[Mithalwen]

Not sure if this is a good moment to explain my rationality since I have been demented most of the day. I am not saying that a talking sword is impossible but I still think that given the state of Turin's mind the aural hallucination is not a peverse reading. It is not to be sure an issue that costs me any sleep. I don't think it devalues tolkien's imagination. I don't actually ever think of Tolkien's work as Fantasy. To me it is a fictional reality. And particularly in the Silmarillion the characters have a psychological depth which is sometimes lacking in the plot driven LOTR and hobbit. The events of the Silmarillion are so often character driven and so the mind set of the characters cannot be disregarded.

To clarify my differentiation of the three main works I would say that it is not that I regard the LOTR as being more true or accurate per se but say if LOTR is the Red Book of Westmarch it is presented as a book written and collated as very recent history, The Silmarillion would be Bilbo's translations from the Elvish and the Hobbit is the tale of Bilbo's adventures, andwe know that he economised with the truth about them..... if we have to accept them as "fact" in the same way as the LOTR then it means that most Elves of Rivendell metamorphasised in fifty years from being insanely camp and inane beings tralalalallying in their valley to being founts of nobility and wisdom (though not entirely uncamp). As for "translations" - well if only Elrond remains even at RIvendell who knows all the old lore correctly, must we take Bilbo's versions as Gospel? Although that is perhaps not the best choice of phrase since I don't take every word of the Bible as "gospell" and it didn't stop me being a Christian for many years - my lapse was entirely unrelated to cynicism about miracles.

I don't think it denigrates the immensity of Tolkien's creation to apply judgments about documentary sources that I would apply in the "real" world - in fact maybe it shows its strength.