‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Bêthberry]

Am I the only one who is becoming a bit uncomfortable with the tenor of this discusssion? We all get heated about our own particular way of reading texts and events, but I would hope we continue to recognise that other interpretations and processes are possible.

I have been someone who has in the past not been interested in the kind of project which those in the "Revised Simillarion Project" have been pursuing because, to me their intention and criteria do not reflect what I understand narrative to be about. That is, I would side with Tolkien--and here I refer back to my post about On Fairy Stories--that things get into the stew of story based upon their narrative significance and how much they satisfy the desires of readers for the consolation of story. When I say this, I mean no discourtesy to Aiwendil and Maedhros and Findegal and the others on the project; their thought and effort is to my mind keen and admirable. However--and this is a very big however even as I disagree with some of their basic premises, I would insist upon their 'right' as readers to be able to recreate any kind of text they wish--I just wouldn't accept it as 'authentic' "authoritative'" or representing Tolkien's intention . The simple fact that as readers they wish to engage in this interpretive activity is enough. In fact, it represents, to me, the entire "purpose" of literature, to engage our minds. To suggest that they cannot do so because what will be produced will not have any "special purpose" or is "pointless" is, in my humble opinion, too restrictive and untenable even, for a discussion board.

To take this discussion forward, however, rather than to become bogged down in refuting posts, I would like to return to On Fairy Stories. Tolkien argues,

we make in our measure and in our derivative mode, because we are made: and not only made, but made in the image and likeness of a Maker.

. . . [and of this faculty. . . ]

Uncorrupted it does not seek delusion or bewitchment and domination; it seeks shared enrichment, partners in making and delight, not slaves

Obvisously here Tolkien's Christian belief is what supports his idea that men are "corrupt making-creatures". But there are other ways to reach this conclusion as well. It remains, for me, the reason why the Silmarillion project has worth and value even as I do not wish to pursue such a study.

What Tolkien is saying to us is cast in stone (or paper). We may learn more about him as we read more widely, but what he says to us in any particular passage cannot change. Nor can it react to our responses and interpretations. It is a one way conversation. In that sense, it is not vibrant, which is surely the very essence of life.

Thank-you, SaucepanMan, for reiterating with greater clarity my point about whether the text can create new forms of communication. Of course it cannot. I feel a bit quilty here as I believe it was me who first raised the metaphor of a living text, but I used that in the context of reading activity, not to suggest a gnostic arguement about the text itself as a living mind of the writer. I would in fact return yet again to On Fairy Stories for consideration of this activity. It is possible to take this concept of "enchantment" too far. Tolkien says that this natural human activity

certainly does not destroy or even insult Reason; and it does not either blunt the appetite for, nor obscure the perception of, scientific verity. On the contrary. The keener and the clearer is the reason, the better fantasy will it make.

Or, as Tolkien again put it, "a prophylactic against loss." A Recovery.

Oh, and, Mr. Hedgethistle, about the terminology of Guilding Hand or Providence. I am glad you chose not to use "Guiding Light". However, as to your disheartened elderly reader, perhaps you can tell her it is like climbing Mount Everest.

[davem]

Bethberry



I'm sorry if anything I've posted has come across as a personal attack on those involved in the project. My 'attack' has always been on the 'aim'. I've said a number of times that I have no problem with the project itself - I simply question the value of it to anyone beyond those involved. I simply can't see that it will add anything, & will probably confuse readers new to Tolkien who will find themselves confronted with two, three, four or more 'Silmarillion's. The situation we have at present - source texts plus a 'Silmarillion' for the general reader is the best situation we can get. I'm sorry if my saying the project is pointless has upset anyone - no-one has to take a blind bit of notice of me - I don't have, or make, any claims of superior right or knowledge in regard to Tolkien. Aiwendil & Maedros have put forward their reasons for what they're doing. I've simply attempted to give my reasons as to why I feel the whole thing is a dead end. Its like fanfiction, painting or music inspired by the Legendarium - it may be good, or bad or indifferent, but it won't be of any real value in the field of Tolkien studies as far as I can see - beyond simply proving that such a thing is possible - which has been proven already by the '77 Sil.

