Will a "definitive" version of The Silmarillion ever be released?

[TheLostPilgrim]

Do you think there will ever come a time when a more 'definitive' version of The Silmarillion--more in line with Tolkien's later/exact thoughts, with perhaps some of the tales expanded as much as possible--will ever be released? Basically a Silmarillion in line with Tolkien's final or definitive conception of it, as well as in line with his other works?

[Mithalwen]

Did Tolkien have a final and definitive concept of the Silmarillion? It seems to me he was working things out about his creation pretty much to the end - and I wonder if he would have sought to adjust the LOTR to fit a "finished" Silmarillion in the same way as he made the alterations to the Hobbit to fit the needs of the LOTR.

I sometimes wonder if JRRT had had the use of a word processor and could have implemented name changes throughout a script in seconds and the like, if he would have been able to finish it or delve deeper but I suspect he was too much of a Niggle to ever finish and he would have tinkered to the end no matter how long he had lived and we would have been deprived of the insight into the development provided by the drafts.

[TheLostPilgrim]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Did Tolkien have a final and definitive concept of the Silmarillion? It seems to me he was working things out about his creation pretty much to the end - and I wonder if he would have sought to adjust the LOTR to fit a "finished" Silmarillion in the same way as he made the alterations to the Hobbit to fit the needs of the LOTR.

I sometimes wonder if JRRT had had the use of a word processor and could have implemented name changes throughout a script in seconds and the like, if he would have been able to finish it or delve deeper but I suspect he was too much of a Niggle to ever finish and he would have tinkered to the end no matter how long he had lived and we would have been deprived of the insight into the development provided by the drafts.

Perhaps--it's just, what is the "canon" mythology in the LOTR universe? Is the released Silmarillion "canon"?
Also, I read something about JRRT tinkering with the idea of Gandalf being a manifestation of Manwe?
I don't think he would've tinkered with the LOTR. Although, he did want to ENTIRELY re-write The Hobbit to fit the tone of the LOTR.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

Perhaps--it's just, what is the "canon" mythology in the LOTR universe? Is the released Silmarillion "canon"?

Well, there is the bit too where Tolkien named his son, Christopher, his Literary Executor. Placing Christopher in a position to do what he sees fit with his father's unpublished works, and which is how The Silmarillion, Children of Hurin, and several other books have been published since Tolkien's death.

Christopher Tolkien has always appears straight forward with what was written by his father and what is commentary/opinion from CT. He's been rather clear with in order to publish The Silmarillion, he had to make certain decisions to put it in a presentable form. I believe he also had assistance from someone else, but I can't for the life of me remember the name at the moment.

I think you'll see both arguments here. Some who can argue if it's not directly written and published by Tolkien than it's not canon. But, in my opinion, as his Literary Executor, Christopher had full confidence and authority to re-work and do what he will with The Silmarillion and other unpublished works of his father's.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Well, there is the bit too where Tolkien named his son, Christopher, his Literary Executor. Placing Christopher in a position to do what he sees fit with his father's unpublished works, and which is how The Silmarillion, Children of Hurin, and several other books have been published since Tolkien's death.

I don't see how the work could be any more "definitive" than it already is.

Who is, or would be in the future, in a better position to analyze Tolkien's writings and decide what comes nearest to the author's ultimate intentions than Christopher?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

Perhaps--it's just, what is the "canon" mythology in the LOTR universe? Is the released Silmarillion "canon"?

Well, some people argue that HOME books are more canonical than TH.

I don't think he would've tinkered with the LOTR. Although, he did want to ENTIRELY re-write The Hobbit to fit the tone of the LOTR.

No, but he wanted to change some details. One that I remember is how Gandalf couldn't read the runes on the Elven blades they found in the Trolls' cave. TH says that Gandalf didn't know them. JRRT wanted to change that so that the runes would be covered in muck/rust/etc and he wasn't able to read them until he came to Rivendell; this way Gandalf the Knowledgeable that we see in LOTR is the same Gandalf in TH. I think he also wanted to change something with Gollum.

PS: for your siggie, Boro. ^.^

[Legolas]

I don't know how much room there is right now for a conclusively more 'definitive' text because of the state of the stories left when JRR passed. Christopher Tolkien has commented on this extensively. He was pressed to complete his version quickly by the volume of requests, and of course, several writings were found after his 1977 version was published. Given much more time and all the material he had by the time the 12 HOME volumes were finished, he's said that he could've had a substantially different version.

He set out on the difficult task of trying to use his father's latest versions of the stories, but to also balance completeness and internal consistency. Few stories had all three qualities. Stories decades in the making are problematic as they change so much - in revision, later versions would change details that also affected the accuracy of/continuity from earlier stories that weren't updated yet. Doesn't help that JRR's handwritten notes often weren't legible!

Unfortunately, at his age (87) and the amount of time (20+ years) he has already spent editing and publishing all of these writings (The Silmarillion, UT, HOME), I suspect he'd rather spend these last years of his life on something other than a new Silmarillion, and mostly I can't blame him! The Children of Húrin and The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún are testaments to this. (On the other, selfish hand, part of me says - what a crowning achievement that would be.)

