Galin and
Findegil, thanks for some good points about distinguishing between different kinds of ambiguity. As for terminology, both of the distinctions you've suggested (internal/external vs intended/unintended) have their merits in my eyes, and I don't think one can replace the other - meaning that while it's probably safe to assume that an external ambiguity is unintended, the reverse isn't necessarily true: e.g. the two versions of The Elessar constitute an internal ambiguity in so far as they're presented as conflicting traditions within the secondary world, but does that mean the ambiguity is therefore intended? In other words, did the Prof leave the story ambiguous because he wanted it that way, or was he experimenting with two different stories on the spot and using the translator conceit to camouflage his own indecision? (The final note which has two Elessars and Celebrimbor as the smith of both seems to indicate the latter - apparently he had made up his mind [for the moment at least], therefore no more need for having two differing traditions.)
But *sticks out his neck*
how much does it really matter?
It obviously does a lot if you're trying to construct something like the New and Definitive Silmarillion (and if I'm not mistaken, both of you are among our Translators from the Elvish, aren't you?), coming as close as possible to what a final authoritative text might have looked like if the Prof had ever got around to publishing it himself. But otherwise?
To be sure, the high degree of internal consistency within the subcreated world is what makes Tolkien's Legendarium so fascinating and unique among works of fantasy (and I don't think this consistency is seriously compromised by a few vague spots at the margins of the elaborate map, labelled 'Here There Be Uncertainties'). But as far as I'm concerned, achieving this consistency was the author's job, it's not mine. If you manage to reconcile some of the conflicting versions by ascribing them to differing sources in the secondary world (as in
Galin's case of
The Drowning of Anadűne vs
Akallabęth), that's nice - I guess you could even explain the BoLT
Tale of Tinúviel as a children's fairy-tale version from Fourth Age Gondor, or something of the like - , but it's not necessary for me in order to appreciate them.
(This isn't, of course, meant to diss your dedicated efforts, nor to niggle
with anything in either of your posts - and btw, I feel
Galin's wasn't so much niggling with mine as coming from a rather different angle. I'm just elaborating on what I said before and thinking aloud to clarify my own position.)
To sum it up, I've discovered that, as a reader of Tolkien, I find the process of his subcreation at least as fascinating as the result, and looking at all the various transmutations of the Legendarium from BoLT to Myths Transformed, I'm rather more interested in observing his mind and imagination at work, seeing him trying out and rejecting different names and stories as he struggled to 'find out what really happened' (as he'd no doubt have put it) than I am in 'finding out what really happened' myself, or in determining his final thoughts on 'what really happened' (especially as he'd probably have flip-flopped time and again over any given question if he'd had enough time; it seems publication was the only thing that could make him settle on one version and stick with it). I have my preferences, of course, but those have (at the risk of disturbing a famous canned worm in its sleep) everything to do with my subjective aesthetic taste and rather little with the author's presumed last will - for me, Anar and Isil will always be the last fruit of Laurelin and Telperion's last blossom, and my Orcs are corrupted Elves, period. (As for the Elessar, I don't care much who made it, but there was only one.)
(x-ed with
Galin's last)
EDIT: some paragraph spacing to improve readability
