Christopher Tolkien bridged some gaps when he compiled the published Silmarillion. The extant Silmarillion texts contain a vast amount of inconsistencies, and for the published version Christopher edited it to be as coherent as possible. He has said (in I believe more than one place) that he would have done the Silmarillion differently today.
The HoMe series contains all of the materials that CT had at his disposal when patching together the '77 Silmarillion. It is basically everything included in '77 and a whole lot more. It is for this reason that I say the series is more reliable than the '77. He naturally rejected the new ideas of later texts (such as Myths Transformed) because including them would have required much creative writing on his part; much more than he was willing to do (not out of laziness, but rather out of respect for his father's work). These are authentic Tolkien writings, and we cannot for any reason view them as less 'true' than, say, the Quenta Silmarillion. The only difference is that a lot of the newer concepts exist in the form of essays rather than narrative.
I honestly still can't see how anyone could say that the '77 Silmarillion is more reliable than these volumes that contain all of the original texts. Tolkien himself never published any of the Silmarillion. How can any part of that incomplete, unpublished work be more 'canon' than any other, save when it possibly reflects Tolkien's later, more refined concepts? It is all equally incomplete, and was all (as far as we can say) equally unacceptable for publication to Tolkien.
Of course, you can choose to accept or reject whatever you like, since we have no idea what would have been modified before the Silmarillion was published. Please realize, however, that there is not necessarily just one factual answer to a lot of Middle-earth questions, and it is only logical to accept the latest concepts as the most valid.
|