[Galin]

I though that after all we have been through you at least recognize another possibility that wouldn't leave contradiction and that it has very strong arguments that could prove this (until now I haven't seen anyone who couldn't actually see my possibility or at least see dubious interpretation except you of course).

Actually more than once I've said that I recognize the 'possibility' of your argument now that we have spoken. But no, I don't agree that your argument is 'very strong', sorry.

It's my opinion but if I'm right what would be the height of the race in which their shortest are 6'6''? about 7' (since Tolkien never gives a really exact height). But like I said the point isn't that but the fact that nothing supports your last interpretation.

Yet you already agreed that my interpretation of the 'artwork quote' itself is a valid interpretation!

Galin said: Yet you haven't proven one is later than the other however. If you can I would love to know myself.

Arathorn responded: I said to forget that since independent of the date both says the same thing (to me of course).

So you want me to forget that you stated that you would trust CJRT more than W. Hammond, even though both descriptions are Tolkien-written and you can't illustrate which is later than the other. The point was: the idea that CJRT published one and Hammond and Scull published the other has nothing to do with the date of the texts.

That was the thrust of this part of the discussion. And yes both say the same thing 'to you' obviously. But I've no idea why that should mean I should 'forget it'.

I was saying that Chris already "posted" a lot about Eldar height so why didn't he posted that? Or do you think he never saw that passage?

Now you're just repeating the question: as Christopher Tolkien himself published parts of the description in question, my guess is that he both saw and read the whole set of texts in which Tolkien reacts to the artwork of P. Baynes, which is a natural enough assumption in my opinion.

And I've already responded to this: you'll have to ask him why he didn't publish it all himself in Unfinished Tales, instead of allowing Hammond and Scull or J. Rateliff to publish other parts of it. He doesn't explain this... the problem remains, it seems to me, that you're trying to answer for him by suggesting that the parts he didn't publish in The History of Middle-Earth or elsewhere are somehow lesser in some way.

Or if not I've no idea what your argument about this really is.

And while you're at it maybe ask CJRT if the whole of these descriptions are going to be published at some point, now that the artist has passed on.

Galin wrote: That's not how I would characterize what I prefer to do

Arathorn responded: " I don't write the texts: if I see something I think contradicts something else, I'll note it" that was said by you and pretty much proves what I was talking about

Well, what you were talking about was the assertion that I: '... prefer to put more contradiction in a work that already has a lot of them...'

Which is not true. What I prefer to do is interpret a passage honestly. I don't 'prefer' more contradiction. I'll gladly read two (or more) passages in such a way that they can be said to agree -- but any arguable 'wriggling' in order to say that two passages 'agree' is a subjective measure.


And with respect to 'more contradiction' in another context, see my posts about 'canon' where I am often arguing that some are, in a sense 'creating' contradiction, or accepting 'contradiction' from an internal perspective where no contradiction 'truly exists' (again from an internal viewpoint), in my opinion.

Of course I am simplifying that argument for brevity here.