[lindil]

Aiwendil posted:

But as the principles now stand, all decisions are in theory based on concrete, objective evidence. There is of course room to interpret that evidence in various ways, and the job of the group vote is to decide as well as possible on the correct interpretation, and how the principles apply to the situation.

well it is 'concrete' that CJRT saw fit to eliminate Rog because as he states" It is absolutely certain that my father would not have retained this name as a lord of Gondolin." 2nd footnote p.211 HB BoLT2.

If we introduce aesthetic considerations...

I perhaps was not clear enough in my last post. In it I revised my proposed Principle #7 to coincide more closely with CJRT's quote above. All references to aesthetics have been removed [although they could still be be a factor, just not an arbitrarily chosen one] as I said above,

"I am thinking that for clarity's sake I would revise the the principle leaving the Euphony/Aesthetics aspect aside and rephrase it as"...


The revised proposed Principle #7 [lindil's]now reads: " JRRT almost certainly would have changed/deleted it."

Aiwendil, from his last post

But I don't think that CRT rejected Rog for aesthetic reasons - he rejected him because he interpreted the evidence as showing that Rog would have disappeared in a later account.

I think the above quote from CJRT is clear that this is not the case. He would not [necessarily] have disappeared according to CJRT, his name would have. again from CJRT: " I removed the reference to ROg on the grounds that my father would not have retained [/i] this name[/i] as that of a lord of Gondolin.

I realize I maybe trying the patience of all concerned here with this principle and the specific application of it to Rog but I think it is an extremely important point in general [ even if we never use it again] and specifically for Rog as it re-inforces the importance of our Revised Silmarillion/Translations from the Elvish, being as beautiful to read as the current version.

Which of course brings us back to stylistic editing.

I will agree that if no one else [ or rather a majority] wishes to see this project go into the stage of literary polishing just as would any book for publication, then there is no need to delete Rog's name, It is still not for certain that his person/actions could not in some fashion be retained, and indeed for the purposes of the rough draft we could exclude a revised principle 7 altogether. Keep in any dubious points since they are a matter of historical note only, and not particularly relevant to a litrerary edition.

But the bar for what is acceptable or up to the standards of the 77/01 Silmarillion are significantly higher.

So perhaps we should decide as a group the following 2 points in the following order:

1- do we want to have a stylistically uniform version at the end of our labours?

and if so

2- shall we apply the proposed principle #7 " JRRT almost certainly would have changed/deleted it."if at all only to this 'literary' version or to both the draft and a final stylistically harmonized literary version?

I hope that the other members are waiting for the dust of Aiwendil's and I's debate to settle and are not missing this. I am rather puzzled at the absence of our co-workers in this discusion, but perhaps that is because I know I would not be patient enough to wait for A. and I myself to finish! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ].

One other point I neglected to address:
I stated above "...I see no reason why the stylistic work done by a small team and then voted on by the group [ at least those who have an interest on a group stylistically crafted version] should not be a part of the aim [ indeed THE Aim] of the group from the get - go." to which Aiwenndil responded

I like this idea in theory, but I foresee some difficulty in implementing it. Quite simply: do we have the resources in terms of people and time to work on two projects concurrently? I would definitely be interested to hear a more specific proposal.

I am happy to come up with a more specific proposal for organizing the stylistic/literary editing phase if it is deemed necessary to see such a plan before a vote on whether to do such a revision or not. Iwill not attempt it however at this hour.

And finally on Aiwndil's proposed revised principle 7 he says the following:

Regarding the second point: I think I have made it fairly clear that I favor the old principle 7, and that I think that the various points mentioned (Rog, Legolas, mechanical dragons, etc.) can be (and have been) dealt with without the new principle. However, I think that some of the debate may be a result of an ambiguity within the original principle 7. I propose, then, a revision of the old principle rather than a replacement. I suggest:

7. It is not for us to decide what is aesthetically superior; all changes and decisions must be justified by the above principles, either:
a) with explicit indication; that is, a text of greater precedence contradicting a text of lesser precedence, or
b) with implicit indication; that is, a text of greater precedence suggesting beyond reasonable doubt a contradiction with a text of lesser precedence, or
c) in cases where two options are given precisely equal validity by the above guidelines, by a majority vote based on personal aesthetics and individual opinions.

A corallary is that we may not disregard anything written by JRRT unless it is invalidated by one of the above principles, explicitly or implicitly; that is, we must have a REASON for rejecting something.

specifically from the above I think I can reply to it all by addressing the specific line below

I think that the various points mentioned (Rog, ...etc.) can be (and have been) dealt with without the new principle.

I do not think Rog has not been dealt with and I find Aiwendil's proposal far more complicated [ actually I will admit to confusion especially as to how it applies to Rog at all, but again I have been working on this from 2-5 am [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] ]. I think my simple formulation echoes CJRT's own priciple for dealing with Rog.

I am wiling to leave the question of Mechanical Dragons and Laegolas aside, although, I am more sure than ever that we erred in not applying [ or in my not proposing] a new #7 from much earlier on.

However to maintain what forward momentum we have I am happily [very happily I should add!] willing to postpone any revisiting of the Laegolas and Mechanical Dragons issue till such time as the rest of the TftE project is complete and we are reviewing everything for a final version. I agree it would be distracting, disheartening and confusing to re-open those issues now.

However I urge all members to ponder the proposals [ 2 for myself and 1 from Aiwendil]
and let us decide and move forward.

IS there anybody out there?
[img]smilies/cool.gif[/img]

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]