'm not sure why you are asking that. The edits that I identify regarding Arien are that two references to her beauty are removed from passages taken from the Annals, but there was not substituted passages added in from teh Quenta.

Right, but I'm considering a theory about why these edits were made and wondered if we could narrow down the external chronology.

(...) It is true that the Quenta is the main source for the latter part of Chapter 5, but only for portions that turn to matters having nothing to do with Osse and Uinen. For the part of the chapter that they appear, the Annals are the main source. So it doesn't really make sense to me to say that the reason why Christopher changed the text to have only Osse instructing the Teleri is that it is consistent with the Quenta tradition.

What do you think about a 'blend' though, a compromise after considering and weighing both traditions, where one tradition is all Osse as instructor of the Teleri (3 references) with no Uinen even present.

If I recall correctly a choice of Annals of Aman leaves out the instruction of Osse when the Teleri are on Eressea (from QS), where he alone teaches the Teleri 'strange musics and sea-lore' (similarly worded in AAm) -- and a choice of Quenta Silmarillion for this entire section would have left Uinen wholly out in any case (not mentioned at all at any point, befriending or teaching).

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Galin, if I understand what you are suggesting it is that Christopher decided to make a compromise by mostly using the Annals for this section so that he could include Uinen, but that substituted in the brief phrase from the Quenta in which only Osse instructs the Teleri, not both he and Uinen as stated in the Annals, so that her role wouldn't be too big? Wow! That is a degree of intentionality for beyond anything that I have ever considered.

[Galin]

Galin, if I understand what you are suggesting it is that Christopher decided to make a compromise by mostly using the Annals for this section so that he could include Uinen, but that substituted in the brief phrase from the Quenta in which only Osse instructs the Teleri, not both he and Uinen as stated in the Annals, so that her role wouldn't be too big? Wow! That is a degree of intentionality for beyond anything that I have ever considered.

No, that is not what I'm suggesting Doug.

Does CJRT or anyone know for certain that Tolkien did not intend to go with (for his Silmarillion) the tradition that Uinen did not instruct the Teleri at any point, as in Quenta Silmarillion, or did not befriend the Teleri on the coasts of Middle-earth, as in Quenta Silmarillion?

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

No, that is not what I'm suggesting Doug.

Then I have no idea what it that you are suggesting.

Does CJRT or anyone know for certain that Tolkien did not intend to go with (for his Silmarillion) the tradition that Uinen did not instruct the Teleri at any point, as in Quenta Silmarillion, or did not befriend the Teleri on the coasts of Middle-earth, as in Quenta Silmarillion?

Only Christopher could answer that. All we know is what the evidence that we have available tells us. And that is that Christopher choose to use the Annals version of the story, not the Quenta version. But that he also substituted in a brief phrase from the Quenta version into the Annals version that changes it so that instead of both Osse and Uinen being present and both of them instructing the Teleri (as Tolkien wrote in the Annals version) or only Osse being present and therefore only he instructs the Teleri (as Tolkien wrote in the Annals version), both Osse and Uinen are identified as being present but only Osse is identified as instructing the Teleri. Which leave the impression, whether or it was initial, that Christopher changed Uinen's role from an active role (which is traditionally more associated with males) to a more passive role (which is traditionally more associated with females).

[Galin]

Voronwe wrote: Only Christopher could answer that.

So as far as anyone can tell, we don't know if Tolkien himself certainly intended to have his Silmarillion note Uinen as an instructor of the Teleri here, given that we have conflicting traditions on the question. Even CJRT might not know.


All we know is what the evidence that we have available tells us. And that is that Christopher choose to use the Annals version of the story, not the Quenta version. But that (…) Which leave the impression, whether or it was initial, that Christopher changed Uinen's role from an active role (which is traditionally more associated with males) to a more passive role (which is traditionally more associated with females).'

Yet a re-presentation of the same evidence from a different perspective and focus could be employed to describe the bare evidence in HME.

I have no idea if CJRT thought that a 'mere' friendship with the Teleri and Uinen could be imagined, even if not specifically stated, to include a flow of knowledge from Maia to Elf, as arguably with a High Elf befriending Men, but in any case I don't think CJRT need have any doubts that Osse was intended as the instructor of the Teleri here.