If a new Silmarillion was to come from his hand, I think it would've arrived shortly after The Peoples of Middle-earth (HOME XII, 1996) in the late 1990s/early 2000s.

If not from Christopher Tolkien, I think it could be difficult for a new version of The Silmarillion to be attempted, published, and received as definitive. Not impossible, but improbable - it would have to be impeccable! I am largely ignorant of the amount of scholarly study given to Tolkien's work, but if it is there, maybe it could happen. Time may make it more likely; as JRR's children pass and the Estate is in the hands of another generation, I wonder how it will hold his legacy, including if/how it will continue 'new' releases to feed longtime fans and stir up attention for new ones.

In regards to "expanding" the tales, I think that's less likely because some of the more detailed versions of the stories were also earlier and/or never completed - thinking particularly of "Of Tuor and his Coming to Gondolin" from Unfinished Tales.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

No, but he wanted to change some details. One that I remember is how Gandalf couldn't read the runes on the Elven blades they found in the Trolls' cave. TH says that Gandalf didn't know them. JRRT wanted to change that so that the runes would be covered in muck/rust/etc and he wasn't able to read them until he came to Rivendell; this way Gandalf the Knowledgeable that we see in LOTR is the same Gandalf in TH. I think he also wanted to change something with Gollum.

Tolkien commented more than once that he was having to resist the urge to rewrite The Hobbit for continuity of tone with The Lord of The Rings, and according to The History of the Hobbit (John Rateliff, 2007) he actually started a rewrite that was scrapped by chapter three because it felt too unfamiliar. Someone previewed it (I can't remember who) told him it "just wasn't The Hobbit."

He actually did change some details. Particularly the fifth chapter (the account of Bilbo beating Gollum at the riddle game) was revised for the second edition of The Hobbit in 1951, done so to reconcile the version of events in The Lord of the Rings. In the first edition, Gollum willingly put the Ring at stake in the game, and when Bilbo won, they parted ways peacefully.

Further changes were made for a third edition published in 1966, primarily because, or at least the opportunity was taken because, of copyright problems Tolkien was having in the US with Ace books (who were printing his works without permission by a loophole - that previous US editions only had UK copyright information listed). I do not know the specific changes made for the third edition; they might be included in The History of the Hobbit, but my copy is in storage at the moment. I expect that these were more philogic concerns.

There's a note explaining both revisions (1951 and 1966) in the front of most editions published since.

* TL;DR - Probably won't be another Silmarillion. Tolkien did revise The Hobbit twice, and started a rewrite that was scrapped early on.

[TheLostPilgrim]

If only Tolkien had been immortal...Imagine what could've come from his mind...He probably would've at some point finished The Silmarillion in total; it was dear to his heart and even the 1977 version is a masterpiece and a work of art. Although, it seems his mind was always changing, even on small issues, and perhaps he would've never reached any definitive conclusion even if given 100 years...He might have always been tinkering with it, never truly "satisfied" with it, always finding some new idea or twist on a story or new angle on a character. Consider the way he jumped around with what the origin of the Orc were...He never did seem totally sure.

I tend to look at The Silmarillion as one version of incredibly ancient tales: Some of the details might have been "lost in translation" but the story is mostly the same. As such, to me it is canon. It is a distillation of the tales, which seem to have changed many times over the course of JRRT's life. It is the best we would probably ever get given what I've read here. Sort of like how the Eddas or Beowulf were probably tampered with and Christianized a bit. Still the "definitive" Beowulf.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

Perhaps--it's just, what is the "canon" mythology in the LOTR universe? Is the released Silmarillion "canon"?
Also, I read something about JRRT tinkering with the idea of Gandalf being a manifestation of Manwe?
I don't think he would've tinkered with the LOTR. Although, he did want to ENTIRELY re-write The Hobbit to fit the tone of the LOTR.

I refer you to the notorrious canonicity thread which has daunted me (albeit I may not be the most bravest of women) since I arrived on the Downs about seven years ago.. I do have a deal with Fordim that I will post but I haven't quite got there yet..... Bon courage... you may need ropes, oxygen and emergency rations.

[TheLostPilgrim]

This quote by JRRT is interesting: "once upon a time... I had in mind to make a body of more or less connected legend... I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched."

As such, it seems he intentionally wanted to leave some things incomplete (IE, not make full length novels of every tale, even if it were possible). Which leads me to view the Silmarillion as being canon as well...I don't think any edits Christopher made damaged his father's work, and given that Tolkien entrusted his work to his son (which speaks highly of his faith in his son to be a good steward of Middle Earth as it were), I would imagine he would've been very much pleased to see at least a cohesive version of it be released were he alive. He might've had minor quibbles here or there--But then, might've changed his mind yet again and agreed with what he previously quibbled with. Christopher took on what was a very daunting task and probably seemed impossible to him--and met it well in my opinion, in a way which fulfilled his father's mythology.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

This quote by JRRT is interesting: "once upon a time... I had in mind to make a body of more or less connected legend... I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched."

