How close is the published The Silmarillion to JRRT's Silmarillion?

[TheLostPilgrim]

I am just curious--

How close would you feel the published Silmarillion is to a version of it that JRRT would've published himself had he lived? Like, percentage wise I guess?

Would the father have approved of the son's work had he lived?

I remember reading that it was his express wish that Christopher publish The Silmarillion if he died before he could complete it--is this true, and if so, should we accept the 1977 Silmarillion as is, since the father wanted the son to work on it and put it out?

And finally, do you think JRRT would have even been ABLE to ever finish and publish The Simillarion or any version of it, even if he were immortal?

[Mithalwen]

Very hard to say. Yes JRRT wanted The Silmarillion published but I don't think at an emotional level he would he would have ever let it go..too much of a Niggle. I went to a readers' day last year and one of thecauthorsxwas asked about what happened to certain characters in her latest novel and would she wrire a sequel and she said that she thought x would happen, that she had hinted at and she had finished with the characters.

Now Christopher has admitted he made wrong choices...Gil-galad's parentage being notable and no doubt the process of producing home might have meant that a SilmArillion edited after that epic analysis and sifting might be closer to what Tolkien pere would have wanted but without the publication of the arguably flawed and incomplete Silmarillion we wouldn't have had the Unfinished Tales etc. I think I would rather have the vast wealth of maybes than a tiny number of certainties especially since with Tolkien the last version was not necessarily the definitive version. I often wonder if he had had a wordprocessor able to make changes without laborious retyping whether hecwould have got closer. I really doubt it..I think he would have just found more not to finish and we would have lost the audit trail of his creation.

[Alfirin]

I think we might have had even less than that if he had had that option. Since Tolkien always wanted to re-write the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings so that they would themselves be more like the Silmarillion I wonder if, had he had the option (as he might have had he released them under some of our current publication laws) he would have actually pulled further printing of the books until he could get around to writing the "correct" versions. And since, as you pointed out, he probably would NEVER have been content with the version he came up with we might have ended up with a world in which TH and LOTR were largely unknown with copies of the originals published before the "pull back" as rare books to be sought out by those with deep pockets and an interest in esoterica. This doesn't happen often but it does sometimes happen (one example I can think of from Chidren's literature was when Kay Thompson banned further publication of all her Eloise books except the first one and it wasn't until her rights expired and publication rights went to the illustrator a few years ago that they came out again.)

[Aganzir]

If Tolkien had lived to be 100, the Silmarillion would be vastly different. I believe the published Silmarillion is, despite some wrong choices, about as close to what the Professor himself would have published, had he been forced to do so. You have to make decisions, but Tolkien was too much of a perfectionist and too Niggle to give up his authorial power to change things.

I fully agree with Mith - I also prefer the vast amount of maybe to a few certainties. Besides it gives us more to discuss. ;)

[Mithalwen]

Yes, as I meant to write after my ref to the other author that Tolkien had never finished with his characters, writing the quite complex and fascinating essaya on the battle of the Fords of Isen , woodwoses etc after the publication of LoTR while the only account of Tuor in Gondolin was ao earlythat it ccouldn't easily be integrated.

I suposw what we have is the reault of having a scholar as literary executor rather than a storyteller 'I don't mean that to sound perjorative - CRT haa taken an approach which has prioritised his father's original texts at the expense of simplistic storytelling. Someone else might have taken the bare bones of the tales and fleshed them out into what they thought was a good story and the films indicate what you can get when that approach happens.:smokin:

So since I love the world over the stories I am glad we have what we have.

I didn't realise that about the publication laws and I can imagine that happening.

[Mornorngûr]

The published Sil may not be exactly how J.R.R would have done it himself, and yes there are flaws, but Christopher did the best that he could do to try and carry out his fathers wishes and designs.

I believe the biggest errors in regards to any of Tolkien's works, are the movies by Peter Jackson.

I wish the film rights were never sold. :(

[Aiwendil]

Tolkien always wanted to re-write the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings so that they would themselves be more like the Silmarillion

That's not entirely true. He was actually much more focused on re-writing the Silmarillion material to match The Lord of the Rings rather than the other way around. As far as I know, he had no plans to extensively revise The Lord of the Rings - he did make a few minor changes for the second edition, and if he had lived longer, it's possible that further small changes would have been made; but during his lifetime he did not contemplate major changes (or at least, left no record of such contemplation).

He did at one point intend to completely re-write The Hobbit, and he wrote a few chapters of the revision, which were published in Rateliff's The History of the Hobbit. But in the end he decided against such a major revision, and instead made only minor changes subsequently.

[Mithalwen]

The published Sil may not be exactly how J.R.R would have done it himself, and yes there are flaws, but Christopher did the best that he could do to try and carry out his fathers wishes and designs.

I believe the biggest errors in regards to any of Tolkien's works, are the movies by Peter Jackson.

I wish the film rights were never sold. :(

Unfortunately the Tax regime at the time meant that Tolkien was liable for a tax rate of up to 136% on accruals basis..ie that he might have to pay over a third over what he had actually earnt before he received the cash due to a surcharge and supertax. Sadly at that point he probably really did need the cash.

[TheLostPilgrim]

But the question is, would JRRT have approved of the published version as put out by his son?

If so, could that perhaps settle the "is it canon?" debate?

I mean if JRRT would've approved, I'd call that canon.

I mean, Tolkien himself never seems to have decided what were "canon" elements of the Silmarillion, and it seems Christopher went off his father's notes and efforts to the best of his ability--Sort of the way Bilbo would've transcribed likely conflicting Elven histories of ancient, perhaps slightly misremembered days, to the best of his ability.

[Inziladun]

But the question is, would JRRT have approved of the published version as put out by his son?

I don't believe that's ultimately an answerable question. I like to Tolkien would have been satisfied, or as much as an author with such an ever questing, questioning mind could be. No doubt he could have thought of improvements, but when is that not the case?

If so, could that perhaps settle the "is it canon?" debate?

I mean, Tolkien himself never seems to have decided what were "canon" elements of the Silmarillion, and it seems Christopher went off his father's notes and efforts to the best of his ability--Sort of the way Bilbo would've transcribed likely conflicting Elven histories of ancient, perhaps slightly misremembered days, to the best of his ability.

Your words about the long efforts of CT lead at least me to think of the published Silmarillion as canon. I know that since its release Christopher himself has found new notes and writings from time to time that suggest the book should have had some changes, but it doesn't seem to have concerned him enough to "update" The Silmarillion in order to incorporate any of the new (or old) ideas.

[jallanite]

Christopher Tolkien’s rmarks on The Silmarillion as published nowhere indicate that it is more than an attempt by his son to more-or-less put out what his father wrote.

Christopher Tolkien’s various remarks about what he sees as errors by himself in The Silmarillion is enough to indicate he himself does not consider the published Silmarillion as canon. That he has not corrected those points shows no more that he sees no point in correcting a work that was never intended to be canon to make it canon. Indeed, Christopher Tolkien never uses the term canon.

When discussions on particular points of Tolkien’s legendarium come up, those discussing the points are quite ready to bring in material from Christopher Tolkien’s HoME series and these are accepted as pertinent to the discussion. No-one insists that the words of Christopher Tolkien in the published Silmarillion have any priority over his father’s words as given by him elsewhere.

That is not normally so with variant versions of material which was published in J. R. R. Tolkien’s lifetime.

Christopher Tolkien wrote in his Foreword: “I set myself therefore to work out a single text, selecting and arranging in such a way as seemed to me to produce the most coherent and internally self-consistant narrative.” In later writing Christopher Tolkien clearly indicates that he regrets certain of the decisions he made then.

That Christopher Tolkien has not produced a new version is said to show that Christopher Tolkien is totally satisfied with his edition. Yet Christopher Tolkien again and again says that he is not satisfied with it. It therefore appears to me that Christopher Tolkien is indicating that he cannot find a way to produce a version that would totally satisfy him, that a perfect Silmarillion is impossible to produce.

Inziladun’s solution to simply ignore Christopher Tolkien’s words in those cases is very unsatisfactory.

[Inziladun]

Inziladun’s solution to simply ignore Christopher Tolkien’s words in those cases is very unsatisfactory.

What's the solution, then? Everyone can't be an HOME scholar, devoting much time to study of earlier drafts and variants, not to mention various noted and letters produced by J.R.R.T. in his later years. There's an endless capacity for debate if one takes your tack, for the fact is, if CT's version is unacceptable to you, there will never be an edition that satisfies. If that's all right with you, so be it.