Again, by comparison, a competing tradition makes no mention of Uinen in any role, arguably casting doubt about her despite what is noted in Annals of Aman section 6. And according to part of your opinion about what reduces a character -- which seems a bit 'mathematical' to me but that aside for the moment -- Osse himself could be said to be reduced given a choice of the Annals over Quenta Silmarillion.

A choice of QS alone here would have left Uinen wholly out, as well as noting Osse as teacher of the Teleri more often than in the 1977 Silmarillion. By employing the Annals for certain sections of the tale here, the end result is that Osse is 'reduced' (in this mathematical sense) and Uinen is given a role that at least arguably includes 'teaching' by contact -- despite that that role is given to Osse specifically -- again since he is without a doubt given that role by JRRT.

_______________

Jallanite wrote: By using the word implication Hostetter admits up front that his opinions are based entirely on inference and not based on anything that Kane has said. In short, Hostetter is making it up, though he probably doesn't altogether know it. Hostetter admits that he does not find anywhere his inference as an "explicit charge''.

Of course CFH is talking about what he thinks Doug has implied, and thus uses the word implication. And since I doubt you would argue that the lack of an explicit charge means that there can be no implications, to my mind what we really have here is you again stating your opinion that you think no implication exists.


Keeping in mind…

Jallanite posted: 'I admit fully that it is very easy to infer that Kane intended to attribute misogyny to Christopher Tolkien.'


The reason why I and others didn't twig to what Hostetter claims to see in the book is that the ideas were simply too absurd to arise. Hostetter raises an idea which he admits "makes no sense" and then insists on interpreting two (?) sentences in the book as though Kane believed that senseless idea.

Well, when you encounter an argument that you feel makes no sense to you for some reason, I doubt you automatically conclude that your interpretation must be wrong. You might second guess your own interpretation, but when you consider the evidence and you still end up with the same interpretation…

… well let's put it this way: you don't want anyone to lie, right ;)

Hostetter admits: 'I didn't address the nature of the edits themselves, and deliberately so, since I need to sit down with the books and study the specifics of a change for myself before I can offer a (possible) explanation for them, and I haven't had time to do that.'

That speaks for itself. Hostetter appears to have only skimmed the book and been enraged because of a single inference Hostetter made from very few (two?) remarks without looking at them in context and without considering that Kane was probably unlikely to have meant to imply something which was obviously absurd. Hostetter thinks it absurd. I think it absurd.

Carl wrote books plural -- while you write 'book' singular.

And from the context of the discussion it seems to me that CFH is talking about looking closer at The History of Middle-Earth (books) and the 'edits' that concern both Uinen and Galadriel (both examples having been raised the post preceding the statement in question), and then possibly giving his own explanations regarding these examples.

And actually his post (the same post) continues directly with…

Elfwine wrote: (Though one possibility specifically concerning superlatives springs to mind even without consulting the sources: if one is combining superlative-laden texts from different periods, it would be all too easy to have conflicting superlatives if one is not very careful, lest, e.g., two characters are both declared to be "strongest" or "fairest" etc. Just a thought, not saying that is the case here.)

I would say the 'sources' or the 'books' are The History of Middle-Earth volumes.

You appear to demand that no book should contain any statement from which you might infer something which the author did not intend.

This is rather generalized and exaggerated in my opinion.

If you accept Kane's statements that the meaning you infer was not intended and accept that many readers did not and do not see the meaning you infer, than you really ought to accept that Hostetter was perhaps just pressing a point for far more than it was meant, as are you.

So far I don't see we have many readers commenting in the first place. Not in this thread yet, and besides Doug, in the linked thread, only 5 actually stated an opinion one way or the other -- specifically concerning deliberateness or misogyny I mean.

And of the 5 who actually gave an opinion, 4 agreed with an implication of deliberateness at least, while River thought an unconscious bias was what Doug was getting at. Soli specifically states that he does not make the jump to misogyny and does not think Doug implied this -- despite that he agrees with an implied deliberateness however.

Soli wrote: Actually, Doug never does once IIRC imply or derive or point an accusing finger at any purported 'motive' for CT's supposedly having gender-cleansed the text- in other words he doesn't call him a misogynist, and the attribution is a leap which does not follow necessarily as the only possible hypothesis.

Elfwine (CFH) replied: "soli": to my mind, accusing Christopher (even by implication) of "having gender-cleansed the text", with the gender being "female", of course, is equivalent to charging him with misogyny. What distinction do you see?

