<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 63</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs
Mr. Underhill: As a bystander, I'd favor something along the lines of jallanite's experimental revision -- especially when the alternative is losing the details of the expanded version altogether. Not a completely fan-fictionalized version, but one that reconciles conflicting texts even though it may have to push the envelope of so-called scholarly editing to do so.
Aiwendil: I still think that to do this would be to completely redefine the project. Our goal is the creation of a canon Silmarillion; that is, one that not only conforms to Tolkien's latest workable ideas, but one that in essence defines the "true" story of events in Arda (I'm leaving aside for a moment here the question of actual history vs. Numenorean legend). What we want is a text that lays down the full extent of the canon as reconstructed using our principles. We are not, as I have pointed out before, trying to create a work of any literary merit. Even if we go through the painstaking process of making the style more uniform, we'll still have the inescapable problem of proportion: a reader who spends hundreds of pages on Turin and Tuor will no doubt be very disappointed to find the whole story of Earendil a mere 20 page summary!
I also like jallanite's changes from a literary perspective, but I do not think I can agree with them from a canonical perspective.
Mr. Underhill: One can easily see how trying to follow very austere and strictly scholarly principals of editing could lead to a version that is much the same as the published Sil -- whole detailed sections of the legends thrown out on principal in favor of summaries, because including the detailed texts would require a little creative revision.
That's a good point, and worth consideration, I think. How is this project different from CRT's creation of the '77? I think there are really two main differences:
1. CRT's goal was to create a veritable Quenta Silmarillion - to create that document which has variously been attributed to Pengolodh, Aelfwine, and the Numenoreans; our goal, on the other hand, is not to reconstruct this particular document, but to construct a canonical history, including sources that would not have been used in the Quenta Silmarillion.
2. The point more relevant to the present discussion: CRT adhered very strictly to the writings of his father, as he could best interpret them at the time, even to the point of excluding material in which there was any possibility of contradiction. Our principles here are slightly less restricting.
Obviously, the point in question is number two; Mr. Underhill has suggested that if we tighten our principles too much, the second difference will cease to exist, and we will in fact have the '77. The first difference will remain, however; while CRT excluded the Narn and the later Tuor, and never could have considered using FG, we can try and are trying to include those.
Mr. Underhill: Frankly, shooting for a goal of producing a document that would pass CRRT's muster seems like an impractical (and even undesirable) goal for a list of reasons too long to mention. (When I heard that he keeps a wild boar in his garden to discourage over-zealous fans, I didn't think much of it -- until I saw Hannibal!)
Aiwendil: I agree. There is no way this project could ever possibly be approved of by CRT. In fact, I get the impression that he no longer approves of his own '77.
</p>
|