For the purpose of discussion such as we have on this forum, there must be a standard to base opinions on, and The Silmarillion, for all its faults, fills the bill. I choose to see the published work as canon, because I do not see how it will be bettered.

[Mornorngûr]

I personally consider 'The Silmarillion' to be canon, whilst at the same time incorporating into my point of view all the later writings that fit the general history without drastically altering the storyline.

For example we could accept Orodreph as being Felagund's nephew rather than brother, because it in no way really interrupts the basic flow of events or story. However we can not accept that Feanor burnt his youngest son along with the ships, and even less that he burnt both of them (as suggested in HoME-11) because this would drastically alter the history, and does not fit in with the story.

Another example could be that we can accept that Turgon saved Idril from drowning during the crossing; but we can not accept that Celeborn came from Valinor with Galadriel (Well I refuse to accept it anyway :confused:)

[Galin]

I also do not think the Silmarillion was ever intended to be canon, nor is held to be so by Christopher Tolkien.

To me The Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin very generally fulfill Tolkien's intentions as far as 'the book experience' goes, in comparison to the scholarly experience of HME. In this general sense it doesn't matter much who Gil-galad's father is for example [I note however that Gil-galad's parentage is left obscure in The Children of Hurin tables], although the lack of any framework, even if a brief recounting of who wrote what for instance [if known], would, I think, add a distinct something that is 'lacking' in the current version.

Christopher Tolkien himself noted that he should have attempted some sort of framework, but to me this is quite different from second guessing who Gil-galad's father should have been [he noted he should have left this obscure], or if Orodreth should have been Galadriel's brother or not.

Anyway I think there was at least one revision to the first edition of The Silmarillion with respect to the numbering of the Numenorean Kings and Queens [emphasis on I think]; and if I recall correctly The Lord of the Rings itself has been edited in this respect, so now the detail matches in certain editions.


Anyway, yes HME has infiltrated the Silmarillion threads and threads in general.

What's the solution, then? Everyone can't be an HOME scholar, devoting much time to study of earlier drafts and variants, not to mention various noted and letters produced by J.R.R.T. in his later years.

Possibly to make certain threads '1977 Silmarillion only', but that's really only a solution to a specific aspect of discussing the Elder Days. Some have not read HME nor want to, but I agree that the 1977 Silmarillion can be used as a 'shared internal canon'.

I mean Christopher Tolkien's version is the only book version to work with and we are not likely to get another -- which, if we did, would probably contain more descisions not everyone would agree with in any case.

Based on what can be found in HME and elsewhere, everyone's personal Silmarillions will possibly be different, and even very different: for example [since someone already brought it up], I can imagine the death of one of Feanor's sons at Losgar being 'internally true', but then again I don't have to produce a one volume Silmarillion for 'everyone's bookshelves' in which that choice has to become a reality on paper, and involves more considerations than simply imagining the 'truth' about Middle-earth.

And if one is Robert Foster for example, I think it makes sense to describe this 'shared' version in any guide [whether he had HME to work with or not].

[jallanite]

What's the solution, then?

I don’t see what the problem is to which you seek a solution.

Everyone can't be an HOME scholar, devoting much time to study of earlier drafts and variants, not to mention various notes and letters produced by J.R.R.T. in his later years. There's an endless capacity for debate if one takes your tack, for the fact is, if CT's version is unacceptable to you, there will never be an edition that satisfies. If that's all right with you, so be it.

That is certainly alright with me. As I pointed out, discussions do constantly slip into details not in the published Silmarillion. If you want to try to make a rule that no mention of material in HoME or other material published after Tolkien’s death is to be allowed in this forum, you are allowed to try. I don’t see you being successful.

Currently it is not necessary that members of this forum have even read The Lord of the Rings, much less the Silmarillion. There are no rules save that all discussions shouldtin some way relate to Tolkien, and even that is not really enforced.

For the purpose of discussion such as we have on this forum, there must be a standard to base opinions on, and The Silmarillion, for all its faults, fills the bill. I choose to see the published work as canon, because I do not see how it will be bettered.

There is a standard. The discussions are supposed to be related to Tolkien. That has until now been sufficient. Some discussions have been published solely about the volume Unfinished Tales. There is at least one thread solely on The Fall of Arthur. You are attempting to install new rules that have never been in place on this or any other Tolkien forum so far as I know. Can you understand why not?

I reject your limited standard on discussion just as much as Christopher Tolkien has and as most ĭf not all posters on this forum have, by being quite ready to discuss HoME material in any discussion where it fits. You surely know this. I don’t see anything to be gained by an attempt at dumbing down.

I personally consider 'The Silmarillion' to be canon, whilst at the same time incorporating into my point of view all the later writings that fit the general history without drastically altering the storyline.

I personally reject the concept of canon.

Another example could be that we can accept that Turgon saved Idril from drowning during the crossing; but we can not accept that Celeborn came from Valinor with Galadriel (Well I refuse to accept it anyway :confused:)

Then don’t use the word “we”. Personally I accept all Tolkien fictional writing as just that, fiction. And that fiction, unpublished in Tolkien’s lifetime exists in variant versions, all of which is often discussed on this forum regardless of where it was published.

So you reject Tolkien’s later story that Galadriel came with Celeborn from Vainor separately from the other Exiles. Do you also reject Galadriel’s own statement of her origin as it appears in Book II chapter 7 of The Fellowship of the Ring:
He [Celeborn] has dwelt in the West since the days of dawn, and I have dwelt with him years uncounted; for ere the fall of Nargothron or Gondolin I passed over the mountains, aǹd together through ages of the world we have fought together the long defeat.
But the published Silmarillion claims in the last sentence of chapter 14:
But none of the Noldor went ever over Ered Lindon, while their realm lasted.
This is in accord with Tolkien’s later account in which during the Second Age, not the First, long after the fall of Nargothrond and Gondolin, and after Galadriel had married Celeborn, the two of them crossed the mountains into Lothlórien.

I neither reject nor accept any of the accounts, but merely note that they differ. Christopher Tolkien seems to do the same.

[Inziladun]

I also do not think the Silmarillion was ever intended to be canon, nor is held to be so by Christopher Tolkien.

I would be interested to know if CT or the Estate has ever issued any statement to that effect.

Possibly to make certain threads '1977 Silmarillion only', but that's really only a solution to a specific aspect of discussing the Elder Days. Some have not read HME nor want to, but I agree that the 1977 Silmarillion can be used as a 'shared internal canon'.

I mean Christopher Tolkien's version is the only book version to work with and we are not likely to get another -- which, if we did, would probably contain more descisions not everyone would agree with in any case.

You have more clearly stated my own belief. HOME leaves far too much leeway for endless debates for me, as an "average" Tolkien reader, to be comfortable with. Unless CT or the Estate later produces something better, the best bet for me is the published Silmarillion.

Based on what can be found in HME and elsewhere, everyone's personal Silmarillions will possibly be different

Just so, and for the purposes of an internet forum discussion, it's much easier to have a common standard, or else it's pointless.

[Mithalwen]

I don't see that there is a huge problem. I can't recall him using canon as a term but I might be wrong. In note39 to Cirion and Eorl in UT he suggests independent and distinct traditions to re solve differences in versions of the origins of the house of Dol Amroth which doesn't suggest a slave to the concept of canon.

I find that there are almost always factual errors anytime anything I happen to really know about is reported in the media and there are often variants in legends, even in the interpretation of historical evidence, it is almost more authentic to have variants in a synthetic mythology. As with real history it is a question of balancing evidence and probabilities. Of course not everyone is going to get involved in it the texts to that extent.

[Galin]

Incidentally [since it came up in the thread] I accept what Galadriel says in Fellowship of the Ring about Nargothrond and so on, and what it says in The Road Goes Ever On about her movements [crossing the mountains of Lindon]. Both these works are published by JRRT himself in any case [whether or not they seem to contradict each other].

The first doesn't state what mountains are being referred to, even if readers think they know because they know the details of the external variations, nor is The Silmarillion published by the author, if something from it should contradict something Tolkien already published.

I agree one might wonder why Galadriel would be referring to 'mountains' that are, at the time of her statement, possibly long sunk beneath the Sea, but the timing reference is to the fall of Nargothrond and Gondolin too... not exactly events that occurred lately, especially from a Hobbit perspective.


I do think [my opinion] that Christopher Tolkien made an effort, at least, to be consistent with The Lord of the Rings. And in my opinion the posthumously published texts are different animals than author-published work, especially where seeming or 'obvious' inconsistencies are concerned.

[Morthoron]

I love The Silmarillion. I have loved it since I first read it on the day it was released in the States. Having read the entire HoMe series has not altered my feelings for the book. For all its warts and incongruities, it is great and stirring literature and a mythological masterwork of which the events in The Lord of the Rings are merely the tail end.