And Soli never responded to that as far as I recall. In any case later he posted:

Soli wrote: 'Although I don't make the leap to 'misogyny', I can't see how the book can be read in any other way than as saying CT removed or reduced females on purpose. One doesn't proceed systematically by accident.

River responded: One can proceed systematically based on unconscious biases, however. I think that's what Voronwe is getting at.

Which is essentially the same point (River's point) that I later challenged Doug about. In the following review, I add a break that wasn't there in the original.


The latter, Kane sees as only one example in a larger trend of reducing the roles of female characters in The Silmarillion: "There are at least eight female characters whose role or character could be said to be reduced to a greater or lesser extent by the editorial decisions made [by Christopher]: Uinen, Galadriel, Míriel, Nerdanel, Indis, Ungoliant, Arien, and Nellas (in addition to the removal of the two or three daughters of Finwë and Indis, of Baragund and Belegund's older sister, Beleth[,] and of Andreth from the Athrabeth)" (252). Of all the changes Christopher made, this is "perhaps [Kane's] biggest complaint" (26).

But if the changes and omissions Kane describes do in fact constitute a purposeful reduction, then there is just as much reduction of the male characters (and almost certainly more). For Kane to call attention to only the female characters in this way — and to impute a motive to Christopher to actively reduce their presence in the narrative — strikes me as either disingenuous or careless.

http://www.mythsoc.org/reviews/arda.reconstructed/

So I guess it remains an opinion that to imply (however unintended) a deliberate reduction of female characters is to imply some measure of misogyny. However I don't see many opinions on the matter so far really, and silence does not necessarily mean a given person agrees with Doug or CFH.

[jallanite]

Well, when you encounter an argument that you feel makes no sense to you for some reason, I doubt you automatically conclude that your interpretation must be wrong. You might second guess your own interpretation, but when you consider the evidence and you still end up with the same interpretation…
Sometimes I do not automatically conclude that my interpretation must be wrong. But when I see an argument put forward that seems to me to be absurd, then I ought to reconsider whether I am reading my source correctly. Very, very often I find in such cases that I have misconstrued the argument, or at least probably misconstrued the argument.

What I try to attempt to do, and do not always do it, is to try to consider the argument as a whole. Which you also recommend. Yet you ignore entirely that Hostetter’s arguments rely almost entirely on his own inferences and that he largely backs down in the argument over the charges he originally made and then, bluntly, runs away.

I have suggested that you try to write down succinctly what you find so offensive about Kane’s book. You then suggested that you were merely following Hostetter’s arguments. So I indicated why I found them unconvincing. I still suggest you try to write down in the shortest form you can what you find so offensive about Kane’s book. Try to make it clear.

… well let's put it this way: you don't want anyone to lie, right ;)
Who is supposedly lying? Kane, Hostetter, you, me? What you put forth as a clarification makes no sense of me at all.

Carl wrote books plural -- while you write 'book' singular.
Hofstetter presumably meant books, Ĭ presume referring to all the Middle-earth books by J. R. R. Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien’s comments on them while I meant book, Kane’s book.

This is a perfect example of someone, you, misreading a statement and automatically taking a completely unintended meaning. People do this all the time, although they shouldn’t. Then you laboriously attempt to prove that Hostetter meant by books is probably intended to mean what I had understood him to mean, although your statement is not exactly what I had understood him to mean.

I would say the 'sources' or the 'books' are The History of Middle-Earth volumes.
I do say that Hofstetter means those and other books by Tolkien, mainly Unfinished Tales, The Children of Húrin, The Silmarillion, and The Lord of the Rings and others.

You misunderstand me and then give an inadequate list of the books that Hostetter seems to me to be talking about. I would not pick up on this at all in an informal forum, save that you here show yourself to be sloppy in reading what I have written and sloppy in writing what you mean, all the time blaming me for being sloppy in referring to book when Hostetter wrote books when I did not intend them to have the same reference.

Your rule would seem to be take what one originally understands from a source, even if seems absurd, and insist that the writer meant exactly what one wrongly understands from it and stick with it. I don’t accept that rule. And I know you don’t either. But going one about it in this way suggests that at some level you realize that you are pushing an absurd reading, as though I were to insist that because you gave only the HoME series as what Hostetter means by books that you were insisting that Hostetter intended only this very limited canon.

This is rather generalized and exaggerated in my opinion.

That is the appearance that your mode of argument mostly gives to me.

