[Galin]

Originally Posted by Voronwë_the_Faithful

Apparently, it doesn't matter whether I respond or not, since I explicitly made a point of NOT responding to your last post (with difficulty, because my general policy is to always respond to people who address me, out of common courtesy), and yet you still came back with more criticism.

OK, but this is a thread about your book Doug, and you were responding to my posts at least. Obviously I can still comment on your book here whether you continue to respond or not, as can anyone. And yes I had more criticism.

Now you are complaining that I included a minor point in a footnote rather than in the main text, and didn't elaborate on sufficiently for your taste. Certainly I could have included that information in the main text, and I could have elaborated further, but I felt that the information provided was sufficient to make the point that I was making, and that it was sufficiently minor that it belonged in a footnote. My editor agreed. I could have explicitly pointed out that the uncertainty of the names and even number of the daughters could have been a reason why Christopher did not include them, but I felt that the reader could certainly make that conclusion themselves.

OK fair enough. We have both stated our opinions on this point.

And, of course, the truth of the matter is that there are many characters included in the published Silmarillion whose names were uncertain, and that Christopher was perfectly willing to decide what name to use, so I don't really think that is a likely reason. Still, that discussion could have been more explicitly included in the book, and it is fair to point it out.

Thank you (if I have raised that much anyway). And I realize there are other characters with a measure of ambiguity surrounding the final forms of their names, and I'm suggesting that this example could have been a combination of that, plus that they are arguably very minor characters, as characters go (only briefly referred to).

However, what I don't think is fair is this continued over the top harping on one point, with no leavening by any discussion of anything that you think might be valuable in the book. In my view, there is a certain point where this type of thing leaves the realm of valuable criticism and enters a realm of being ... something else. Clearly we have a different point of view of where that line is.

Well, I'm not sure what makes it 'over the top harping'. Again Doug, you raise each and every example in your book (regarding the role of females) to essentially make or support the argument of a reduction of female roles.

So far I've commented on the specific examples: Galadriel, Uinen, and the 'daughters'... I think (without reading both threads again) and even if there's one more (that I've forgotten) that would only be half of the examples in AR raised to criticise CJRT's Silmarillion.

Galin, I generally like you.

I like you as well, as far as I can tell through 'internet chat' anyway

We have had some very interesting and stimulating discussions about Tolkien over the years on several different boards, and I value that. I just don't understand why you feel necessary to poke this particularly hornet's nest so incessantly. You have long since made the point that you feel that my point about the lessening of the female characters in the published work is neither accurate nor fair. I get it.

OK, and I get why looking at each example might be annoying to the author. And I know you already get the main point Doug, but does that mean a more detailed argument or discussion about the presentation in AR (with anyone) is off the table on the web 'somewhere'?

Others have made that point too. However (with the notable exception of Carl, and even he didn't go on and on nearly as much as you have), all of the others that have made the point have also discussed other aspects of the book that they have found have made significant contributions to Tolkien scholarship (see, for instance, Merlin deTardo's and David Bratman's comments in the latest volume of Tolkien Studies). It is the fact that you just keep belaboring this same point over and over in every different way that you can possibly think of that I find tiresome.

Well in my opinion it's only the 'same point' in the sense that each example you raise in AR intends to be about the reduction of females roles in general. Every once in a while I look at the same exact examples that you raise, and even still haven't looked at all of them, and I am making different points about different examples. And sure even with this there has been some repetition, but in my opinion some of that can be due to this being a different site, or desired better clarity, and to discussion with someone who continues to challenge this or that.

That having been said, you are certainly welcome to continue if that is what you feel compelled to do. I will respond if I feel it has any value to do so, and won't if I don't.

Very well. And my latest opinion may seem 'minor' to you... but in my opinion it is both minor, and it isn't minor -- as it might fit into a larger criticism of this part of your book.

I suspect that maybe if I had had the time to have looked at all these examples in detail and posted my findings and opinions all at once somewhere, as part of my criticism of your presentation on this one issue, you might be reacting differently. But it probably took you some time to look at all these instances, in detail, in a criticism of Christopher Tolkien's presentation of The Silmarillion.

I suppose that might have been the better way to go about it. Or possibly no one would have read such a long post

Again I'm sorry I don't have much positive to say with respect to this part of your book. I've already praised AR as far as presenting the sources (that we know of) behind the published Silmarillion. And this isn't negative, but I usually rather like to jump into HME and see things for myself, although I do use your book now and again to see if it confirms something I've found. That doesn't mean it's not very helpful to those who don't use or own HME obviously.

I was comparing HME (or whatever) to the 1977 Silmarillion well before AR ever came out. As others were of course, and I'm guessing likely you, before you thought to publish a book about it.