I will neither change my opinion nor revert to some warped "1977 Silmarillion Only" discussion threads at this curmudgeonly point in my crotchety old age. The whole idea is plain dumb and I'll have none of it.

Now, you damn kids get off my lawn!

[jallanite]

I would be interested to know if CT or the Estate has ever issued any statement to that effect.

I don’t believe either of them have. Just as the BBC has never officially stated that any of the Doctor Who material is either canon or not canon. Whether something is canon or not canon is something for fans to concern themselves with. And fans often mean different things by canon.

The term was originally introduced into Sherlock Holmes fandom, and referred to the more official status of Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories as opposed to others, particularly films, and radio plays, and live dramas.

As to statements by CT or the Estate, note that on the dust jacket of Tolkien’s The Fall of Arthur it is stated: “The Fall of Arthur, the only venture by J.R.R. Tolkien into the legends of Arthur King of Britain ...”. This entirely ignores “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight” in J. R. R. Tolkien’s Sir Gawain and the Green Knight: Pearl: Sir Orfeo.

I would not feel at all comfortable in ignoring Christopher Tolkien’s continual mentions of places where he feels the published Silmarillion falls down. I would not feel at all comfortable in a forum that banned mentions of particular books other than for legal reasons.

You have more clearly stated my own belief. HOME leaves far too much leeway for endless debates for me, as an "average" Tolkien reader, to be comfortable with. Unless CT or the Estate later produces something better, the best bet for me is the published Silmarillion.Yet you do not complain in the thread http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=18457 when Zigûr follow your beginning post with a quotation from Tolkien’s Letters and from Morgoth’s Ring. You jump in immediately on Mithalwen’s thread at http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=18434 which begins with “Aldarion and Erendis: The Mariner’s Wife” from Unfinished Tales. I am not willing to follow what you say especially when you yourself do not do so. It appears you simply want things to be easier, like a school essay which allow only particular texts to be cited to make marking easier.

I’ve never read any complaints about anyone citing material published after Tolkien’s death in any Tolkien forum so far as I can recall. No Tolkien forum, so far as I know has any such rule. You are inventing a problem that doesn’t exist and has never existed. Invent all you want, but this supposed problem is only your own invention. It seems to me to be more “pointless” to attempt to add a rule to the forum that no-one but you wants and is not needed.

Incidentally [since it came up in the thread] I accept what Galadriel says in Fellowship of the Ring about Nargothrond and so on, and what it says in The Road Goes Ever On about her movements [crossing the mountains of Lindon]. Both these works are published by JRRT himself in any case [whether or not they seem to contradict each other].

From Unfinished Tales, “The History of Galadriel and Celeborn”:Thus, at the onset, it is certain that the earlier conception was that Galadriel went east over the mountains from Beleriand alone, before the end of the First Age, and met Celeborn in his own land of Lórien; this is explicitly stated in unpublished writings, and the same idea underlies Galadriel’s words to Frodo in The Fellowship of the Ring II 7, where she says of Celeborn that ‘He has dwelt in the West since the days of dawn, and I have dwelt with him for years uncounted; for ere the fall of Nargothrond or Gondolin I passed over the mountains, and together through ages of the world we have fought the long defeat.’ In all probability Celeborn was in this conception a Nandoran Elf (that is one of the Teleri who refused to cross the Misty Mountains on the Great Journey from Cuiviénen).
These unpublished writings seems to be cited in The Peoples of Middle-earth (HoME XII), page 185, by Christopher Tolkien:In one of the earliest texts of the work Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age my father wrote of Galadriel: ‘A Queen she was and lady of the woodland elves, yet she was herself of the Noldor and had come from Beleriand in the days of the Exile.’ To this he added subsequently: ‘For it is said by some that she was a handmaid of Melian the immortal in the realm of Doriath’; but striking this out at once he substituted: ‘For it is said by some that she was the daughter of Felegund the Fair and escaped from Nargothrond in the day of its destruction.’ In the following text this was changed to read: ‘And some have said that she was the daughter of Felegund the Fair and fled from Nargothrond before its fall, and passed over the mountains into Eriador ere the coming of Fionwë’; this in turn he altered to: ‘For she was the daughter of Felagund the Fair and the elder sister of Gil-galad, though seldom had they met, for ere Nargothrond was made or Felagund was driven from Dorthonion, she passed east over the mountains and forsook Beleriand, and first of all the Noldor came to the inner lands; and too late she heard the summons of Fionwë.’ – In the Annals of Aman and the Grey Annals she had become, as she remained, the sister of Felagund.

[radagastly]

I must admit, I've always been a bit befuddled by the notion of "canon." It seems to revolve around questions of:
1. Is one section of text or detail consistent with other texts or details on the same topic?
2. Is a text or detail consistent with the author's intent?
There may be other questions that certain readers/fans/scholars may wish to impose, but it seems to mostly revolve around these two questions.

As for one text being consistent with all or any others on the same subject, I have no problem with inconsistencies. They exist even in our own real history. How many times was Julius Caesar stabbed in the Senate? Shakespeare says 33 times. Some historians have always said it was 22 times. A relatively modern historian (30 to 40 years ago) calculated (based on a variety of documentation) that the number of conspirators was between 11 and 14, and that they each stabbed him once. The only consistent and accurate answer to the question "How many times was Ceasar stabbed?" is "many."

I like the variations and inconsistencies that appear when the story is thought of as being told from various perspectives. A Hobbit writing the story of the war of the Ring would inherently include (or omit) details of that story that might well be ignored (or emphasized) if the same story is written by an elf or a man or a dwarf. These inconsistencies add a richness and reality to the story that would be completely absent if every detail was exactly consistent from the Ainulindale through the Final Battle.

As for the author's intent, I suppose if you were actually a real Necromancer, you could bring Tolkien back from the dead and ask him all the questions your heart desires. Personally, I think an author's intent is of little consequence until a work is published, at which point intent is completed superceded by the author's actual accomplishment, inconsistencies and all. I really don't care to see the early drafts of a story. I'd rather be engaged by the finished version.

[Galin]

For the record I was not suggesting [and was only suggesting something as a possible solution to Inziladun's comments in any case] that HME be banned from this forum or any other.

One forum I post at simply has a separate sub-forum for discussion of the 1977 Silmarillion as a book -- for a 'common ground' discussion of that book as a work in itself, and in that forum alone, HME concerns do not sidetrack any threads. Or they are not supposed to, anyway.

And at least that's how it was when I first joined. Maybe not now.

Anyway for myself, I also don't think HME is really a problem in any case, it's just that I can understand the desire of some who don't wish to read it and want to discuss The Silmarillion as it is, without HME concerns [that they know nothing about perhaps] possibly sidetracking some threads.

Also, I'm aware of the external details that underlie Galadriel's statement in The Fellowship of the Ring, but that doesn't change the fact that she does not state, in Fellowship itself, what mountains she is referring to.

That was part of my point really: the 'external' details might inform the reader about the seemingly conflicting texts, but as we were not really meant to read the posthumously published descriptions [at least not necessarily all of them, and some as they are, in an arguably 'unfinished' state], especially 'rejected' draft material [we were not meant to read them from the author's perspective at least], we might, in my opinion, try to mentally strip this away when dealing with seeming variations.

Even doing so in this case, I admit things don't smooth over perfectly, but if the 'West' means Beleriand and Galadriel means the 'mountains' that stood between some of the Noldor and Celeborn in Doriath...

[Galin]

As for one text being consistent with all or any others on the same subject, I have no problem with inconsistencies. They exist even in our own real history. How many times was Julius Caesar stabbed in the Senate? Shakespeare says 33 times. Some historians have always said it was 22 times.

Certainly Tolkien intended some purposed inconsistencies in his work, while others, even if author-published, were perhaps not really intended. That said [and not that you said otherwise], my issue is with the possible 'external muddle', meaning, those inconsistencies that 'really' are not, in an internal sense [supposed to be parts of the legendarium] -- as they are merely the not unexpected result of a creative mind creating.

Orodreth was not intended to be both Galadriel's brother and her nephew for example, or rather, there was not supposed to be existing variant texts within the legendarium that related both ideas.

On the other hand, there were supposed to be two internal variations of the history of the Elessar jewel -- or if that is in dispute, compare The Drowning of Anadune [Mannish perspective] to the tale of Numenor's fall in The Silmarillion.

[jallanite]

One forum I post at simply has a separate sub-forum for discussion of the 1977 Silmarillion as a book -- for a 'common ground' discussion of that book as a work in itself, and in that forum alone, HME concerns do not sidetrack any threads. Or they are not supposed to, anyway.