So far I don't see we have many readers commenting in the first place. Not in this thread yet, and besides Doug, in the linked thread, only 5 actually stated an opinion one way or the other -- specifically concerning deliberateness or misogyny I mean.

And of the 5 who actually gave an opinion, 4 agreed with an implication of deliberateness at least, while River thought an unconscious bias was what Doug was getting at. Soli specifically states that he does not make the jump to misogyny and does not think Doug implied this -- despite that he agrees with an implied deliberateness however.

And on, and on, and on. To me, the remarks near the end of the debate and after Doug left the debate are the most important as they indicate what people concluded after listening to both parties. I don’t see the commentators jumping all over Kane, except for yourself. I do see a discussion over whether Doug was being needlessly belligerent in which only you think that he wasn’t.

Why do only you feel differently?

I admit that an argument based only on what some other people think has no strong validity. For me the crux is seeing Hostetter back down and then run away while Kane simply answered calmly. The other crux is that Hostetter argues largely from his own inferences while Kane does not.

Turn the argument on its head. Should Hostetter or you be blamed for saying that Christopher Tolkien is not a misogynist and have to defend your position. Should either of you be attempting to claim that you have not actually said that Christopher Tolkien is not a misogynist. If it is wrong to blame or appear to blame someone who is not a misogynist for being a misogynist, why is it not equally wrong to claim or appear to claim that someone who is a misogynist is not a misogynist?

Indeed, logically, it is equally wrong to claim that someone who is not a misogynist is not a misogynist if one cannot prove it and to claim that someone who is a misogynist is a misogynist if one cannot prove it.

Yet you appear nonplussed every time Kane pleads ignorance about things he does not know about and which he should not be expected to know about. It is as though you really believe that Kane ought to know that there are rules that one must assume that Christopher Tolkien is not in any way a misogynist (and, if need be, falsely claim it). Anything which Kane has written which leads to any doubt on the matter is unacceptable, regardless of his ignorance of what Christopher Tolkien’s opinions may be and regardless of truth.

I entirely reject this argument. Kane should not speak at all of things he does not know, and Kane indeed only unambiguously speaks of the possibility that Christopher Tolkien’s editing of his father’s work might look like misogyny. No more. That to me appears fully reasonable.

You are now attempting to prove that Kane’s treatment of Christopher Tolkien’s remarks on Ossë and Uinen are incorrect, but the sources are so complex that I doubt you can show anything unambiguously. And, if you could, you would only show that, in this one place, Kane is unambiguously in error. You might end only by showing that Kane is arguably in error, and arguably not in error. Or you might fail entirely. I admit that this is probably one of the most dubious parts of Kane’s work, and by choosing it you by default admit that at least most of Kane’s work stands up.

So keep at it.

And by not considering at all most of my feelings when I read Hostetter’s remarks you help to confirm that those feelings were correct.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

I do see a discussion over whether Doug was being needlessly belligerent in which only you think that he wasn’t.


I think you meant "Carl" there, not "Doug".

Beyond that, I appreciate your defense. I frankly don't have the wherewithall to continue to engage with Galin about this. It gets to the point where it leaves the realm of "discussion" and reaches the point of "stalking". It seems to be close to reaching that point.

[Galin]

I think you meant "Carl" there, not "Doug".

Beyond that, I appreciate your defense. I frankly don't have the wherewithall to continue to engage with Galin about this. It gets to the point where it leaves the realm of "discussion" and reaches the point of "stalking". It seems to be close to reaching that point.

Doug, you responded to my posts, I'm responding to yours. It's discussion and has been quite civil in my opinion.

You gave one characterization about the Uinen issue, I think I gave another perspective. You could have simply agreed or disagreed with it, commented on it in some way, or said nothing. My post wasn't just 'last wordism' in my opinion. I also have the right to respond to Jallanite's posts, and if it happens to be about your book then so be it. If you want to bow out, feel free of course. You knew your book would be controversial, so yes it's being discussed on the web.

I think you are overreacting here. It took me a while to get back to my responses here, but that's just 'real life' as they say, and I wanted to read up on some things first, which took me some time to get to.

Jallanite wrote: Hofstetter presumably meant books, Ĭ presume referring to all the Middle-earth books by J. R. R. Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien’s comments on them while I meant book, Kane’s book.

Right, and what you wrote was that Carl appeared to have 'only skimmed' Doug's book, which was only your assumption. That at least is pointed out, whether or not I was truly 'sloppy' in reading your post, as you assert.