[Maédhros]

Myself being involved in the Revised Silmarillion Project do not feel at all attacked by any post in this thread. There are persons who feel that what we do have a purpose, and there are those who doesn't. I'm ok with that. Both opinions are valid of course.
For me personally, I have learned a lot that normally I wouldn't if I had not being involved in this project and that is a plus for me. (I think that this may apply to all of the members) Most of the discussions that occur in that place of the forum are really interesting, in a more scholarly way than those of the normal book section.
I don't think that it is precisely truth that only the people involved directly in the project would get a benefit.
I have given copies of a chapter that I'm working on to other people outside the project, and some have come up with a greater appreciation of that particular story, some have not even bother to read them. There are persons that because of that chapter have begun to wonder more about the story than if they wouldn't have read the copy.
Our purpose has never been a Publication of it, I just do it for fun. We thought that we could post it in the open forum here, unfortunately that won't be possible, the Tolkien estate will not allow that.
Would we ever finish such a project? I don't know.

[davem]

Saucepan man

I think the '77 Sil is important, because I think its useful to have that kind of 'synopsis' for those who want it. But I think it could also be seen as a kind of 'primer'. Beyond those things a 'Silmarillion' of any academic value cannot be put together, IMO, because there never was a completed Sil & there never would have been, because what Tolkien wanted a Sil to do changed too often & too quickly for him ever to bring one to completion before he found himself wanting another kind of Sil. I can't see any evidence that Tolkien had a clear sense at any point in his creative career of exactly what the Silmarillion was supposed to be. He began with an idea of the kind of thing he wanted, but, as i said, before it could be completed his idea had changed. As for any academic value it may have - I can see it having some curiosity value, but there is a danger of it creating the false impression among new readers that this 'perfect' Sil would one day have existed - if only Tolkien had had the time to write it. Tolkien's creative life was a process, but it wasn't a process of evolving a single vision & setting it down - though it may look like that to us, looking back on his life's work. The vision changed, though the settings & characters were kept - at least their surface appearance was. As i said, there wasn't one Galadriel - there were at least two, very different characters. Same with Gollum. Same with Sauron.

And Gandalf - Gandalf (1) (from the Hobbit) is by no means the same character as Gandalf(2) (from LotR) & both are different from Gandalf(3) (the figure from the later writings - ie 'Of the Rings of Power & the Third Age'). but if you put together a 'revised Sil' which presents Gandalf (1)(2)&(3) as a single character by removing all the contradictions between accounts, then what you end up with is Gandalf(4) who is not a character created by Tolkien, but by the revisers.

Oh, the 'conversation' is not between you & a Tolkien beyond the grave, but between a living you & a living Tolkien both existing at different places in space-time. The point is that the Tolkien telling the stories is alive when he tells them (or writes them down) & you are alive when you read them, so the communication takes place living mind to living mind, over a distance in space-time. The text is not 'alive', it is the means of communication. Interestingly this is one of the means of communication between 'past-present-future' which is used in Notion Club Papers, along with dream & language. And as for two way communication - maybe some of the fanfics & ideas which spring to mind when we discuss or think about Tolkien's works - are not our own

(And for anyone who hasn't got this yet - this is a bit like the 'Trotter' story - a 'fanfic' using ideas from Tolkien's writings in order to explore the idea of 'canonicity' from a slightly different angle')

I think you may have a point re 'archetypal' ideas & images in Tolkien's work which spark a response in us as we read - though I wouldn't think it was as straightforward as I've just expressed. Tolkien did say that he felt he hadn't 'made it all up' - so he felt he was tapping into something (across space-time ). If that something has some kind of 'objective' (psychological)existence - ie relating to the Collective rather than personal unconscious, then its possible that our feelings of what's 'right' & waht's 'wrong' in Tolkien's works come from there.

Maedhros I

'm relieved that you haven't taken any offence from my posts - absolutely none was intended. My quarrel is with the idea, not with you guys. As I've said, if being involved has deepened your appreciation & understanding of Tolkien, that's great.

[The Saucepan Man]

And Gandalf - Gandalf (1) (from the Hobbit) is by no means the same character as Gandalf(2) (from LotR)

Oh but they are the same to me. I am able to reconcile them in my mind. Am I "re-inventing" Gandalf? Yes, I suppose I am to a degree. But isn't that what the reader is supposed to do: interpret the character from the words provided in the text?

