[Aiwendil]

Lindil wrote:

Aiwendil, I can now see that your #7 covers Rog - although not, I think from CJRT's POV.

On this point, then, we are still in disagreement. But as it is really a minor point, I think it might be best to spill no more blood over it. I think we are close to an agreement.

I do however see a your #7 as inherently anti-stylistic harmonization, even though that may not [ and I assume is not] your intent:

"It is not for us to decide what is aesthetically superior"

A stylistic harmonization is exactly that.

This is an excellent point. I agree that, regardless of what our eventual decision is with regard to stylistic changes, we should certainly not explicitly forbid it at present.

With regard to Rog, Legolas, and mechanical dragons: I think that under either of our principles there are still valid arguments on both sides. I don't think that either necessarily means that we must drop "Rog" or "Legolas", nor does it mean that we must keep them. However, they do give us a better context within which those arguments can be made, and a better criterion for establishing the validity of either argument.

I like your idea of merging our principles, and I like your proposed amalgamation. But I would prefer to group yours with my 2b, since they are essentially talking about the same thing. I would also like to keep the little corollary. I propose:

7. Personal aesthetics are not to be used in establishing the actual events in the narrative; all changes and decisions must be justified by the above principles, either:
a) with explicit indication; that is, a text of greater precedence contradicting a text of lesser precedence, or
b) with implicit indication that JRRT almost certainly would have changed/deleted it. But we must base this on some evidence or text from JRRT or CJRT; that is, a text of greater precedence suggesting beyond reasonable doubt a contradiction with a text of lesser precedence, or
c) in cases where two options are given precisely equal validity by the above guidelines, by a majority vote based on personal aesthetics and individual opinions.

A corallary is that we may not disregard any text or note, old idea or projected change, by JRRT unless it is invalidated by one of the above principles, explicitly or implicitly; that is, we must have a REASON for rejecting something.

This does several things:

1. It keeps the warning against decisions based on personal preference, but restricts it to the actual events of the narrative, so it does not apply to stylistic changes.

2. It merges Lindil's idea of "JRRT almost certainly would have changed it" with my idea of "implicit indication". These are, I think, two ways of saying the same thing, and they belong together.

3. It makes the corallary a bit more specific. The reason that I want to include this bit is that it makes explicit the fact that principle 7 applies not only to old texts that we are considering rejecting, but also to late changes that we are considering implementing. So on the one hand, we cannot simply reject something from the Lost Tales without some reason. On the other hand, we cannot simply reject some note from HoMe X,XI, or XII, without some reason.

Let me know what you think of this and whether you have any points you think should be modified.

[ January 26, 2003: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]