[Galin]

Originally Posted by Findegil

Christopher Tolkien over steped the task of an editor to get a coherent book from the scirpts of the Silmarillion komplex left to him by his father.

With respect to the Fall of Doriath he overstepped the editorial bounds according to his own words, yes; only done because at the time he felt this was the best way to reconcile a part of the Silmarilion that hadn't been truly updated or fully revised since the 1930s. Choices have to be made for sake of consistency of course, and as far as I recall, Christopher Tolkien applied this term where it involved actual editorial invention, which is relatively quite rare with respect to the book as a whole.

And I did not mean 'enforcing' with any negativ conotation. What he did was not enforcing a definition realy, he simply presented the result of such a definition: As long as nothing else was published, the product of that process 'The Silmarillion' of 1977 was THE 'definitive' version.

Then you appear to agree that Christopher Tolkien didn't enforce a definition in any sense of 'with intent'. To me it seems to be the assumption of others, or the somewhat unavoidable result of having to consider something definitive in the sense that there is simply nothing else to compare it to. And if it was avoidable, for a while, in that a scholarly presentation could have been produced first, incidentally it looks like Christopher Tolkien's idea was to produce a scholarly tome first: Charles Noad has noted:

The fundamental problems, I believe, with the published Silmarillion lie in the fact that a 'literary' version was decided on in the first place. Apparently the idea of Guy Gavriel Kay, it was accepted, and the finished version was accordingly produced. In his speech at the 1987 World Science Fiction Convention, Kay said that the initial idea had been to produce a large, scholarly tome, in which the latest version of any particular chapter would have been given, together with extensive appendices and editorial apparatus showing how it had evolved from earlier versions.

This would have resulted in a massive volume, some 1300 printed pages long, say (about the size of the Scull and Hammond Reader's Guide to Tolkien), and two chapters in this style had already been produced when Kay arrived. However, Kay felt strongly that what was needed was a straightforward narrative, shorn of academic apparatus, which advice was eventually adopted by Christopher Tolkien. This approach was tried with 'The Coming of the Elves' where it was felt to work so well that Kay's approach was thereafter adopted. ('A Tower in Beleriand', Charles E. Noad, Amon Hen 91, May 1988, pp.16-18.) It may indeed have worked well, but such a procedure served to give a finished appearance to what was very often disparate and unfinished material.


Charles Noad, from his review of Arda Reconstructed

That is not to lay any kind of 'blame' on anyone, and the ultimate decision was Christopher Tolkien's of course, but in any case the idea put forth by some, to support that a one volume version needs revising, is that 'most' will be getting their Silmarillion experience through a one volume (what I call) 'reader's version' compared to a scholarly presentation -- which to my mind also supports that the former is what most readers really wanted in the first place; and that's what they got in the 1970s.

In his commentaries Christopher Tolkien himself does question some of his own decissions made for the 'The Silmarillion' of 1977, but he did not take the opportuinty to re-edit 'The Silamrillion' in these points when a new edition came out 2001. Therefore the avarage reader will, if he is interrested enough to read that fare at all, come first to 'The Silmarillion'. Which makes that book still some kind of a definitiv version.

They are free to assume it's intended as definitive despite the Foreword which explains that the book in their hands is not the finished product of the author, and is not being presented as such.

The average reader will likely pick up The Children of Hurin more than sift through Unfinished Tales and HME for the scholarly presentation. Does that make the recently published version 'definitive' if they do? Maybe in some sense; but once again that is simply the nature of the beast: the versions Tolkien intended for reader consumption -- in essence if not in detail -- are represented by The Children of Hurin and The Silmarillion one volume editions.

In his commentaries Christopher Tolkien himself does question some of his own decissions made for the 'The Silmarillion' of 1977, but he did not take the opportuinty to re-edit 'The Silamrillion' in these points when a new edition came out 2001.

If I recall correctly, there's not really all that much that Christopher Tolkien himself questioned. I wonder how short the list is actually; or how much on such a list would be deemed compelling enough matters to argue for a revised edition, given the subjective nature of that discussion.

(...) Thus in effect we have what was asked for: a 'definitive' version of 'The Silmarillion' of some kind. The issue is that we are not satisfied with it.

Some might be dissatisfied with it, but are you dissatisfied with The Silmarillion based on a reading of the book itself? Is it 'un-Tolkien-ian' in essence, or too much so? Even those inventions intended to reconcile The Fall of Doriath? To quote Mr. Noad again (same review)...

There is one point where Kane attempts a justification for a book such as this one. He notes (Kane, p. 216) that in The Road to Middle-earth Tom Shippey cites 'Thingol's death in the dark while he looks at the captured Light' (of the Silmaril) as an example of Tolkien’s genius for creating compelling images. However, 'Thingol's death in the dark recesses of Menegroth was completely an invention of the editors', hence 'The fact that as renown[ed] a Tolkien scholar as Shippey would have this kind of mistaken impression is a strong indication of the need for a work like the present one.'

Well now, catching out Shippey must count as pretty neat, but one might admire the editors for so well creating, out of the requirements of the reconstructed narrative, so Tolkienian an image. It must prove something.