And on, and on, and on. To me, the remarks near the end of the debate and after Doug left the debate are the most important as they indicate what people concluded after listening to both parties. I don't see the commentators jumping all over Kane, except for yourself.

What remarks 'near the end of the debate' indicate what 'people' concluded? I have already noted that only so many people even responded specfically to the issues Carl raised. As for others, if I recall correctly for some we don't even know if they have necessarily read the book -- one person indicated earlier that he/she hadn't read the book, came back and said he/she had -- but still made no comment about the matter specifically.


You are now attempting to prove that Kane’s treatment of Christopher Tolkien’s remarks on Ossë and Uinen are incorrect, but the sources are so complex that I doubt you can show anything unambiguously.

No I'm not attempting that Jallanite. I'm rather illustrating that Doug's statements are not the only way to characterize the Uinen matter, and clarifying (in some measure) what I meant about compromise earlier.

Jallanite wrote: (...) I admit that this is probably one of the most dubious parts of Kane’s work, and by choosing it you by default admit that at least most of Kane’s work stands up.

Do you mean the Uinen section is one of the most dubious parts of Kane's work?

In any case, focusing on one thing does not mean 'by default' I necessarily agree or disagree with anything else.

[jallanite]

When you post something that clearly and distinctly indicates what you find so offensive in Kane’s book, I will respond again.

Until you do, it is mostly useless to respond to your posts on Kane’s book which continually avoid indicating what statements by Kane you find so offensive and what you would have done in writing a similar book.

You continually evade any attempt to get a straight answer out of you on that head.

[Galin]

I don't agree I have been evasive; but to Voronwe: if you're still reading, sorry if my comments seem to criticize your book merely in light of what I think you could or 'should' have done; but again, you criticize CJRT enough times with personal opinions of what you think he should have done, as is your right. Onward.

Looking as the matter of the daughters of Indis (FM = Finwe And Miriel):

In FM1 the daughters Findis, Irime and Faniel are noted, with the order altered to > Faniel and Irime. Laws and Customs version A agrees: Findis, Faniel and Irime. FM2 agrees again with Findis, Faniel Irime, and the footnote points out the order of birth here, which agrees with the order noted in Laws and Customs A.

'Three daughters and two sons, in this order: Findis, Nolofinwe, Faniel, Arafinwe, and Irime.'

FM3: as in FM4, so Findis Finvain, Faniel FM4: Findis, Finvain, Faniel with the seeming order being: Findis, Fingolfin, Finvain, Finarfin, and Faniel.

All these names and their order arise in the same general time frame, but we can see that one of the names changes form, and that Faniel again becomes the last female as opposed to the second female born, and she is the last child born after Finarfin.

Jumping ahead to The Shibboleth of Feanor, note 26 and note 28. In note 26 Christopher Tolkien refers to a number of genealogical tables dated to around 1959, where in all these tables there are still three daughters: Findis, Faniel, and Irime.

Obviously these tables agree with some, but not all, of the work from the Later Quenta Silmarillion phase II described earlier.

So later, Faniel has disappeared and now Indis has only two daughters, and the younger daughter appears both as Irime and Irien. And here Irime/Irien would appear to be the third child of Indis, not the last child, as she was in the old number and order. CJRT notes that while writing the Shibboleth of Feanor his father clearly had these older tables in front of him 'and alterations made to the latest of the four agree with statements made in it.' But despite the drop to two daughters in the text, CJRT also notes that no correction was made to any of the tables with three daughters. And:

'It is strange that my father should give the name of the second daughter of Finwe as both Irime and Irien within the space of a few lines. Possibly he intended Irien at the first occurrence but inadvertently wrote Irime, the name found in all the genealogies (note 26).'

True enough, but not the name found in all the texts, considering where Finvain appears twice for Irime.

This is the presentation as found in Arda Reconstructed:

Finally, a reference to the 'five children' of Indis and Finwe is removed. A footnote lists three daughters in addition to the sons Fingolfin and finarfin (whose names are actually spelled that way): Findis, Finvain, and Faniel.* However, there is no mention of any of these daughters anywhere in the published Silmarillion (even in the genealogical table in the back). This is another small detail that shows how Christopher lessened the female presence in the tale.'

*footnote (back of book) In a later text, Tolkien appears to have dropped Finvain and changed Faniel's name to either 'Irime' of 'Irien' (see Pome, 343, 359 nn. 26 and 28).