You might indicate the forum. It is not clear from what you say whether this group of discussions of the 1977 Silmarillion is simply one of several breakdowns of Tolkien’s writilng, none of which is necessarily supposed to be totally limited to the writing that they are mainly about. Many forums do have many more breakdowns that his one, but I have not seen any which tried to enforce any of them to only be about their main subject.

As an example, a questioner might be asking about more information about the Drúedain and it seems absurd to merely answer by saying that they are not mentioned in the published Silmarillion instead of also pointing out the mentions in Unfinished Tales and the HoME series with a short summary of what these works say, even if the original query as placed in a section of Silmarillion threads.

Likewise discussion of the Drúedain and proto-hominids seems to me to be reasonable, despite the fact that no such discussion appears anywhere in Tolkien’s work, so far as I am aware. I see more problems arising with attempts to limit discussion than with people getting more information than they want.

I rather expect that Inziladun wants to avoid mentions such as mine that Tolkien again and again indicates that much of the Silmarillion is, within his imaginary universe, only legend, and even untrue legend. If he and others can prevent anyone from mentioning such statements, then his incorrect theory becomes correct to the readers. It doesn’t even matter for Inziladun that Tolkien indicates this again and again because J. R. R. Tolkien does not say it in the published Silmarillion as edited by Christopher Tolkien.

Which is a good reason why posters in any forum, so far as I know, are not limited in the forum as Inziladun would like.

Anyway for myself, I also don't think HME is really a problem in any case, it's just that I can understand the desire of some who don't wish to read it and want to discuss The Silmarillion as it is, without HME concerns [that they know nothing about perhaps] possibly sidetracking some threads.Christopher Tolkien has again and again indicated what he now sees as errors in his Silmarillion. Inziladun wants this not to be mentioned, because Christopher Tolkien has not produced a revised Silmarillion with changes. In short Inzaladun doesn’t want the truth revealed. Inzaladun is quite free to claim that Christopher Tolkien is wrong and that his Silmarillion is really perfect, despite what Christopher Tolkien has written. But he would rather that no-one who disagrees with him be allowed the write what they believe, because this might confuse new readers who don’t know that there are other versions of some of the material in The Silmarillion and works published in Tolkien’s lifetime.

Anyone is at liberty to ignore any post that they wish. There have been posts on this forum that I consider incorrect. But I have then argued against them or ignored them, not attempted to make it a rule that no-one be allowed to talk about them.

Also, I'm aware of the external details that underlie Galadriel's statement in The Fellowship of the Ring, but that doesn't change the fact that she does not state, in Fellowship itself, what mountains she is referring to.Considering the other material I presented and the material in The Road Goes Ever On I now think that you are right, that Galadriel was primarily referring to the Eredluin / Ered Lindon. However it is also obvious that one must cross both the Eredluin / Ered Lindon and the Misty Mountains when traveling from Beleriand to Lórien. My intended point was that Tolkien in The Fellowship placed Galadriel’s journey to Lórien in the First Age and it is implied, though not definitely stated, that Galadriel married Celeborn upon arriving in his land of Lórien while in the Appendices in the revised version of The Lord of the Rings Galadriel and Celeborn, already married to each other, first journeyed to Lórien in the Second Age.

One can reconcile the two accounts by imagining that Galadriel did first go to Lórien in the first age and then returned to Beleriand late in the First Age and married Celeborn. Then Galadriel returned to Lórien a second time. But this disagrees with the statement in the published Silmarillion that no Noldor crossed the Ered Lindon during the First Age.

I felt that his apparent discrepancy was one of the matters to which Christopher Tolkien was referring when he wrote: “A complete consistency (either within the compass of The Silmarillion and other published witing of my father’s) is not to be looked for, and could only be achieved, if at all, at heavy and needless cost.”

[Galin]

You might indicate the forum. It is not clear from what you say whether this group of discussions of the 1977 Silmarillion is simply one of several breakdowns of Tolkien’s writilng, none of which is necessarily supposed to be totally limited to the writing that they are mainly about. Many forums do have many more breakdowns that his one, but I have not seen any which tried to enforce any of them to only be about their main subject.


I distinctly remember being told HME was off topic in the Silmarillion forum when I first arrived 'there', but I guess that could have been someone's opinion of what the forum should be for, admittedly. But it hardly matters much if I am wrong about that... for myself, I interpreted Inziladun's comments to be about the frustration of not having at least one place where the 1977 Silmarillion could be discussed without sidetracking and debate due to HME and other sources.

But that said I was focusing too much about matters like orc origins for example -- as I can at least understand the frustration from some when threads which merely mention the idea of Orcs possibly being made from Elves [Eressean theory published in the constructed Silmarillion of course] get sidetracked into a HME based orc-origin thread. Especially if the person starting the thread, for instance, now could not even participate in a HME based side topic.

But yes then there would be a filter on everything and anything outside of The Silmarillion, and such a forum could, and would, weed out important contributions, points and opinions.

Also, I have to admit that for me getting sidetracked is not really a problem. As you say, read and respond to those things you want to read and respond to. I once started a thread that quickly went a wholly different way [with respect to what I wanted to discuss], but really there was nothing stopping me, or others, from continuing to post about the 'orginal topic' in the very same thread; and if no one else was interested... oh well, that's the way it goes sometimes.


About Galadriel, my attempt at reconciling the matter is to make Galadriel refer to crossing 'mountains' in Beleriand, then joining with Celeborn in Doriath [the 'West'], all in the First Age. If so I think this even agrees with the constructed Silmarillion reference that you pointed out -- except that I admit it is a bit odd for Galadriel to mean she crossed the mountains of Beleriand [Ered Wethrin perhaps], and not only that, but before the fall of Nargothrond or Gondolin, when she would have done so before these realms were even established -- going by her seeming history according to the 'phase' of the early 1950s anyway!

I agree Tolkien very likely meant that Galadriel came to Lorien before the fall of Nargothrond and Gondolin, and met Celeborn the Nandorin Elf in Lorien, and when Celeborn became Sindarin [Appendices first edition] Tolkien possibly forgot to revise this earlier statement -- including for the second edition I guess, if so. But so far, I still prefer my idea [despite its problems] to giving Galadriel a trip back to Beleriand. As for the statement in chapter 14, that is easily enough revised from the author's perspective, having never been in print, but The Lord of the Rings and The Road Goes Ever On are not so easily dealt with in my opinion.

And I agree that Galadriel's statement was likely included in CJRT's comment about 'complete consistency' and so on.

[jallanite]

I distinctly remember being told HME was off topic in the Silmarillion forum when I first arrived 'there', but I guess that could have been someone's opinion of what the forum should be for, admittedly. But it hardly matters much if I am wrong about that... for myself, I interpreted Inziladun's comments to be about the frustration of not having at least one place where the 1977 Silmarillion could be discussed without sidetracking and debate due to HME and other sources.

For your own statement the forum that had a Silmarillion forum may have not had it only for Silmarillion material, despite what you were told when you arrived there. Therefore I still know of none among all the many Tolkien forums past or present which lays or layed any rules on speaking from any of Tolkien’s texts, save that they should be discussed in the proper place.

This forum has far places places than most, but seems none the worse for that.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for Inzadadun’s frustration if it means limiting free speech. He or anyone may start a forum on a topic and say that he wants the discussion to only concern matters in The Silmarillion. But the forum as a whole, as with all Tolkien forums, so far as I am aware, allow almost any discussion of anything save for legal reasons or for reasons of the discussion being felt unsuitable for young people.

That has always been the case in this forum, which indeed even as a set for threads called The New Silmarillion dedicated to creating a better Silmarillion.

But that said I was focusing too much about matters like orc origins for example -- as I can at least understand the frustration from some when threads which merely mention the idea of Orcs possibly being made from Elves [Eressean theory published in the constructed Silmarillion of course] get sidetracked into a HME based orc-origin thread. Especially if the person starting the thread, for instance, now could not even participate in a HME based side topic.

That Orcs were created from Elves is simply stated in the published Silmarillion. Not much room for discussion is there? I can understand that some people do not like what Tolkien said on many issues, but that is simply the breaks. Perhaps they might like what Tolkien said in other places better, but Inzadadun doesn’t want this other material to be mentioned.

Also, I have to admit that for me getting sidetracked is not really a problem. As you say, read and respond to those things you want to read and respond to. I once started a thread that quickly went a wholly different way [with respect to what I wanted to discuss], but really there was nothing stopping me, or others, from continuing to post about the 'orginal topic' in the very same thread; and if no one else was interested... oh well, that's the way it goes sometimes.Exactly.