Let me now expose myself as the total ignoramus I am in regards to Tolkien scholarship, but I can just relate to what he says there.

Think of a scholarly mind enthusiastic with medieval history, a time in many senses different but yet similar to ours. We don't have any accounts of the history written from an all-knowing "God's eye perspective", the "full account" or the "definitive version", but a concentration of stories about the Scandinavians (vikings) written up by the monks coming in there, another with the British Isles (some older accounts, some more concentration later on figures like Arthur or even later, Robin Hood), the myths of Perceval from France later incorporated into the Arthurian legends, the Niebelungenlied bringing in many of the features of some older scattered notes (and the things shared with the Edda) and after that followed by scores of accounts... while some other thoughts, ideas, narratives are mentioned just here and there, some probably nowhere.

So isn't Tolkien just going for the "real thing" here? Some legends are more connected, wealthier in detail and in variance, while some are more scetchy, more scattered, more unfathomable? Like with real history from where we have to draw from - and of which he was himself so fascinated about?

The real history has gaps and discontinuities as well as overlapping and different versions of things.

So as an author, leaving the gaps was also intentional, as a call to incite the imagination of the reader? And if so, then isn't that exactly that which made him (and us reading his stories) curious and enthusiastic, which made him (and thence us) fall in love with the thing as it can never exhaust itself? Just because there is no "definitive version".

[Pomegranate]

I really like that thought, Nog - there is no 'canon' in the real world either. I admit I have always been a little disappointed by the fact that there is a lot of overlapping and lack of continuity in the Middle-Earth literature, wanting to know the 'truth'. But it is true that in this world and in the best of art there is always space for interpretation, for everyone to see what they want to and what for them completes the story best. Tolkien was a master of that.

[Eruhen]

Well, lindil, you had to bring up TftE, didn't you? Now I have to head back in, make a new folder on my computer, and make text files of all the finished content to see how it looks collated.

Thanks. There's two to three weeks down the drain.

[lindil]

down the drain? hardly.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

(...) So isn't Tolkien just going for the "real thing" here? Some legends are more connected, wealthier in detail and in variance, while some are more scetchy, more scattered, more unfathomable? Like with real history from where we have to draw from - and of which he was himself so fascinated about?

The real history has gaps and discontinuities as well as overlapping and different versions of things.

True, and not that you were referring to this, but I am also seeing (what I perceive) as a tendency in some to treat all of Tolkien's variations, or at least many of them, as 'internal' instead of what they actually are in many cases -- external drafts working toward the author's intended measure of consistency (and purposed inconsistency). The Drowning of Anadune, for example, is a perfect example of intended confusion and inconsistency...

... but fans and readers re-characterizing rejected drafts as 'internal variations' is arguably undermining Tolkien's art of subcreation in my opinion.

[lindil]

Galin I will respectfully disagree.

IF JRRT was involved in Sub-creation [see On Faery Stories] then his 'experiments' in various drafts can [on at least one level] be seen as a the universe trying to understand itself, this is vastly deeper and more significant than a fiction writer sitting down and using cliche formula coming up with a collection of cliche events.

This too me is why JRRT is so important and deep, he writing, living and breathing from a deep space and I put his writings [and many drafts] in the same category of relevance as Jung, Gurdjieff and a hand-full of others. Of more modern writers, J.Crowley's 'little, big' and T. Williams Otherland and War of the Flowers approach, and even the Potter series, approach the level of truth whereby their internal fabric can usefully mirror to us TRUTH on amny levels. As above - so below.

Now that being said, studying it all from the external fictional, he wrote this stuff in the 1910's-70's is ALSO a way of understanding it - just a limited and to me comparitvely shallow mine to look for jewels and ore, compared to the mythological and even spiritual levels he attained. This to me is the key as to why JRRT was author of the century, he tapped something far deeper than himself, and like a true Christian followed where he was led.

[Galin]

Lindil

For better clarity maybe, I'm talking about characterizing (for example) Qenta Noldorinwa as an internal variant to later versions of the same text; that is, external and superseded drafts being recharacterized by readers as collectively internal, and the Subcreated World is thus made inconsistent where Tolkien himself imagined no such inconsistency.

I think Tolkien was engaged in creating a measure of purposed inconsistency, especially between sources: the Annals versus Quenta Silmarillion for example, or the variant texts regarding Numenor -- and perhaps even a bit between the long prose versions and the brief chapters of Quenta Silmarillion, or versus the poetic versions. A perfect consistency was not only not necessary, but not intended in any case.

But I'm still not certain why this leads you to post: '... studying it all from the external fictional, he wrote this stuff in the 1910's-70's is ALSO a way of understanding it - just a limited and to me comparitvely shallow mine to look for jewels and ore,...' This seems to suggest that because of the opinion above, I must be approaching the whole of Tolkien's work in some sort of detatched scholarly manner, 'studying it all from the external fictional' of A to Z, although I'm not sure what you mean by looking for jools and ore if this is the right context.


I don't disagree with what you posted 'on at least one level'

Or do you think I must, or still do, given this post?