And while I don't expect AR to have covered the changes in the detail here or in HME, a descriptive sentence could have conveyed that the matter was a bit more complex -- and in my opinion including the Shibboleth in the text proper instead of a footnote at the end of the book would have illustrated, in a more compelling way to the reader -- that in the last text concerning this matter, the actual name of one of the now two daughters (making four children not five obviously) wasn't even certain.


I think what you chose to present as a footnote at the back of the book would have had more force in the text proper for giving the reader of AR another option as to why these daughters were not included in the table (besides being minor characters). AR does not speculate in the text proper, or in the footnote, that the ambiguity of names in the last version could have been one of the reasons these characters get no mention in the 1977 Silmarillion.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Doug, you responded to my posts, I'm responding to yours.

Apparently, it doesn't matter whether I respond or not, since I explicitly made a point of NOT responding to your last post (with difficulty, because my general policy is to always respond to people who address me, out of common courtesy), and yet you still came back with more criticism.

Now you are complaining that I included a minor point in a footnote rather than in the main text, and didn't elaborate on sufficiently for your taste. Certainly I could have included that information in the main text, and I could have elaborated further, but I felt that the information provided was sufficient to make the point that I was making, and that it was sufficiently minor that it belonged in a footnote. My editor agreed. I could have explicitly pointed out that the uncertainty of the names and even number of the daughters could have been a reason why Christopher did not include them, but I felt that the reader could certainly make that conclusion themselves. And, of course, the truth of the matter is that there are many characters included in the published Silmarillion whose names were uncertain, and that Christopher was perfectly willing to decide what name to use, so I don't really think that is a likely reason. Still, that discussion could have been more explicitly included in the book, and it is fair to point it out.

However, what I don't think is fair is this continued over the top harping on one point, with no leavening by any discussion of anything that you think might be valuable in the book. In my view, there is a certain point where this type of thing leaves the realm of valuable criticism and enters a realm of being ... something else. Clearly we have a different point of view of where that line is.

Galin, I generally like you. We have had some very interesting and stimulating discussions about Tolkien over the years on several different boards, and I value that. I just don't understand why you feel necessary to poke this particularly hornet's nest so incessantly. You have long since made the point that you feel that my point about the lessening of the female characters in the published work is neither accurate nor fair. I get it. Others have made that point too. However (with the notable exception of Carl, and even he didn't go on and on nearly as much as you have), all of the others that have made the point have also discussed other aspects of the book that they have found have made significant contributions to Tolkien scholarship (see, for instance, Merlin deTardo's and David Bratman's comments in the latest volume of Tolkien Studies). It is the fact that you just keep belaboring this same point over and over in every different way that you can possibly think of that I find tiresome. That having been said, you are certainly welcome to continue if that is what you feel compelled to do. I will respond if I feel it has any value to do so, and won't if I don't.

[Galin]

Apparently, it doesn't matter whether I respond or not, since I explicitly made a point of NOT responding to your last post (with difficulty, because my general policy is to always respond to people who address me, out of common courtesy), and yet you still came back with more criticism.

OK, but this is a thread about your book Doug, and you were responding to my posts at least. Obviously I can still comment on your book here whether you continue to respond or not, as can anyone. And yes I had more criticism.

Now you are complaining that I included a minor point in a footnote rather than in the main text, and didn't elaborate on sufficiently for your taste. Certainly I could have included that information in the main text, and I could have elaborated further, but I felt that the information provided was sufficient to make the point that I was making, and that it was sufficiently minor that it belonged in a footnote. My editor agreed. I could have explicitly pointed out that the uncertainty of the names and even number of the daughters could have been a reason why Christopher did not include them, but I felt that the reader could certainly make that conclusion themselves.

OK fair enough. We have both stated our opinions on this point.


And, of course, the truth of the matter is that there are many characters included in the published Silmarillion whose names were uncertain, and that Christopher was perfectly willing to decide what name to use, so I don't really think that is a likely reason. Still, that discussion could have been more explicitly included in the book, and it is fair to point it out.

Thank you (if I have raised that much anyway). And I realize there are other characters with a measure of ambiguity surrounding the final forms of their names, and I'm suggesting that this example could have been a combination of that, plus that they are arguably very minor characters, as characters go (only briefly referred to).