About Galadriel, my attempt at reconciling the matter is to make Galadriel refer to crossing 'mountains' in Beleriand, then joining with Celeborn in Doriath [the 'West'], all in the First Age. If so I think this even agrees with the constructed Silmarillion reference that you pointed out -- except that I admit it is a bit odd for Galadriel to mean she crossed the mountains of Beleriand [Ered Wethrin perhaps], and not only that, but before the fall of Nargothrond or Gondolin, when she would have done so before these realms were even established -- going by her seeming history according to the 'phase' of the early 1950s anyway! The sole mention I made to The Silmarillion is the statement in chapter 14: “But none of the Noldor went ever over Ered Lindon, while their realm lasted.” That is very straightforward. My point was that even the accounts in the second edition of The Lord of the Rings do not agree between the accounts in the Appendices and Galadriel’s statement in Fellowship.

That people get frustrated with some forums is normal. But the answer to that is not putting down rules which prevent referring to particular works, except for obvious things like in this forum the book discussion should cover mainly books not films and the film discussions should cover mainly films and not books.

If a poster refers to something an interested reader doesn’t know about, the reader can always ask about it. If posters are referring to HoME material that the reader does not care about, the reader may always remark that the material doesn’t interest them and say why it doesn’t interest them.

Note that a statement that the reader simply accepts or rejects any material will probably usually seem very uninteresting to me without more information.

It would be far more frustrating when a reader’s query has an obvious answer but the answer is in HoME and one is not allowed to cite it because HoME is thought to be too difficult for the reader to understand.

[Mithalwen]

While I think there is something flat earth about ignoring the existance of HoME, I did have a lot of sympathy for the Oxonmoot speaker who was pounced on and told here theory was WRONG because an essay in HOME contradicted it even though it was A valid interpretation of the event as recounted in the published Silmarillion.

It is hard to generalise when HOME contains different materials from definitively superceded drafts to notes that may have been a passing idea. We can't necessarily know if a last word on a subject was the final word with the unfinished posthumous works however I have to admit to being annoyed when I saw a discarded draft being claimed as a development of the material in the LOTR appendices as published because it suited the poster's hobbyhorse.

[Inziladun]

While I think there is something flat earth about ignoring the existance of HoME, I did have a lot of sympathy for the Oxonmoot speaker who was pounced on and told here theory was WRONG because an essay in HOME contradicted it even though it was A valid interpretation of the event as recounted in the published Silmarillion.

I do not think, nor do I recall ever saying, that HOME should be completely ignored at any time. I myself have only read Volumes I-IV, but I do find them interesting.

It is hard to generalise when HOME contains different materials from definitively superceded drafts to notes that may have been a passing idea. We can't necessarily know if a last word on a subject was the final word with the unfinished posthumous works however I have to admit to being annoyed when I saw a discarded draft being claimed as a development of the material in the LOTR appendices as published because it suited the poster's hobbyhorse.

Yes. My issue is with the bringing forth of HOME information with a concurrent argument of why it should take precedence over The Silmarillion. If someone wants to put more stock into HOME, fine. But everyone should not be expected to fall in line with that.

[Mithalwen]

I didn't mean it personally Inzil, I was speaking generally. I have heard tell of folk who don't like HoME mentioned because the like to pretend it is all real.

I can't say I have read every word of Home either.. but I find it fascinating and useful . I don't think the published Silmarillion has automatic precedence over HoME since it waa necessary in the first instance to have coherence and compromises had to be made. Not saying that CT wasn't best placed to make that judgement but we can't be certain that he chosec as his father would have done and so I don't see that drawing attention to other versions is wrong. We can't be certain what JRRT would have finally decided about Gil-galad in the way we can be sure that a hobbit called Trotter had been rejected as an idea. He was working on a Middle Earth pretty much till he dropped.

[Inziladun]

I didn't mean it personally Inzil, I was speaking generally. I have heard tell of folk who don't like HoME mentioned because the like to pretend it is all real.

All right. I was afraid I had given that impression, and that wasn't what I'd meant at all.

I can't say I have read every word of Home either.. but I find it fascinating and useful . I don't think the published Silmarillion has automatic precedence over HoME since it was necessary in the first instance to have coherence and compromises had to be made.
I understand your point, to be sure. I just think that in some instances it becomes necessary, when debating particular points about the works, to have a definite standard. Otherwise, there would seem to be little point in putting forth opinions at all, when they can be countered by endless citations of drafts and whatnot. When the published Silmarillion and other sources are at odds, I'm going with the Silm. Let others do as they like.

[Mithalwen]

Ah well then we will have to wear pink hats on this because for reasons stated the published Silmarillion cannot be a definite standard. It is not to be discounted and may have been the best solution to the problem but a posthumous work left as unfinished as the Sil was from 60years of drafts just can't be THAT authoratative..

[Inziladun]

Ah well then we will have to wear pink hats on this because for reasons stated the published Silmarillion cannot be a definite standard. It is not to be discounted and may have been the best solution to the problem but a posthumous work left as unfinished as the Sil was from 60years of drafts just can't be THAT authoratative..

Fair enough. I've never said the Silm was anything like perfect. However, I think it's nearest thing to a definitive history of the Elder Days available. If/when the Estate puts out something to supplement or supplant it, I'll be more than happy to roll with that.

[Formendacil]

Rather than using loaded terms--and thus concepts--like "authoritative" or "definitive" when discussing the account of the 1977 Silmarillion, perhaps it would be better to consider it the standard account. This sidesteps the question of whether it OUGHT to be the best-known version and accounts for the fact, irrespective, it IS.

[Inziladun]

Rather than using loaded terms--and thus concepts--like "authoritative" or "definitive" when discussing the account of the 1977 Silmarillion, perhaps it would be better to consider it the standard account. This sidesteps the question of whether it OUGHT to be the best-known version and accounts for the fact, irrespective, it IS.

I initially did refer to it as the "standard", and that was indeed a better term.

[Mithalwen]

And what are huge chunks of HoME and UT and the Children of Hurin if not complements to the Sil. I have never said the Silmarillion should be supplanted but it has been supplemented..Pink is so my colour...
:smokin:

[Galin]

Hmm, well we have this from CJRT for example, in HME itself...

'The Silmarillion', again in the widest sense, is very evidently a literary entity of a singular nature. I would say it can only be defined in terms of its history; and that history is with this book largely completed (...). It is indeed the only 'completion' possible, because it was always 'in progress'; the published work is not in any way a completion, but a construction devised out of the existing materials.'

'Those materials are now made available, save only in a few details and in the matter of Túrin just mentioned; and with them a criticism of the 'constructed' Silmarillion becomes possible. I shall not enter into that question; although it will be apparent in this book that there are aspects of the work that I view with regret.'



Christopher Tolkien, The War of the Jewels


Of course, then there is the interpretation of that much :)

[jallanite]

Yes. My issue is with the bringing forth of HOME information with a concurrent argument of why it should take precedence over The Silmarillion. If someone wants to put more stock into HOME, fine. But everyone should not be expected to fall in line with that.

Your statement “if someone wants to put more stock into HOME” mistates the point. I don”t know of anyone who “wants to put more stock into HOME” in general. People just state information about Tolkien from various pieces of data and argue about it and naturally include the published Silmarillion and HoME and various other writings by J. R. R.  Tolkien and Christoper Tolkien.

I accept no-ones’ attempted limitation on this material of any kind. One may on particular topics place more value on a section of HoME than a section of the published Silmarillion because for that topic the material found in HoME appears more pertinent to the discussion. One may also point out where appropriate that portions of the published Silmarillion were complete inventions by Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay, not deriving from anything written by J. R. R. Tolkien.

One “should not be expected to fall in line” with any argument that one thinks does not stand up. One should argue back in return, or ignore the argument.

I just think that in some instances it becomes necessary, when debating particular points about the works, to have a definite standard. Otherwise, there would seem to be little point in putting forth opinions at all, when they can be countered by endless citations of drafts and whatnot.

You provided no indication of what you are talking about. There is certainly no point in providing opinions that “can be countered by endless citations of drafts and whatnot.” If there are really “endless citations of drafts and whatnot” than the opinion is probably invalid. That seems to me to be obvious.

When the published Silmarillion and other sources are at odds, I'm going with the Silm. Let others do as they like.Are you then mindlessly going with whatever appears in the published Silmarillion in any discussion, regardless of what appears elsewhere, even if “endless citations of drafts and whatnot” are against it? That is not a very convincing position to take. So you believe that Galadriel’s statement in the Fellowship that she crossed into Lórien in the First Age is wrong and that the Silmarillion statement that no Noldor crossed the Ered Lindon in the First Age is correct.

