[Aiwendil]

Just a few more points. Lindil wrote:

The higher Authority would be as it has been with balrogs, Dragons and Laegolas -the concilliar vote of the group.

But as the principles now stand, all decisions are in theory based on concrete, objective evidence. There is of course room to interpret that evidence in various ways, and the job of the group vote is to decide as well as possible on the correct interpretation, and how the principles apply to the situation. If we introduce aesthetic considerations, the group vote becomes something quite different; it becomes instead a popularity contest dependent not on the objective facts, but on individual likes and dislikes.

CJRT most certainly created his Silmarillion along parallel [ but narrower] lines to our own project and I am merely re-iterating his POV re: Rog. It is not solely my own opinion, but primarily that of the person who arguably knows the legendarium better than anyone.

But I don't think that CRT rejected Rog for aesthetic reasons - he rejected him because he interpreted the evidence as showing that Rog would have disappeared in a later account.

Anyway, I would just as soon have a solid principle for such an action as a sideline debate that utilises other principles in an oblique fashion* [or disregards them altogether], which to a degree happened with the Laegolas vote*.

I don't think that the principles were used in an oblique fashion in that decision. Nor do I see how the debate could have gone differently had the new/proposed principle 7 been in place: the questions would have been the same, mainly: is it possible for Thranduil's son to have been given the same name as an Elf of Gondolin? I definitely see no need to return to this issue, and in fact I think it would be rather counter-productive to reopen issues that were resolved, without a very good reason.

This is of course fine, but I see no reason why the stylistic work done by a small team and then voted on by the group [ at least those who have an interest on a group stylistically crafted version] should not be a part of the aim [ indeed THE Aim] of the group from the get - go.

I like this idea in theory, but I foresee some difficulty in implementing it. Quite simply: do we have the resources in terms of people and time to work on two projects concurrently? I would definitely be interested to hear a more specific proposal.

We have done a rather remarkable thing with the FoG so far and it has come out a far better work than anyone of us [ with the possible exception of jallanite I think] could have done alone.

Agreed. That's precisely why I don't think we should lightly make fundamental changes in the way we approach the project.

I agree also that we are dealing here with two separate issues. Regarding the first, 2 projects vs. 1, I have nothing to say but that I am not against a stylistically polished version; I am merely cynical concerning the plausability of such an undertaking.

Regarding the second point: I think I have made it fairly clear that I favor the old principle 7, and that I think that the various points mentioned (Rog, Legolas, mechanical dragons, etc.) can be (and have been) dealt with without the new principle. However, I think that some of the debate may be a result of an ambiguity within the original principle 7. I propose, then, a revision of the old principle rather than a replacement. I suggest:

7. It is not for us to decide what is aesthetically superior; 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 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 anything written 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.

I think that this deals to some extent with Lindil's concerns, and also retains several important features of the original principle. I know that the condition for 7b, "suggesting beyond reasonable doubt" that there is a contradiction, is more than a bit vague. That is inevitable in any case; it is certainly just as much a problem in Lindil's proposed principle 7.

I second Lindil's request for questions and concerns from anyone regarding our two proposals.