[HerenIstarion]

davem, you seem strongly talented in luring me into long speeches

So, to post number 126 re:

A bit of a side walk first

Have you seen the movie "Joan of Arc"? One starring Mila Jovovich (sp?). It is a nice movie, quite coherent, appealing, moving and dramatic. Allegedly, it is the work of art, and not history. But as their source, the authors were using existing source material. That the story as it is told in the movie is different from what really happened, is beyond any qustioning. But does it make the movie as the movie of less value? I don't think so, otherwise I would not have been wasting my time on it, I'd rather dig some documents and read those. And, voila, in doing so, I would have found that, though all of my sources were contemporary, all of them were different and contradicted each other.

Another example – what I was studying at University as history, for the first two years was not source material, but compilation – retelling of events rolled into one continiuos text. There were entries like: year so and so, this and this happened. Now, when I went on to my third year, such a subject as historiography was intorudced. And all of what was clear and continuous history back in year one, was, somehow, countless smithereens of "according to this source, this and this happened in year X, and according to that source, it happened in year Y, and according to third source, it haven't happened at all"

What we were tought, is was that work of historian was to, so to say, collect every pebble of evidence there was to be found, and 'squeeze' the thing mostly approximating the truth out of it where possible. The thing was done not only for the sake of truth (as each individual historian saw it), but for the sake of people who were lazy, unable or too busy to dig among sources themselves

Going back to Joan of Arc than – some of the temporary sources picture her as a witch, some praise her as saint. Movie shows her as neither, but as patriot. But was that really the case? When the concept of France was not very much emerged? And the concept of King was more prominent somehow? I believe that neither is quite accurate, but the truth is not to be digged out unless we start practice necromancy and question Joan herself. And even than such an account would be inaccurate, for language is indeed opaque, as stated above, and what we would require is Osanwe-Kenta.

Going back to historians – given precisely the same number of same sources, no two historians will produce exactly matching results.

now:

then it would be their work - not Tolkien's.

Exactly. Given the mode in which Tolkien was writing, and having in mind that he haven't produced final published product, the material we have for our pleasure is to be treated as source material. And any material which is the source is canon. But no work produced on the basis is canon (yes, neither S77), simply because it is derived from and the consequent to the source material, and is, to some extent, work of art of its compilator, scholar, annalist, whoever.

It is easier to switch to the attitude I describe if you go to suspending primary disbelief as described in Tolkien's On Fairy Story and view the source material as really written by Pengolodh, Aelfwine and number of other elves and men from different ages. Than there no objection arises at some modern scholar trying to produce something continuous out of his sources. His judgement as to what is to be taken into the 'soup' and what is to be rejected, is indeed arbitrary, but nevertheless very natural. Do you condemn researcher of the ancient history of Sumer on the basis he produced the book of his own writing, instead of combining the photoes of the bas-reliefs inscriptions he have interpreted according to whis own arbitrary judgement?

Same is applicable to Tolkien (I believe), for he is too complex to be judged as mere writer. What follows is, that we, readers, compilators, scholars of Tolkien, are free to use any of the texts (starting with the very first up to the very last) which we know to be canonical – i.e. by Tolkien himself, and apply to them our own judgement. We are free to be content with the sources in themselves, but we are also free to compile them into coherent and continuous [one] piece of text. Any course of action is lawfull.

But what we will produce will be not canonical in itself (and that was stated by Aiwendil up there). Still more no one will be forced to read it (as no one is forced to watch the movie and believe it as only true account of the story, or count historian's conclusions as to what was going on in Sumer as one and only true.)

I know, you granted the Rev Sil project people the right to do it. What you seem to reject, is the value of it. But if you follow your reasoning, you may well end up rejecting value of say, your friends account of what he was doing another day in a bar, but ask for filmed and recorded evidence, not trusting his recollections as those may be mere compilation of sources, and requesting minute to minute collation with sight and sound recorder. And you may further argue that, as this videorecorder was recording from north-east corner of the room, and another one from south one, there were in fact, two stories, and not one, for one set of pictures shows your friend with a fork, and another omits such a scene, since where fork should be the tankard obscures the way. But you will dare not assume that the fork is nevertheless there, and say: so, we have two stories about the two different men of the same name, and they differ considerably and could not be merged, since in one of them one man has the fork, and in another one another man does not!

For if you listen to the man himself, he may blunder a bit an mix things up a bit (Somewhere around five, I've drunk fourth beer. But the north–east recorder evidence shows it was 4:56 exactly, and south recorded, catching another watch into shot, will convince you that it was 5:02. Does it eliminate the value of story the man himlself told you? Is it less interesting?).

When you speak of taking Galadriel (1) & Galadriel (2) & producing 'something new' I can only see this as an admission that what you're doing is not revising but re-writing (if not reinventing entirely) 'The Silmarillion'

Yes, yes, yes. Any academic, if we talk about one to tread the boards of history, is doing exactly the thing: re-writing, reinventing. He has his limits – he must not contradict his sources, or, if those contradict themselves, choose greater number against smaller number, or, if he does the opposite, to prove first of all to himsefl, that what he does is logically justified by so and so reasons. He can't create green sun out of his head, but he must make green sun found in his sources plausible. In doing so, he inevitably will add up something of his own [sub]creation into the thing.

I hope you are still here with me , for I'm gently spilling over into conclusions:

A) What Tolkien was creating is nearly as complex as the history of the world itself
B) What he did create, must be viewed (as he himelf was evaluating it as such, 'finding out' rather than 'inventing') as history derived from and depending on different and quite a number of sources as well
C) Following A and B, different sources need not be in agreement between themselves
D) Following C, there is no restriction prohibiting compilations and prescribing to leave the sources be.
E) Following D, there is no law forcing anyone to count compilation produced as the true account of events
F) Nevertheless, piece of work produced has the value in itself, and may be quite plausible and approaching the truth as near as it may be

So, does this supply sufficient justification for choosing the revised version over the 1st ed version, for preffering G(2) over G(1)?

So it does. What it does not, is establishing supremacy of one account over the other, but giving the possible reader the pleasure of having both, and not as twelve volume collection of sources. One is free to prefer sources, but than it is merely matter of taste, than