In fact both Fellowship and the published Silmarillion are fictional stories and you shouldn’t believe anything in either of them.

Fair enough. I've never said the Silm was anything like perfect. However, I think it's nearest thing to a definitive history of the Elder Days available. If/when the Estate puts out something to supplement or supplant it, I'll be more than happy to roll with that.

So, even though the published Silmarillion is not perfect, you are happy to roll with it because it’s the nearest thing to a definitive history of the Elder Days available. What then of the HoME volumes covering the Elder Days plus Unfinished Tales and The Children of Húrin which include much more material?

More of us here are willing to roll with all this material. That this includes a lot of material which is difficult to remember as not a reason to reject this material. I suspect you really support The Silmarillion so much because accepting only that is easier, not because it can be logically argued. But you are ignoring much material that may make a paper by you convincing or obviously bogus.

While I think there is something flat earth about ignoring the existance of HoME, I did have a lot of sympathy for the Oxonmoot speaker who was pounced on and told here theory was WRONG because an essay in HOME contradicted it even though it was A valid interpretation of the event as recounted in the published Silmarillion

I recall the first Tolkien paper I attended, at a conference in Toronto, in which the speaker laughed at the idea that Tolkien considered Gandalf an angel. This was before The Silmarillion or Letters had emerged, and then Unfinished Tales.

Maybe the reader you heard was equally WRONG. I’ve since encountered lots of wrong papers where the reader believes what he or she wants to believe.

If the reader you heard was on the ball, he would have mentioned the HoME essay and then briefly given some bogus reason why he was not considering it. As it is, apparently he was caught unprepared.

[Mithalwen]

Jallanite, it wasn't that kind of wrongness. I don't want to be more explicit since it would identify those concerned and I don't want to get into that kind of public row potentially based on memory and any notes I might be able to decipher. IIRC the speaker had to curtail the paper and time restriction also meant that they were denied the chance to respond. I could pm if you atr particularly curious.

[jallanite]

The information you provided is sufficient.

I gather you think that possibly the paper might have been fine given time and an oppurtunity to respond. I’ve been in that situation so I understand.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

As to statements by CT or the Estate, note that on the dust jacket of Tolkien’s The Fall of Arthur it is stated: “The Fall of Arthur, the only venture by J.R.R. Tolkien into the legends of Arthur King of Britain ...”. This entirely ignores “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight” in J. R. R. Tolkien’s Sir Gawain and the Green Knight: Pearl: Sir Orfeo.

Jacket blurbs come from the publisher, not the author; and Tolkien's Gawain was just a translation of a 14th-c poem, not an original work.


---------------------------------------
It might be relevant to hear what Guy Kay had to say about the process of constructing the Silmarillion, and CT's intentions. When GK came aboard, CT's plan had been to present the Silmarillion material in keeping with the sentiment he expressed in the excerpt given above from "The War of the Jewels"- that the work is its history, in a way, and what CT envisioned at that time was something like UT:
"The initial idea had been to produce a scholarly text rather than a single narrative. Such a book would have been some 1300 pages long, and would have consisted of chapters which had as their main text the latest version of the passage concerned, followed by appendices giving variant readings from other, earlier versions, complete with an editorial apparatus of footnotes and comments on dates and inconsistencies, and so on. The first two chapters had already been drafted by Christopher Tolkien in this academic style when Kay started work. However, Kay felt strongly that such an approach was the wrong one ..."

It was in great part Kay who convinced him to make a "synthetic" Silmarillion for publication, and I get the feeling that CT has always had nagging doubts about having agreed to do so.

[jallanite]

As to statements by CT or the Estate, note that on the dust jacket of Tolkien’s The Fall of Arthur it is stated: “The Fall of Arthur, the only venture by J.R.R. Tolkien into the legends of Arthur King of Britain ...”. This entirely ignores “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight” in J. R. R. Tolkien’s Sir Gawain and the Green Knight: Pearl: Sir Orfeo.

Jacket blurbs come from the publisher, not the author; and Tolkien's Gawain was just a translation of a 14th-c poem, not an original work.

I am quite aware of that. But often the author of the book, or in this case the editor, in involved in discussing them before they are finally printed. But in this case someone slipped. The blurb might have said something like The Fall of Arthur, the only venture by J.R.R. Tolkien into the legends of Arthur King of Britain (save for his translation of ‘Sir Gawain and the Green Knight’) ...
or likeThe Fall of Arthur, by J.R.R. Tolkien; not a translation, but a verse venture into the legends of Arthur King of Britain mostly from his own imagination ...
As it reads now, it is inaccurate.

It might be relevant to hear what Guy Kay had to say about the process of constructing the Silmarillion, and CT's intentions. When GK came aboard, CT's plan had been to present the Silmarillion material in keeping with the sentiment he expressed in the excerpt given above from "The War of the Jewels"- that the work is its history, in a way, and what CT envisioned at that time was something like UT:"The initial idea had been to produce a scholarly text rather than a single narrative. Such a book would have been some 1300 pages long, and would have consisted of chapters which had as their main text the latest version of the passage concerned, followed by appendices giving variant readings from other, earlier versions, complete with an editorial apparatus of footnotes and comments on dates and inconsistencies, and so on. The first two chapters had already been drafted by Christopher Tolkien in this academic style when Kay started work. However, Kay felt strongly that such an approach was the wrong one ..." It was in great part Kay who convinced him to make a "synthetic" Silmarillion for publication, and I get the feeling that CT has always had nagging doubts about having agreed to do so.Quite so. I think Guy Kay was quite right in this, but that the other treatment was also required. Now Christopher Tolkien has provided both to us.

[lindil]

Personally, CJRT had the right approach at first, there could still be a brilliant 'annotated' silmarillion that has all the major variants and incredible bits of HoME with minimal commentary. Hopefully douglas anderson or someone with cjrt's ear can pull it off. too much incredible material is buried in HoME thatr would be perfectly in place in a greater silmarillion. As to what is canon, i don't too much care anymore, though a group trying to work it out is an understandable if hazardous exercise ;-).

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Um, HoME already exists. Why do we need an "abridged version?"

(Incidentally, I did ask Christopher about the prospect of a sort of "Unfinished Tales II" or "HoME Reader" which would repackage some of the more complete narratives like The Wanderings of Hurin, the LR Epilogue and so forth with reduced commentary into a single ca 400 page volume. He was unenthusiastic.)

[mhagain]

JRRT's will essentially gave CJRT the right to do whatever he wanted with the unpublished material; he could:

publish edit alter rewrite or complete any work of mine which may be unpublished at my death or to destroy the whole or any part or parts of any such unpublished works as he in his absolute discretion may think fit and subject thereto

(Source: http://sacnoths.blogspot.com/2009/12/tolkiens-will.html)

Based on that I don't think we've much choice but to accept the published Silmarillion as being anything other than in accordance with JRRT's wishes, which distils the debate down to whether or not it's what JRRT would have done had he lived.

I personally don't think that JRRT would have ever completed the Silmarillion. He'd become too distracted by cosmological and philosophical matters, and his apparent preferred direction would - IMO have destroyed the myth of the Trees. I think CJRT made the right decisions here.

I'm not sure if I'm in a minority or if this is a controversial statement, but I also hugely approve of what CJRT did with the Ruin of Doriath. The image of Thingol's death is one of the most abiding (and saddest) memories from my first reading, and I even think JRRT would have given it the nod as "what really happened" (and no doubt niggled endlessly over some of the finer points).

In the end I view the published Silmarillion as being in the legendary world what it also is in the real world - a compilation of divergent material from different sources, some historical, some mythical, but not all necessarily accurate. View it as a way of saying "according to one version of the mythology this is what happened, but there are other versions and they may or may not say different". In the end it is mostly dealing with a mythical age, preserved in various traditions but mostly recorded later and filtered through poor understanding and whatever scraps survived the various Disasters. It's as if there were 12 Homers each of who wrote their own Iliad, then a later author assembles them into an account which is neither wholly accurate to the 12 sources nor reflective of an actual historical Trojan War.

I think that view is actually quite representative of JRRT's own, and may be one reason why CJRT is happy to let the published work stand, even if dissatisfied with much of what he did in constructing it.

[jallanite]

Based on that I don't think we've much choice but to accept the published Silmarillion as being anything other than in accordance with JRRT's wishes, which distils the debate down to whether or not it's what JRRT would have done had he lived.

Anyone is still at perfect liberty to personally approve or disapprove what Christopher Tolkien has done, regardless of whether it might have been or not been in accord with his father’s wishes. Personally I generally approve of what Christopher Tolkien has done, which is about the best that can be reasonably hoped for.

