|
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 479
|
<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 46</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Principles of editing the Silmarillion
Mr. Underhill,
I think what you really want is a fully fan-fictionalized expansion of the summarized material, including, for example, full details of Eärendil's voyage and the War of Wrath.
I'd love to read such an expanded and full acount myself (if done at all well).
But I'd also love to read J.R.R. Tolkien's own conceptions, and only his own conceptions, all in one ordered account, using as far as possible his latest ideas, something that a reader can trust as totally canonical in what is included.
Of course occasionally equally canonical versions of some incidents will be excluded and some of the material inserted from other accounts into JRRT's final Silmarillion summary material may have been actually rejected by Tolkien, not merely left aside in what was intended as a summary. But at least, despite necessarily arbitrary editorial choice about which version of an account is to be preferred, the result is all pure Tolkien, can be trusted totally as representing what he himself wrote, not someone else's clever ideas.
In the former fan-fiction Silmarillion, for example, it would be quite legitimate to state that Balrogs do not have wings (or contrariwise, that they do.) In the latter no statement of any kind is made, as JRRT made no explicit statement.
In a fan-fiction Silmarillion it would be quite legitimate to change things from Tolkien's own accounts (certainly we can be sure is that if Tolkien had completed The Silmarillion he would have made many more changes). The writer can do anything he or she pleases, and why not? In what we are doing here that freedom is simply not available.
In a fan-fiction Silmarillion it would be impossible to reach a consensus on the best way of relating a particular story: two different writers could easily produce expansions that were arguably equally good but totally contradictory. In a minimally edited version it is easier to achieve agreement.
As to using aesthetics a major criteria, it is simply a fact that people have different tastes, and the version of an incident that one person loves may be the version that another loathes. There is no argument that can convince.
Personally, I feel much was lost in the story of Beren and Lúthien when Tevildo King of Cats and Húan as King of the Dogs was dropped. But JRRT made that decision. I prefer Celeborn as in independent Nandor ruler of Lórien, joined by Galadriel sometime during the First Age, to JRRT's later accounts. I cannot objectively say that something I particularly pefer is actually better. I can objectively (in many cases) determine what was JRRT's latest recorded version, and so know what he preferred.
Certainly the BolT version of Beren and Lúthien is far more readible in many ways than any later account (in my opinion). "The Lay of Leithien" is not JRRT's best poetry (in my opinion), and the later prose versions are simple summaries. Should the early most readible version therefore be preferred?
Including inconsistancies in the final work is quite possible. Certain inconsistancies of style and treatment are unavoidable in any case. JRRT's later writings often refer to the Silmarillion as a Mannish compilation of legends, not a trustworthy account, in part, I believe, because he dispaired of ever making a coherent whole out of the old tales he had once written with newer philosophical, newer metaphysical, and newer story inspirations. Do Orks have souls? What was Ulmo really trying to do when he encouraged the building of Gondolin?
The principles are to keep us all on track as a reminder about what is and is not permitted so that we don't get bogged down in endless arguments over particular cases.
Lindil,
On Elvish names and Elvish phrases:
If we modify an Elvish name or phrase because it cannot fit in with Tolkien's revised concepts, for example the impossibility of ns existing in standard Sindarin, then it must first be very clear that the original form cannot stand, the modification is a correct one, and perferrably the only one possible. Thornsir to Thoronhir is such a change.
If we can't absolutely support a change, than either the Elvish name should be kept unchanged or omitted. Problems with names that don't quite quite fit are acceptable, as long is the form is phonetically possible in the language. JRRT mentions names that don't have known meaings in the current language, or may be influenced by dialects, or are familiar forms, or are otherwise problematical. But he retains them. What we don't want, I think, is cleverly postulated forms that might be correct, but might not.
"Fall of Gondolin" is certainly the worst case for the "War of the Jewels" section of the legendarium because so little of it reappears later. But it actually has very few difficulties: Rog feels odd in form; Tarnin Austa is almost certainly obsolete with no later replacement given; Gar Ainion probably also no longer stands; nost in Nost-na-Lothion might no longer exist in Sindarin; Bad Uthwen 'Way of Escape' is a questionable form and probably should be dropped; Gwarestrin, one of the seven names of Gondolin might be unacceptable in later Sindarin, but for that name alone of the seven names we have no later replacement so probably must keep and it could actually be fine in any case ... That is all.
For the Valinorean section BoLT has names of various kinds of spirits in BoLT and a very few other Valinorean personal, geographical and object names (vats) whose references don't reappear later. Many can be retained as either fitting in well with the later language information or as partially or totally adaptations of Valinorean names or words to Quenya. In short, if the information is retained, the names can be mostly left alone. ( Wingildi we would have to drop, as Tolkien in two late essays insists wing*/ vinga 'foam, spindrift' is not Quenya or Sindarin, deriving either from Nandorin of Mannish speech, and used in the tales only in the personal name Elwing and the name of Eärdendil's boat Vingilótë.)
Otherwise, almost all persons, places and objects in BolT and the early poems reappear in later writing, and we simply use the latest name that appears, as far as we can judge this. If JRRT accepted it, then it is right. This covers almost all proper names in the legendarium, without getting into analyzing the Elvish forms.
If an example arises where an Elvish name or form must be changed, but we cannot be sure of a proper emendation, then we can possibly loosen the restriction in the principles. I don't see any such case arising. Also I think the revised Silmarillion should contain only assured Elvish forms for all names and words where the meaning is also given, except where Valinorean can be conceived to play a part. A reader should be able to trust that the Elvish is Tolkien's Elvish, not our guesses about what Tolkien might have done.
If myself or anyone else has a particular doubt about a particlular form or a meaning, it is of course possible to pose the question as an independent post on any other Tolkien bulletin board, including Elfling, or personally ask another expert. (I think I'm very much in control in the linguistic area, which is probably the very reason why anything I say in that area should be questioned. But very few pure linguistic questions will arise.)
</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000212>jallanit e</A> at: 7/22/01 3:25:38 pm
|