However, what I don't think is fair is this continued over the top harping on one point, with no leavening by any discussion of anything that you think might be valuable in the book. In my view, there is a certain point where this type of thing leaves the realm of valuable criticism and enters a realm of being ... something else. Clearly we have a different point of view of where that line is.

Well, I'm not sure what makes it 'over the top harping'. Again Doug, you raise each and every example in your book (regarding the role of females) to essentially make or support the argument of a reduction of female roles.

So far I've commented on the specific examples: Galadriel, Uinen, and the 'daughters'... I think (without reading both threads again) and even if there's one more (that I've forgotten) that would only be half of the examples in AR raised to criticise CJRT's Silmarillion.

Galin, I generally like you.


I like you as well, as far as I can tell through 'internet chat' anyway :)

We have had some very interesting and stimulating discussions about Tolkien over the years on several different boards, and I value that. I just don't understand why you feel necessary to poke this particularly hornet's nest so incessantly. You have long since made the point that you feel that my point about the lessening of the female characters in the published work is neither accurate nor fair. I get it.


OK, and I get why looking at each example might be annoying to the author. And I know you already get the main point Doug, but does that mean a more detailed argument or discussion about the presentation in AR (with anyone) is off the table on the web 'somewhere'?

Others have made that point too. However (with the notable exception of Carl, and even he didn't go on and on nearly as much as you have), all of the others that have made the point have also discussed other aspects of the book that they have found have made significant contributions to Tolkien scholarship (see, for instance, Merlin deTardo's and David Bratman's comments in the latest volume of Tolkien Studies). It is the fact that you just keep belaboring this same point over and over in every different way that you can possibly think of that I find tiresome.

Well in my opinion it's only the 'same point' in the sense that each example you raise in AR intends to be about the reduction of females roles in general. Every once in a while I look at the same exact examples that you raise, and even still haven't looked at all of them, and I am making different points about different examples. And sure even with this there has been some repetition, but in my opinion some of that can be due to this being a different site, or desired better clarity, and to discussion with someone who continues to challenge this or that.


That having been said, you are certainly welcome to continue if that is what you feel compelled to do. I will respond if I feel it has any value to do so, and won't if I don't.

Very well. And my latest opinion may seem 'minor' to you... but in my opinion it is both minor, and it isn't minor -- as it might fit into a larger criticism of this part of your book.

I suspect that maybe if I had had the time to have looked at all these examples in detail and posted my findings and opinions all at once somewhere, as part of my criticism of your presentation on this one issue, you might be reacting differently. But it probably took you some time to look at all these instances, in detail, in a criticism of Christopher Tolkien's presentation of The Silmarillion.

I suppose that might have been the better way to go about it. Or possibly no one would have read such a long post ;)

Again I'm sorry I don't have much positive to say with respect to this part of your book. I've already praised AR as far as presenting the sources (that we know of) behind the published Silmarillion. And this isn't negative, but I usually rather like to jump into HME and see things for myself, although I do use your book now and again to see if it confirms something I've found. That doesn't mean it's not very helpful to those who don't use or own HME obviously.

I was comparing HME (or whatever) to the 1977 Silmarillion well before AR ever came out. As others were of course, and I'm guessing likely you, before you thought to publish a book about it.

[Galin]

Actually I have had second thoughts here and would like to apologize to Doug Kane (Voronwe_the_Faithful) and the folks at Barrow Downs at large.


I still hold to my opinions, but whatever I think might be 'fair' as far as looking at given examples from AR in detail, still I do not intend to annoy or harass anyone here, and I can see that I have done so whether looking at each example would be truly fair or not. And I can see how that can be harping.


Again, my apologies to Mr. Kane and everyone. No hard feelings on my part.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Galin, I appreciate the apology, and also the interest that you have in my book.

[Galin]

Thanks Voronwe (I PM-ed you too but I'm not sure I did it correctly). By the way, is Amazon ultimately going to be selling the latest Tolkien Studies?

Off topic I know, but as (I think) you have an article in there, I thought maybe you might know.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

I see that not only do I have your 2 PMs, but two other PMs that people have sent me months ago that I never knew about. How embarrassing! They must think I am terribly rude! It's strange that I don't get notices for PMs, although perhaps there is a setting where I can change that.

With regard to your question about Tolkien Studies, unfortunately like last year the publisher, West Virginia University Press, elected not to get an ISBN number for this volume, meaning that it can't be sold by Amazon or other online vendors, other than WVUP itself. I think that is a very short-sighted decision, but it is what it is.