He'd become too distracted by cosmological and philosophical matters, and his apparent preferred direction would - IMO have destroyed the myth of the Trees. I think CJRT made the right decisions here.J. R. R. Tolkien did not intend to destroy the myth of the Two Trees. Much of it appears in the Appendices to The Lord of the Rings. In Morgoth’s Ring (HoME X) J. R. R. Tolkien announced his attention to rework his universe into a more realistic round-Earth universe, but still to retain his older flat-Earth cosmogony as Mannish legend, thus allowing the old Silmarillion concepts to still exist, but now to be considered as distorted mythology. He was somewhat imagining a world like that of Classical Greece and Rome, in which almost everyone who was educated knew that the Earth was really spherical in shape following the scientific findings of natural philosophers but still retold the old myths, now commonly known as “the lies of the poets” .

For example, in Ovid’s Metamorphoses the poem begins with a creation story taken from then popular natural philosophy in which a god or gods creates the universe from a confused mass of atoms. Ovid’s Earth is apparently spherical. Ovid writes, beginning with Bk. I lines 32–51 (A. S. Kline’s translation):When whichever god it was had ordered and divided the mass, and collected it into separate parts, he first gathered the earth into a great ball so that it was uniform on all sides. Then he ordered the seas to spread and rise in waves in the flowing winds and pour around the coasts of the encircled land. He added springs and standing pools and lakes, and contained in shelving banks the widely separated rivers, some of which are swallowed by the earth itself, others of which reach the sea and entering the expanse of open waters beat against coastlines instead of riverbanks. He ordered the plains to extend, the valleys to subside, leaves to hide the trees, stony mountains to rise: and just as the heavens are divided into two zones to the north and two to the south, with a fifth and hotter between them, so the god carefully marked out the enclosed matter with the same number, and described as many regions on the earth. The equatorial zone is too hot to be habitable; the two poles are covered by deep snow; and he placed two regions between and gave them a temperate climate mixing heat and cold. But later when telling the myth of Phaethon, Ovid unscientifically pictures the Earth as flat with the sun-god rising in the air every day from its eastern parts. See Bk. II line 1 and following.

On page 374 of Morgoth’s Ring J. R. R. Tolkien records in note 2:The cosmogonic myths are Númenorian, blending Elven-lore with human myth and imagination. A note should say that the Wise of Númenor recorded that the making of stars was not so, nor of Sun and Moon. For Sun and stars were all older than Arda. But the placing of Arda amidst the Stars and under [?guard] of the Sun was due to Manwë and Varda before the assault of Melkor.
Seemingly Tolkien planned to insert similar notes in his Silmarillion when eventually completed. Tolkien in this fashion would be able to retain both his Silmarillion stores of a flat Earth and a more scientific depiction of the cosmology of his world without having to explain everything scientifically.

Beginning with the section “Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth” in Morgoth’s Ring and going through the following two HoME books, when referencing the period before the first rising of the Sun in the Silmarillion tradition, Tolkien always imagines normal days and sunlight, not darkness under the stars. He distinguishes clearly what was written in the Silmarillion document from what supposedly really happened.

In The Hobbit Tolkien in the chapter 8 “Flies and Spiders” originally wrote a sentence which imagines a late first raising of Moon and Sun: In the Wide World the Wood-elves lingered in the twilight before the raising of the Sun and Moon; and afterwards they wandered in the forests that grew beneath the sunrise.
In 1966 Tolkien revised this sentence to remove the raising of the Sun and Moon: In the Wide World the Wood-elves lingered in the twilight of our Sun and Moon, but loved best the stars; and they wandered in the great forests that grew tall in lands that are now lost.
In The Fellowship of the Ring, Book II, chapter 4 “A Journey in the Dark”, Gimli recites a poem about the awakening of his distant ancestor Durin:

      The world was young, the mountains green,
      No stain yet on the Moon was seen,
      No words were laid on stream or stone
      When Durin woke and walked alone.

This is set in an ancient time when the moon is still unmarked, but according to Silmarillion chronology the moon should not yet even exist when Durin woke.

Tolkien’s account of the elder Days as given by Treebeard also disagrees with the Silmarillion account.

Seemingly Tolkien when writing The Lord of the Rings decided that no era in which the Earth had been sunless ever existed, except in the Mannish tales incorporated in The Silmarillion. He later consistently distinguished between Silmarillion tradition and traditions deriving from the Wise.

I'm not sure if I'm in a minority or if this is a controversial statement, but I also hugely approve of what CJRT did with the Ruin of Doriath. The image of Thingol's death is one of the most abiding (and saddest) memories from my first reading, and I even think JRRT would have given it the nod as "what really happened" (and no doubt niggled endlessly over some of the finer points).In The War of the Jewels (HoME XI), page 22, Christopher Tolkien writes:This story was not lightly or easily conceived, but was the outcome of long experimentation among alternative conceptions. In this work Guy Kay took a major part, and the chapter that I finally wrote owes much to my discussions with him. It is, and was, obvious that a step was being taken of a different order from any other ‘manipulation’ of my father’s own writing in the course of the book: even in the case of the story of The Fall of Gondolin, to which my father had never returned, something could be contrived without introducing radical changes in the narrative. It seemed at that time that there were elements inherent in the story of the Ruin of Doriath as it stood that were radically incompatible with ‘The Silmarillion’ as projected, and that there was here an inescapable choice: either to abandon that conception, or else to alter the story. I think now that this was a mistaken view, and that the undoubted difficulties could have been, and should have been, surmounted without so far overstepping the bounds of the editorial function.
In short Christopher Tolkien disagrees with you. He does not give his account the nod. In any case, Thingol’s death is part of all recorded versions. The site project version is to be found here: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=4425 .

It's as if there were 12 Homers each of who wrote their own Iliad, then a later author assembles them into an account which is neither wholly accurate to the 12 sources nor reflective of an actual historical Trojan War. In part, yes. Christopher Tolkien often goes out of his way to point out minor differences between different versions.

I think that view is actually quite representative of JRRT's own, and may be one reason why CJRT is happy to let the published work stand, even if dissatisfied with much of what he did in constructing it. I think it more the case that he finds it impossible to generally produce a better version. I was once involved with a product on this site to produce a new version of the Silmarillion. All of those then involved resigned from the project at different times, I first, because of the difficulty of determining which of J. R. R. Tolkien’s writings would take priority when they disagreed with one another. Again and again there was no way of telling what Tolkien would have finally decided, and we did not want to produce just a fan version of what we thought was best, but to do a better job at producing the Silmarillion than Christopher Tolkien had done. It turned out not to be possible to produce the kind of document we wanted.

[mhagain]

In short Christopher Tolkien disagrees with you.
I'm aware of the texts (I believe I may have been one of the first to note that the Hobbit was a case of the latter Sun and Moon story appearing in print) but I'm happy to live with CT disagreeing with me.

Just to stir it up, another CT-ism that I accept is Gil-galad as the son of Fingon. The reason why is because this keeps the kingship (of the Noldor in Middle-earth) in the house of Fingolfin; it would seem odd indeed if the kingship were to jump across to Finarfin's house.

Aside from making a mockery of the name Ereinion (how could he be a "scion of kings" when his ancestors had never held the kingship in Middle-earth?) it seems to have been Tolkien's intent that Finarfin's family, aside from Galadriel, be wiped-out in the First Age:

Angrod is gone, and Aegnor is gone, and Felagund is no more. Of Finarfin's children I am the last.

Just accepting the latest versions of stories that were left unfinished, and when those versions were possibly a result of Tolkien's infamous niggling (and would no doubt have been niggled even more over had he ever returned to them), may not get an end-result that's in harmony with the rest of the stories.

[jallanite]

Just accepting the latest versions of stories that were left unfinished, and when those versions were possibly a result of Tolkien's infamous niggling (and would no doubt have been niggled even more over had he ever returned to them), may not get an end-result that's in harmony with the rest of the stories.

My point is that Tolkien decided in Morgoth’s Ring that the Silmarillion was, in part, untrue Mannish legend, which allowed him to retain much of the old Silmarillion stories as just stories along with a more scientific viewpoint. That Tolkien, over and above that, also wrote matter that was contradictory is another issue altogether. Confusing these two just makes the matter more confusing.

