[Galin]

Voronwe wrote: Only Christopher could answer that.

So as far as anyone can tell, we don't know if Tolkien himself certainly intended to have his Silmarillion note Uinen as an instructor of the Teleri here, given that we have conflicting traditions on the question. Even CJRT might not know.

All we know is what the evidence that we have available tells us. And that is that Christopher choose to use the Annals version of the story, not the Quenta version. But that (…) Which leave the impression, whether or it was initial, that Christopher changed Uinen's role from an active role (which is traditionally more associated with males) to a more passive role (which is traditionally more associated with females).'

Yet a re-presentation of the same evidence from a different perspective and focus could be employed to describe the bare evidence in HME.

I have no idea if CJRT thought that a 'mere' friendship with the Teleri and Uinen could be imagined, even if not specifically stated, to include a flow of knowledge from Maia to Elf, as arguably with a High Elf befriending Men, but in any case I don't think CJRT need have any doubts that Osse was intended as the instructor of the Teleri here.

Again, by comparison, a competing tradition makes no mention of Uinen in any role, arguably casting doubt about her despite what is noted in Annals of Aman section 6. And according to part of your opinion about what reduces a character -- which seems a bit 'mathematical' to me but that aside for the moment -- Osse himself could be said to be reduced given a choice of the Annals over Quenta Silmarillion.

A choice of QS alone here would have left Uinen wholly out, as well as noting Osse as teacher of the Teleri more often than in the 1977 Silmarillion. By employing the Annals for certain sections of the tale here, the end result is that Osse is 'reduced' (in this mathematical sense) and Uinen is given a role that at least arguably includes 'teaching' by contact -- despite that that role is given to Osse specifically -- again since he is without a doubt given that role by JRRT.

_______________

Jallanite wrote: By using the word implication Hostetter admits up front that his opinions are based entirely on inference and not based on anything that Kane has said. In short, Hostetter is making it up, though he probably doesn't altogether know it. Hostetter admits that he does not find anywhere his inference as an "explicit charge''.

Of course CFH is talking about what he thinks Doug has implied, and thus uses the word implication. And since I doubt you would argue that the lack of an explicit charge means that there can be no implications, to my mind what we really have here is you again stating your opinion that you think no implication exists.


Keeping in mind…

Jallanite posted: 'I admit fully that it is very easy to infer that Kane intended to attribute misogyny to Christopher Tolkien.'

The reason why I and others didn't twig to what Hostetter claims to see in the book is that the ideas were simply too absurd to arise. Hostetter raises an idea which he admits "makes no sense" and then insists on interpreting two (?) sentences in the book as though Kane believed that senseless idea.

Well, when you encounter an argument that you feel makes no sense to you for some reason, I doubt you automatically conclude that your interpretation must be wrong. You might second guess your own interpretation, but when you consider the evidence and you still end up with the same interpretation…

… well let's put it this way: you don't want anyone to lie, right

Hostetter admits: 'I didn't address the nature of the edits themselves, and deliberately so, since I need to sit down with the books and study the specifics of a change for myself before I can offer a (possible) explanation for them, and I haven't had time to do that.'

That speaks for itself. Hostetter appears to have only skimmed the book and been enraged because of a single inference Hostetter made from very few (two?) remarks without looking at them in context and without considering that Kane was probably unlikely to have meant to imply something which was obviously absurd. Hostetter thinks it absurd. I think it absurd.

Carl wrote books plural -- while you write 'book' singular.

And from the context of the discussion it seems to me that CFH is talking about looking closer at The History of Middle-Earth (books) and the 'edits' that concern both Uinen and Galadriel (both examples having been raised the post preceding the statement in question), and then possibly giving his own explanations regarding these examples.

And actually his post (the same post) continues directly with…

Elfwine wrote: (Though one possibility specifically concerning superlatives springs to mind even without consulting the sources: if one is combining superlative-laden texts from different periods, it would be all too easy to have conflicting superlatives if one is not very careful, lest, e.g., two characters are both declared to be "strongest" or "fairest" etc. Just a thought, not saying that is the case here.)

I would say the 'sources' or the 'books' are The History of Middle-Earth volumes.

You appear to demand that no book should contain any statement from which you might infer something which the author did not intend.

This is rather generalized and exaggerated in my opinion.

If you accept Kane's statements that the meaning you infer was not intended and accept that many readers did not and do not see the meaning you infer, than you really ought to accept that Hostetter was perhaps just pressing a point for far more than it was meant, as are you.

So far I don't see we have many readers commenting in the first place. Not in this thread yet, and besides Doug, in the linked thread, only 5 actually stated an opinion one way or the other -- specifically concerning deliberateness or misogyny I mean.

And of the 5 who actually gave an opinion, 4 agreed with an implication of deliberateness at least, while River thought an unconscious bias was what Doug was getting at. Soli specifically states that he does not make the jump to misogyny and does not think Doug implied this -- despite that he agrees with an implied deliberateness however.

Soli wrote: Actually, Doug never does once IIRC imply or derive or point an accusing finger at any purported 'motive' for CT's supposedly having gender-cleansed the text- in other words he doesn't call him a misogynist, and the attribution is a leap which does not follow necessarily as the only possible hypothesis.

Elfwine (CFH) replied: "soli": to my mind, accusing Christopher (even by implication) of "having gender-cleansed the text", with the gender being "female", of course, is equivalent to charging him with misogyny. What distinction do you see?

And Soli never responded to that as far as I recall. In any case later he posted:

Soli wrote: 'Although I don't make the leap to 'misogyny', I can't see how the book can be read in any other way than as saying CT removed or reduced females on purpose. One doesn't proceed systematically by accident.

River responded: One can proceed systematically based on unconscious biases, however. I think that's what Voronwe is getting at.

Which is essentially the same point (River's point) that I later challenged Doug about. In the following review, I add a break that wasn't there in the original.

The latter, Kane sees as only one example in a larger trend of reducing the roles of female characters in The Silmarillion: "There are at least eight female characters whose role or character could be said to be reduced to a greater or lesser extent by the editorial decisions made [by Christopher]: Uinen, Galadriel, Míriel, Nerdanel, Indis, Ungoliant, Arien, and Nellas (in addition to the removal of the two or three daughters of Finwë and Indis, of Baragund and Belegund's older sister, Beleth[,] and of Andreth from the Athrabeth)" (252). Of all the changes Christopher made, this is "perhaps [Kane's] biggest complaint" (26).

But if the changes and omissions Kane describes do in fact constitute a purposeful reduction, then there is just as much reduction of the male characters (and almost certainly more). For Kane to call attention to only the female characters in this way — and to impute a motive to Christopher to actively reduce their presence in the narrative — strikes me as either disingenuous or careless.

http://www.mythsoc.org/reviews/arda.reconstructed/

So I guess it remains an opinion that to imply (however unintended) a deliberate reduction of female characters is to imply some measure of misogyny. However I don't see many opinions on the matter so far really, and silence does not necessarily mean a given person agrees with Doug or CFH.