[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Yes. My issue is with the bringing forth of HOME information with a concurrent argument of why it should take precedence over The Silmarillion. If someone wants to put more stock into HOME, fine. But everyone should not be expected to fall in line with that.

Your statement “if someone wants to put more stock into HOME” mistates the point. I don”t know of anyone who “wants to put more stock into HOME” in general. People just state information about Tolkien from various pieces of data and argue about it and naturally include the published Silmarillion and HoME and various other writings by J. R. R.  Tolkien and Christoper Tolkien.

I accept no-ones’ attempted limitation on this material of any kind. One may on particular topics place more value on a section of HoME than a section of the published Silmarillion because for that topic the material found in HoME appears more pertinent to the discussion. One may also point out where appropriate that portions of the published Silmarillion were complete inventions by Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay, not deriving from anything written by J. R. R. Tolkien.

One “should not be expected to fall in line” with any argument that one thinks does not stand up. One should argue back in return, or ignore the argument.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I just think that in some instances it becomes necessary, when debating particular points about the works, to have a definite standard. Otherwise, there would seem to be little point in putting forth opinions at all, when they can be countered by endless citations of drafts and whatnot.

You provided no indication of what you are talking about. There is certainly no point in providing opinions that “can be countered by endless citations of drafts and whatnot.” If there are really “endless citations of drafts and whatnot” than the opinion is probably invalid. That seems to me to be obvious.

When the published Silmarillion and other sources are at odds, I'm going with the Silm. Let others do as they like.

Are you then mindlessly going with whatever appears in the published Silmarillion in any discussion, regardless of what appears elsewhere, even if “endless citations of drafts and whatnot” are against it? That is not a very convincing position to take. So you believe that Galadriel’s statement in the Fellowship that she crossed into Lórien in the First Age is wrong and that the Silmarillion statement that no Noldor crossed the Ered Lindon in the First Age is correct.

In fact both Fellowship and the published Silmarillion are fictional stories and you shouldn’t believe anything in either of them.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Fair enough. I've never said the Silm was anything like perfect. However, I think it's nearest thing to a definitive history of the Elder Days available. If/when the Estate puts out something to supplement or supplant it, I'll be more than happy to roll with that.

So, even though the published Silmarillion is not perfect, you are happy to roll with it because it’s the nearest thing to a definitive history of the Elder Days available. What then of the HoME volumes covering the Elder Days plus Unfinished Tales and The Children of Húrin which include much more material?

More of us here are willing to roll with all this material. That this includes a lot of material which is difficult to remember as not a reason to reject this material. I suspect you really support The Silmarillion so much because accepting only that is easier, not because it can be logically argued. But you are ignoring much material that may make a paper by you convincing or obviously bogus.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

While I think there is something flat earth about ignoring the existance of HoME, I did have a lot of sympathy for the Oxonmoot speaker who was pounced on and told here theory was WRONG because an essay in HOME contradicted it even though it was A valid interpretation of the event as recounted in the published Silmarillion

I recall the first Tolkien paper I attended, at a conference in Toronto, in which the speaker laughed at the idea that Tolkien considered Gandalf an angel. This was before The Silmarillion or Letters had emerged, and then Unfinished Tales.

Maybe the reader you heard was equally WRONG. I’ve since encountered lots of wrong papers where the reader believes what he or she wants to believe.

If the reader you heard was on the ball, he would have mentioned the HoME essay and then briefly given some bogus reason why he was not considering it. As it is, apparently he was caught unprepared.