[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

I don't think Tolkien ever did 'abandon' trying to translate the myths. He simply found the task very difficult and moved onto stories he did not have to 'translate' like the Children of Hurin.

I don't know what you mean by 'translate' here. All the tales have been translated in theory. Do you mean into Old English? If so I'm not sure how that fits into your argument.

He used the Mannish myths as an excuse to keep the prior cosmology and stories like the return of Turin. However, in his later works like the Children of Hurin, there is no mention of Turin returning. If he was still writing the as from a Mannish Numenorean perspective then he would have kept the Turin prophecies in. The fact that he now disregards them in his new story, supports the idea he is trying to write a more 'accurate' version of events.

Rather in a later text concerning the Second Prophecy, Andreth foretells of Turin's return at the War of Wrath. And in Morgoth's Ring Tolkien clearly recharacterizes the Second Prophecy as a Mannish myth.

His last word on the topic seems t be orcs from corrupted spirits and men, bred by Sauron during Morgoth's captivity. It seems for this reason that orcs are not to be treated like mere beast and are under the 'Law' which beast are not.

My point was that Tolkien, in my opinion was originally being 'accurate' in that Morgoth made Orcs [granted, merely in the sense that this is the version of the tale he wants imparted to readers]. This was the tale given to Elfwine. Later this could not be so, so JRRT looks for another idea. Not because of accuracy in general in my opinion, but because of a shift in thinking that Evil could not create in this way. I'm not sure how this examples illustrates Tolkien trying to be more accurate, in some sense, in his later life.

And in the late text I mentioned JRRT isn't giving us an objective fact, but an Elvish belief. That's not necessarily accurate in another sense, at least it's not necessarily objectively true -- while on the other hand it would still [arguably] be the version if no other variant opinions are given, in the sense of what is presented to the reader about the matter].

I think the chief difference is that I believe Tolkien still wanted to keep the discarded stories, but only as Mannish myths. Not for everything of course, but for things like the Arda existing before the Sun we should take the story with a pinch of salt and realise they are mistakes.

Why is this a difference? It's what I've been saying too

However, for things he tried to edit later like Glorfindel's identity or Turin's story he wants to hand down a more accurate version.

Again I don't get why you use these as examples of accurate. In my opinion Tolkien merely decided to answer the question of 'two Glorfindels'. I'm guessing you mean Tolkien wants to clear up this mystery, but from his perspective this was not a mystery to his readers in any case, as there was only ever one Glorfindel as far as many fans knew.

In any case there are different ways to be accurate and maybe that's part of why we are talking past each other at times.

As you said I don't think we will have to discuss this point on every topic, because you don't believe he left contrary stories deliberately on every story and I don't believe he left only one clear version on every story.

Very well but who does believe that Tolkien meant to have variations for every tale, and who does believe that he only left one clear version of every story.

I would guess no one