And for anyone who hasn't got this yet - this is a bit like the 'Trotter' story - a 'fanfic' using ideas from Tolkien's writings in order to explore the idea of 'canonicity' from a slightly different angle'

Well then, since they are your ideas based upon what Tolkien wrote, they surely have no academic value.

[Bêthberry]

Just to make something perfectly clear, davem I was not suggesting that you were flaming anyone or engaging in personal attacks. My great hesitation was with the way you reiterated that your definition of worth was the only one tenable and that the entire project could only be made legitimate by recourse to a final, ultimately 'authentic' 'authoritative' source, even after, it seemed to me, there were compelling arguments not only as to the value of the project for many and also about the legitimacy of literary activity as process regardless of 'end result.' I was in fact questioning your aim as much as you questioned that of the project.

As for any academic value it may have - I can see it having some curiosity value, but there is a danger of it creating the false impression among new readers that this 'perfect' Sil would one day have existed - if only Tolkien had had the time to write it.

I would question the kind of thinking which is predicated upon fears of perceived misreading. How can we reject ideas and projects on the basis of perceived or alleged or anticipated effects in future readers? Surely, if the point is to engage in literary discussion to develop our minds rather than to find our own personal point of view established over that of others, then the answer to your concerns is to engage in the kind of discussion which would teach readers how to guard against this when reading. New readers think this is what Tolkien would have produced? An opportunity to explore his process further. This is the value of misreadings; they engender further discussion. Surely the only false or wrong interpretation is that which denies the possibility of further discussion.

This being the case (and I can see some might want to refute this kind of argument), why discredit a project simply because it might be poorly understood?

[Aiwendil]

davem wrote:

I can't see that putting together 'fragments' of LotR, if that was all that existed, would serve any purpose, beyond satisfying some disire in the person who put it together. And if those fragments were from different versions of the story, & differed in sometimes major ways in the story they told, then you could at best only end up with a general sense of the story - you wouldn't end up with a work of art - unless the person doing the constructing (could we even call it 're-constructing' if there had never been a complete version of it?) was an artist - & then it would be their work - not Tolkien's.

There are, I think, two things to say to this.

First, I don't see any fundamental reason that the published The Lord of the Rings might not, in some alternate history, have been compiled by someone out of diverse texts. Indeed, it has been noted that the early parts of the book differ considerably in tone from the later; this makes such an alternate history all the more plausible. Would The Lord of the Rings be worthless if this were its origin? I don't think so. The value of the book has nothing to do with whence it came; it lies in the book itself. You may object that a work like LotR could never have been compiled out of miscellaneous texts and notes. I don't think that's correct; but we could take the thought experiment further and imagine that the book is altered in certain ways to make the alternate history more plausible. Suppose that Tolkien had given up before his final revisions, and had left the original drafts of most of the book V and book VI chapters as the latest extant. Now our hypothetical scholar puts together a continuous narrative out of these texts. It is different from the real-world LotR. Is it worthless? Sure, as compared to the real-world version it may have weak writing in some passages and in certain details it won't be refined. But would a few changes for the worse to The Lord of the Rings really make it utterly worthless? I think not. Perhaps you think so, and thence stems our disagreement, but I would guess that most people would count the thing as having at least some value.

My second point: you say that the construction would not be a "work of art", or if it were, it would not be Tolkien's. As for the first bit, I fail to see how it could be anything other than a work of art. Any continuous narrative is a work of literature. It may be a very bad work of literature, but that doesn't disqualify it from the medium. As for the second: well, yes, it would not exactly be Tolkien's work of art. Nor would it quite be the constructor's. I see no problem with that. The premise is that the work of art will have value in itself, not value derived from its authorship.

I fear that you will disagree with this premise, in which case we're back into an old argument I've had with others in this very forum regarding the nature of art, and I think that there would be little more we could say to each other on the matter without it devolving into a contest of axioms.

Your 'rules' for what you will & will not allow into a 'revised' Sil seem simply arbitrary.

They are! That was part of what I meant to get across with all my ranting about possible Silmarillions. With respect to the whole network of texts that constitute the source material, they are completely arbitrary.

