[davem]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

No, not of the story. But one could argue that one's experience of the world is different since the languages provide such a grounding.

Different, yes, but ....beyond that its a matter of opinion - the more onw changes in order to conform the more of one's individual participation in co-creation one sacrifices.

Similarly, does knowledge of the Silm enhance or detract a reader's experience of rereading LotR?

It obviously alters it - after reading the Silm LotR becomes a 'smaller' thing, just a tiny part of a bigger - but ultimaterly more delimited world. The more we find out about the history of M-e the less freedom we have to imagine thngs into that world. Its the unexplored vistas thing...

But once they got published Tolkien tried his best to treat them as they were as set in stone. So I think that the pronunciations do require a somewhat elevated status compared to the illustrations if you're selling your take on it--though not nearly as high as the facts presented in the text itself.

Except when he got the chance to change them (Riddles in the Dark in TH, the numerous smaller but occasionally significant changes in the 2nd ed of LotR). Tolkien wasn't averse to simply changing or even inventing things on the spot (cf Raynor Unwin's statement that when Pauline Baynes was having a problem with the poster map of LotR she had been commissioned to paint - too much empty space when the map was blown up to that size - Tolkien simply invented some features to fill in the gaps). Tolkien certainly felt freer to play with his creation than many geeks like to admit. Many things - as you've mentioned re the Appendices - don't quite 'fit', & fans seem to prefer to 'invent' complex explanations of their own in a desire for 'consistency' rather than simply acknowledge that Tolkien 'slipped up'.

And there are other visualizations that, if made available, would help counteract the monolithicness of the Jacksonian vision. I was pleasantly stunned by the symbolic, minimalist imagery of the Stage Show, which proved to me that there really is a completely different way of looking at everything that can still be valid.

I never saw the stage show, but I have the book & the album, & I have to say that it is often an improvement on the more 'conservative' approach taken by the movie makers.

Is this considered better or worse than this reader sticking with his/her original visualizations?

I wouldn't judge them either way - its what works for them. If they are more at home with their original pictures they should stick to them.

I think you and I at least agree that Middle-earth will always exist somewhere between the text and the reader... we just differ on where the fuzzy borders of that zone stand.

But it should be a co-creation. The reader should not feel 'forced' into surrendering ground in order to conform to some 'ideal' - if as a result they lose some of the magic which first attracted them into the secondary world..