<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 24</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Creating a new Silmarillion -- some ideas...
Michael; I find the argument interestin, and am currently over in Duneadains camp discussin this very thing. The question ya pose is: can they be Mythology and Science fact both. Answer is yuppers. Can it be done with Tolkien's own work as he probably would have and can it be done without re-writing Tolkien? Yuppers. Your points of Balrog wings and such are personal opinions inserted into a proposed canon. I think the object here is to use what's available from Tolkien without creating new or defining further that which is hotly debated simply as a convenient 'clarification'. Andreth is a part of the saga, yup. Turin at the end? Workin backwards from last material to beginnin, if he isn't eliminated from direct statements to to contrary, then I really don't see why he should be excluded from 'Mannish' lore or legend. If anything this solidifies the Mythology inside a Mythology that Tolkien seems to have arrived at as a solution for problem areas. The tale of Turin is defined by Tolkien as a Mannish tale not an Elvish one, and is suggested by him as a piece for the ATANATARION.
Does this make things of this nature Mythology or science fact, or can they exist side by side as Tolkien seems to have been attempting to accomplish at the end? They can, as far as I see. As I mentioned in another thread somewhere, I'd personally like to see all the references incorporated. Does that make it right to do so. No. Should it be done so? No. Tolkien was willing to drop the trees because he couldn't resolve the situation. Shame he didn't see the solution I saw (opinion). I 'believe' even the lamps could be salvaged without textual problems. Would it affect the story? Depends on what material survives the cuts. Then a decision would be made, not presaged cause it's a cool idea and there was alot written on it.
So from this; if Tolkien was willing to drop and change events (done frequently) should this project do otherwise? I'm not advocating actual words bein written which would infringe copyright, but a discussion on elements that can be resolved. It's up to those who wish, to create the words on screen (for personal use).
In the end; the Silmarillion is what one sees it to be, since in essence it is malleable to all, with the additional material Christopher has given. This is much the same for LOTR if that were to be done as an example. People read into the text what they envision. There is no singular absolute rendering of events in the minds of all people. When you picture the Ford of Rivendell, do you see what others have seen or do you see it in your mind's eye based on a place you've seen or one you've imagined? Would you alter a word of the text if it didn't EXACTLY conform to your personal vision? Maybe you picture the cloaks of the nazgul appearing on the banks with details not mentioned. Would it be correct to add these new words? With the additional material from the HISTORY would you add the words Gandalf speaks to Frodo (as he awakes from Elrond's healing) concerning the fate of the Nine Rings simply because it's a clarification (which may or may not have been abandoned)? Using LOTR as an example shows how this should be accomplished.
I mentioned earlier (in a thread somewhere), should (in this aped example) Trotter the hobbit, or Odo the hobbit, or the many rings of power or the elf-wraiths be retained simply because they were written, when later text shows they were abandoned and would conflict with existing text? No. they are eliminated, despite the fact that they are interesting. Would it be correct to attempt to eliminate other text relating to these points so they could be inserted? I think the answer speaks for itself. NO. This project (if undertaken) must keep these points in mind. Not every single detail is important. Now we have in the SILMARILLION a different problem. These divergent points are present and must be deciphered, not integrated.
Would this classify as 'canon'? I think so, as far as is possible anyway with what is available. And in this an empathy with Christopher may be seen quite clearly.
Perhaps the definition of working canon needs clarification.
</p>
|