Of course, we did not choose them arbitrarily - but that is a completely different question. We chose them so that they conformed more or less to the logic of the published Silmarillion, the logic of what is often naively called "canon". So, for example, we prefer later texts to earlier ones. Is there any reason that this principle is superior to any other? No. None at all.

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'.

I don't see the utility of making delicate distinctions between revising, rewriting, reinventing, and whatever else we may come up with. I don't care, quite frankly, which one of those three we are doing. Nor do I care about the semantics of "the same character" and "different characters with the same name" and "the same character with different names", etc., etc.

If the purpose is not to try & construct a 'canonical' or 'definitive', or 'best of a bad job' Sil, then what is the point?

An important distinction needs to be made. We do not claim to be constructing a "canonical" or "definitive" Silmarillion. We do, however, aim to produce as "good" a final product as we can. "Good" is here, necessarily, both vague and subjective. Maybe (well, certainly) you won't think that the final product is "better" than the published Silmarillion. Maybe I will. To be quite honest, all that I really care about is how good I think it is in the end.

What I see is libraries full of 'versions' of the Sil - & I can only see that making more & more people feel like the lady Fordim has just described to us.

Insofar as your objection to a New Silmarillion is really a practical objection, I think I ought to be able to put your mind at ease. Our version will never be found in a library. It will never be sold. It will never be published. It will hardly ever be read, save by those who are working on it.

I'm sorry if my saying the project is pointless has upset anyone

It certainly hasn't upset me.

Beyond those things a 'Silmarillion' of any academic value cannot be put together

Again, this makes me think that our disagreement really comes down to an underlying one regarding the nature of art. I do not claim that a new Silmarillion will have any academic value. Only UT and HoMe have academic value. But I do not think that literary value is the same thing. I think that literary value has solely to do with the aesthetic pleasure one has on experiencing (in this case, reading from beginning to end) a coherent work of art.

Incidentally, in case anyone's interested, the threads I alluded to wherein can be found some rather long-winded debates concerning the nature of literature and of art in general are Book of the Century?,The Tolkien Template, and Are There Any Valid Criticisms?

[Novnarwen]

Okay, I had every intention of replying to your question yesterday, Saucepan Man, but 'providence' wanted it otherwise.

Anyway, here it goes:
In your post, post 117, you say:

Quote: from Saucepan Man's post:

I think that the term "Eruism" may be misleading, as it implies an awareness of Eru, which was my bone of contention with Fordim in the first place. And that awareness will not come from a reading of LotR alone. I would prefer to use the term "providence", since it seems to me to be clearly implied in many parts, from the comments of Gandalf, Elrond and others, that providence of some sort is at work.

So, basically what you're saying is that Providence and Eruism are the same thing? But you only choose to refer to Erusim as Providence since 'Eru' isn't mentioned in LOTR and therefore Eruism would be misleading?

Okay, that's just fine, I think.. I must ask you, though, to tell me if you think Providence is controlled by a higher Power, in this case Eru; as we are talking about the sub-created world..?

Quote: From Saucepan Man's post

:
But, taken together with the references mentioned above, it is surely implied that there is something more at work here than mere fortuity. The reader may only be aware of this on a subconscious level (as was the case, I think, with me the first few times that I read it). But, if it was not there, this scene would just not feel "right". As Fordim put it, we would feel cheated. If the Quest, which has been central to the story, was fulfilled by pure chance, it would not be at all satisfactory. However, I am sure that no one who has read and enjoyed the book would describe this resolution as unsatisfactory, even if they did not consciously analyse how and why it happened. Rather they would say that it "felt right". And how could it feel right if it was simply an accident?

That last sentence is, well, confusing. I disagree with you here, because I get the impression that you feel that the whole point in the book would be lost if the Fall of Gollum indeed was an accident.

So, an accident wouldn't according to you be 'right', but Providence would?

