<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 23</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Principles of editing the Silmarillion
Here is a very rough draft of some extra definition for canon. Wording here is hasty and probably abominable, but I think the concepts are both good and necessary.
What constitutes Canon
There are four levels:
*****1. What was published or openly distributed by J.R.R. Tolkien during his lifetime. (I use the term openly distributed to cover the "Guide to the Names in the Lord of the Rings" distributed to translators but only published after his death in Jared Lobdell's A Tolkien Compass.) Material in later published editions takes precidence over material in earlier editions except where it can be demonstrated to be in error.
*****2. Material written privately but distributed during Tolkien's lifetime. (I am really talking about the material in Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien. This is also material he knowingly released.)
*****3. Material by Tolkien published after Tolkien's death.
************a). Documents edited as far as possible exactly as Tolkien left them.
************b). Documents edited with some cleanup by another (e.g. Christopher Tolkien).
************Material of class 3b takes precedence over material of class 3a when it is demonstratably later.
*****4. Editorial reworking by or under the direction of Christopher Tolkien.
Material in a lower level that specifically corrects material in a higher level may take precedence over the higher level. I mean things like the accounts of the hair-color of the Eldar published after Tolkien's death which make it clear that the statement in Appendix F is in error, the more complete list of the Kings of Númenor published in Unfinished Tales, the more complete genealogy of the White Tree of Gondor, and other matters of that kind. This material should only take priority when it is obviously a correction of, or superior original to, or conscious alteration of higher-level material. The change of Orc to Ork might be such a change. If a letter from J.R.R. Tolkien surfaced that stated that Celebrimbor's Fëanorian descent in The Lord of the Rings was an error to be removed, that would take priority.
Other Thoughts
On point 4, it may occasionally be necessary to change things like singular verbs to plural or the reverse, add words like "there", and do other very minor cleanup. This might come under style, but I think as cases arise where this seems necessary, allowable templates might be included in the principles at this place.
Should there be a set of notes justifiying each manuscript decision as part of the project? I think so. The reasons for any decisions may be very complex and intertwined, a decision made in one case may effect many other cases, and unless the reasons are all recorded may be forgotten and confused in a short time even by those who most promoted them. Also, it means if a decision made later effects other portions of the project, it will be easier to identify those portions and make the necessary changes. For example, my list of name changes in the "Fall of Gondolin" discussion which gives sources and reasons as necessary should probably eventually be extended to the entire project, so that at any time someone can see whether there is a preferred form for a name, and the reason for the preference. eg. Ylmir to Ulmo per "The Shibboleth of Fëanor", note 21, which denies any Sindarin forms for the names of the Valar save for Manwë, Varda, and Oromë, and states the Quenya forms were used in Sindarin; and also per the non-appearance of this form in post-Etymologies writing.
This also requires further standards on citation of the works. Page numbers won't do. They vary too widely from edition to edition.
Point 2b doesn't really work as phrased, though I'm sure I know what you mean: this is to be a "Sun and Moon were fruit and flower" version. Perhaps the answer is to specifically say so. Even creating a full Myths Transformed version would not contradict "the rest of the legendarium", only parts of it.
I would suggest also that aesthetics be allowed as a basis for decision, but at the very lowest level. (It obviously will be anyway, so recognize it accordingly. We would not be doing this if not for aesthetics.)
</p>
|