Your listing of personal details on which you personally disagree with Christopher Tolkien’s Silmarillion tradition contradicts your statement:
Based on that I don't think we've much choice but to accept the published Silmarillion as being anything other than in accordance with JRRT's wishes, which distils the debate down to whether or not it's what JRRT would have done had he lived.
You seemingly do not accept some of Christopher Tolkien’s decisions. I would say you have a perfect right to choose not to accept Christopher Tolkien’s decisions and have already said so. But Tolkien’s decision to change his Silmarillion tradition before the return of the Noldor to make it into partly Mannish legend has the result that often there will be two contradictory versions of any legend, that of the Silmarillion and that of the Wise, both of which Tolkien updated.

My own feeling is that accepting usually does not enter the matter, for me. Tolkien was writing fiction. He intended his writing to be coherent and one may point out where he has failed. But when one coherent statement contradicts another coherent statement then both statements should be equally acceptable. The Silmarillion material was almost all unpublished in Tolkien’s lifetime and so other than likelihood of Tolkien deciding on a particular statement, there is no way to choose among discrepant statements.

[Galin]

Aside from making a mockery of the name Ereinion (how could he be a "scion of kings" when his ancestors had never held the kingship in Middle-earth?)...

Orodreth/Arothir was still King of Nargothrond however, and in the Ereinion text Tolkien notes his descent from Finwe. Plus, I think the only text with Ereinion in it [unless I've missed another reference] dates rather late, 1968 or later, after Tolkien had at least made the change of Orodreth/Arothir being the son of Angrod, and Gil-galad being the son of Arothir.

So a name meaning 'Scion of Kings' seems to have been invented after the switch to Gil-galad [again] becoming a Finarfinian.

[mhagain]

Your listing of personal details on which you personally disagree with Christopher Tolkien’s Silmarillion tradition contradicts your statement:Based on that I don't think we've much choice but to accept the published Silmarillion as being anything other than in accordance with JRRT's wishes, which distils the debate down to whether or not it's what JRRT would have done had he lived.
You seemingly do not accept some of Christopher Tolkien’s decisions. I would say you have a perfect right to choose not to accept Christopher Tolkien’s decisions and have already said so. But Tolkien’s decision to change his Silmarillion tradition before the return of the Noldor to make it into partly Mannish legend has the result that often there will be two contradictory versions of any legend, that of the Silmarillion and that of the Wise, both of which Tolkien updated.
The contradiction is only apparent.

I accept CT's decisions at the time he made them, in the early/mid 70s, and accept them as being in accordance with JRRT's explicit wish that CT take over the reins and do what he wanted.

It's very well documented that CT subsequently came to view many of those decisions as incorrect, so we're not dealing with a single opinion formed at a single point in time here, and I would have hoped that would have been obvious.

[jallanite]

The contradiction is only apparent.

See Galin’s discussion of J. R. R. Tolkien’s actual use of the name Ereinion. If Galin is right here, then Gil-galad at the time that Tolkien named him Ereinion was indeed the “Scion of Kings”.

Yes, legally Christopher Tolkien had the right to do anything he wished with his father’s work. However legally any commentator has the right to criticize what Christopher Tolkien has done, whether that commentator’s criticism is just or not, just as he or she has the legal right to criticize the writings of any other author as long as he or she does not descend to provably libelous statements.

Your statement I still find offensive. The statement was:Based on that I don't think we've much choice but to accept the published Silmarillion as being anything other than in accordance with JRRT's wishes, which distils the debate down to whether or not it's what JRRT would have done had he lived.
Your use of the word we indicates that I, not just you, have no choice but to accept whatever Christoper Tolkien has written. Yet you yourself note that Christopher Tolkien himself “came to view many of those decisions as incorrect”. I don’t think you meant Christopher Tolkien was in any way legally overstepping the limits set by his father’s will. Indeed, had Christopher Tolkien produced a work almost entirely of his own invention (instead of the published Silmarillion he did produce) that would not have transgressed anything in the will. And I don’t see that when Christopher Tolkien “came to view many of those decisions as incorrect” he was suggesting that he had written anything that was legally incorrect.

Your attempt to show that Christopher Tolkien has done nothing illegal (and indeed could have done nothing illegal regardless of what he did write) has no relevance to complaints that have been made about Christopher Tolkien’s writings, complaints I feel are largely unjustified.

[Galin]

Whaddayamean if? ;)

Okay if.

So not that anyone is really questioning me so far, but might as well post the reference from The Shibboleth of Feanor [the first of two]:

'... Galadriel's hair. Galad occurs also in the epesse of Ereinion ('scion of kings') by which he was chiefly remembered in legend, Gil-galad 'star of radiance': he was the last king of the Eldar in Middle-earth, and the last male descendant of Finwe* except Elrond the Half-elven.'

Author's note, note 47: 'He was the son of Arothir, nephew of Finrod.' [see the note on the parentage of Gil-galad, pp. 349 ff. -- From this work was derived Gil-galad's name Ereinion introduced into The Silmarillion.]'

The Peoples Of Middle-Earth

I take Christopher Tolkien to mean ['from this work'] The Shibboleth of Feanor here, itself dated 1968 or later, and the note making Gil-galad the son of Arothir is dated earlier than the Shibboleth, at 1965. Ereinion in Aldarion And Erendis was an editorial change by Christopher Tolkien, and does not occur in the original, which actually had 'Finellach Gil-galad of the House of Finarfin' rather. Other instances in Unfinished Tales seem to be Christopher Tolkien employing the name while describing something.

So far I can't find any other earlier instance of Ereinion, so that's why I say this name occurs only after Gil-galad became, once again, a Finarfinian.

Again just to post it, and to help explain my reference to Finwe earlier.

[Leaf]

Regarding How close would you feel the published Silmarillion is to a version of it that JRRT would've published himself had he lived? Like, percentage wise I guess?

I think the biggest difference between CT´s Silmarillion and a hypothetical version of the Silmarillion made by J.R.R. Tolkien himself would be the frame of the story or the structure of the narrative in general. As it is the structure of the published Silmarillion lacks a history of transmission which is by all means not very tolkienesque. I suppose we all know a great deal about Tolkiens different approaches regarding this subject (Ælfwine etc.). But the question how this allegedly old myths are told seems to be nearly as important as the content of the myths itself. I guess that discussing the various versions of the myths (purely on a contentual level) dismisses this important matter. It´s hard to rate this difference (percentage wise) because it would be substantially distinct from what we´ve got.

[jallanite]

Whaddayamean if?

My apologies. I read your post and you seemed rather dubious about your information. You stated:
Plus, I think the only text with Ereinion in it [unless I've missed another reference] dates rather late, ...
Looking up your references indicates to me that you are entirely correct, inasmuch as Christopher Tolkien originally knew the name Ereinion only from the article “The Shibboleth of Fëanor” in The Peoples of Middle-earth (HoME XII). Other references are taken from there and later are considered by him to be erroneous.

I agree from checking the word scion in several dictionaries that scion means generally “heir of noble birth”, not necessarily a descendant of a king or king, and so equally would be a meaningful name whether Gil-Galad be taken as a son of Fingon or a son of Orodreth.

I note that Tolkien does not even mention Orodreth (or Orodreth’s daughter Finduilas) in Galadriel’s statement brought forth by mhagain. Presumably Orodreth has been forgotten by Tolkien accidentally or Orodreth is now considered to be a son of Finrod and so not mentioned by Galadriel in her utterance concerning her siblings.


I think the biggest difference between CT´s Silmarillion and a hypothetical version of the Silmarillion made by J.R.R. Tolkien himself would be the frame of the story or the structure of the narrative in general.

I agree. Christopher Tolkien could have included some of the material stating that the Silmarillion was only Númenorian legend but may have felt that that would have been too complicated a concept. Best just let the Silmarillion stand as story without any frame.

[Galin]

My apologies. I read your post and you seemed rather dubious about your information.

No apology necessary as I was just joking a bit there [thus the wink emoticon]; and yes I wasn't sure.


I note that Tolkien does not even mention Orodreth (or Orodreth’s daughter Finduilas) in Galadriel’s statement brought forth by mhagain. Presumably Orodreth has been forgotten by Tolkien accidentally or Orodreth is now considered to be a son of Finrod and so not mentioned by Galadriel in her utterance concerning her siblings.

Yep. In note 20 to The Elessar [mhagain's quote is from this text] CJRT also refers to this as noteworthy. Time-wise CJRT guesses The Elessar text was 'probably' written at the same time, or a little earlier than, Concerning Galadriel and Celeborn -- which according to Hammond and Scull, was itself 'perhaps' written at the end of the 1950s.

Not that you didn't know, but to try and note the relative dating of things.

[jallanite]

I didn’t know where mhagain’s quotation was taken from and did not feel like spending hours looking for it, particularly when the quotation didn’t contain the name Orodreth.

Thanks for the info.