Editorial Footnote/Apendices?
 

I did read some of the older threads, but could not find any that picked on that point. But I remember that it was already discussed once. Well in the end I could find it and so here it goes again.

Since as every body has marked during the editing of the text, we encounter some problems were we can not be sure that we found what could be call cannon with out any doubts. Since the text is restricted to the story itself, much of what we discussed wil go to nirwana when the text is finished. As a result many of our decission (however we reached them) will be not easilly understand by the readers of our product. As an example I will take the case of Rog. What ever we do in the end with this name there will be a group of us that is not quite happy with the result. Would it be nice to give a editorial footnote to the text were we could explain why we did use or not use Rog? On a greater scall: Since in the end all markers for the sources of the texts we used will be eliminated, I would like to give an appendix for each chapter were we could mention the sources and how we worked them into our text. The critical points (such as Rog) could be adresse there with a kind of discussion (mayority and minority report if you like). I think that this would make it much easier for the minority to accept what the mayority will do. And some very cumbersome points even make it easier to find a solution, since the alternativ could be shown and discussed.

Respectfully
Findegil

P.S.: In many cases the actual text of such an Apendix would be a recapitualation of our discussions, so that the amount of additional work is small, while the benefit might be great.

This is an excellent idea. I think that years ago jallanite suggested something along these lines, but nothing further was ever said about it.

Perhaps it would work best as an appendix with a section for each chapter. This would prevent the interruption of the text itself with footnotes.

I agree too. We could do something like what Christopher Tolkien did with the Unfinished Tales. We could put little superscripts on the sentences that mention the topic of discussion, such as Rog, for example, and at the end of the chapter, put a little summary of the discussions that we had about it, corresponding to the number of the superscript.

I agree with Aiwendil, that footnotes or little superscripts would distract the readers attention from the text it self. Since we only will adress major topics or difficult cases, I think that these will be easilly identified in the text whithout footnotes or superscripts. The froword to each chapter in the Unfinished Tales is a good example. But since our editing is much havier our Appendices will naturally much more detailed.

Respectfully
Findegil

I agree with Aiwendil's version and think leaving all such external textual considerations to an appendix [or series of them] is the way to go.

The text itself except for the rare footnote (as I think was adopted in Ainulindale) should [imo] read as one continuous tale as per the 77.

I love it. A silmarillion minority report.

I had thought that everything should be written as cleanly and naturally seeming as possible, give or take roughly written or choppy passages where that is the nature of what there is---The emphasis on assemblage of JRRT's direct text with only obvious edits and innocuous bridges.

I might see the very rare footnote to provide additional information in the form context, asides and tangents based on JRRT's own words as much as possible, but where insertion into the main flow of the story did not work, but NOT comments.

The only appendices I might see would be follow-up stories and side tales (e.g., "The Faithful Stone") to some of the larger stories. (The LoTR appendices with some of the great stuff in HoME XII would be interspearsed as a telling of the Third Age).

What I think you have in mind is really a companion piece, possibly an Appendix to the whole thing, unto itself, that refers back to the Project text and points out issues of doubt, problems resolved, justifications, alternative positions, or contraditions in the canon that could not be satifactorily addressed, and were largely exorcised.