Providence as all other things is controlled, or at least that is my opinion. God in our world, (for those who believe in God) and Eru in M-E, (for those who accept him as the Creator of Middle-Earth.) But the thing I don't get, is how you can say that the fall wouldn't be satisfying if it was an accident. Why not? According to my online dictionary, Thesaurus, 'providence' and 'accident' can be the same thing:

From Online Thesaurus:

Function:noun
Definition: fate
Synonyms: accident, advantage, adventure, bad luck, break, cast, casualty, coincidence, contingency, destination, destiny, doom, even chance, fluke, fortuity, fortune, future, gamble, good luck, hap, haphazard, happening, hazard, hit, kismet, lot, lottery, luck out, lucky break, misfortune, occurrence, odds, outcome, peradventure, peril, providence, risk, toss-up
Concept: fate

Function:noun
Definition:fate

Synonyms: accident, break, certainty, chance, circumstances, contingency, destiny, doom, expectation, experience, fifty-fifty, fighting chance, fluke, fortuity, fortunateness, good break, hazard, history, karma, kismet, life, luck, lucked into, lucked out, luckiness, lucky break, lucky hit, portion, providence, scratch, shot, stab, star, success, toss up, whack
Concept:fate

So, let's say it was an accident. Would it really make it less satisfactionary? I mean, the word 'accident' (correct me if I'm wrong) is often used as a negative term. For example: "I'm really sorry, but I broke your vase. It was an accident, sorry!" (Bad example, but it should have to do, I think). Anyway, it's a negative term, used when you've done something 'wrong' or unintentionally, but that doesn't mean it wasn't controlled by a Higher Power. It may still be destiny, a coincidence (maybe), but also providence. So that 'something' at the end, which you referred to earlier was providence, which you insist wasn't an accident (or rather as you out it: And how could it feel right if it was simply an accident?) you're kind of (to me) contradicting yourself. Are you?

I must admit, when first readig the book, I didn't really think of 'Gollum's Fall' other than an accident; a bitter end for a terrible dancer. But still, I thought the book and the end very satisfying. Little things, such as 'Gollum's fall', doesn't mean that it isn't 'good enough'. Little things, may be the only things which really matter in the end. Personally, I have no problems with the 'Gollum-falls-into-the-fire-of-Orodruin-by-accident', because even though it was an accident (or not), it was supposed to happen, it was as you put it: providence, and I have to accept that.

Anyway, to do a short summery of what I have been trying to say in this post: An accident, (I think) is also providence as both are controlled by some Higher Power, in this case Eru. So, if an accident is Providence, how would not an accident seem like a satisfying end of the one Ruling Ring? How can we say that accidents are not as much forsighted as any other event?

(I realise that there have been some posting during my time here, writing (and eating.. ), so, I know that there is something else going on as well. I just had to reply to Saucepan Man's question. )

Cheers,
Nova

[Findegil]

Since others have explained the reasons, which we had to undertake the project of the "Revised Silmarillion" better than I could have done, I only will add some info on the project that might still be missing:
One part of the project will be a large appendix. In addition to the rules, which would be laid bar, it, will contain the full source information for each chapter in particular and the complete project as a whole. Beside that it will give a short summary of the arguments we made in the discussions over the more arcane points in the texts and the conclusions we made in the end.
The reason for us to provide that appendix (which to produce will be a work of nearly as great effort than the text of the "Revised Silmarillion" is in it self) was exactly what davem put forward as his concerns about the effect of our work on "new readers". This concerns I can fully understand and I do share them. But they do apply even more to The Silmarillion published in 1977 by Christopher Tolkien. So I can't see how our work (even if it would be published, which is every think between more than completely unlikely and impossible) would enhance this "danger of it creating the false impression".
It might be (and I think that will happen in the end) that this appendix would be for many (imagined) readers of our work of greater value than the text it self. But to produce that appendix the text is clearly needed. Thus it is right that the project might be of much more value than the product it is aiming at, and I think most of the members do recognise that fact. But without the goal we are aiming at the project would not be in existents at all, and that alone would give the goal a value even if only for members of the project.

About the value to no members: I am very happy that even davem "can see it having some curiosity value". Isn't it that "curiosity value" that will in the first place make as read any book of fiction?
That the result of our project will not have any "academic value" beyond the point of being a collection of selected and arranged source material is absolutely clear to me and hopefully to any other member of the project.

Respectfully
Findegil

[davem]

Saucepan Man

Well, if the Gandalf of the Hobbit & the Gandalf of LotR are the 'same', just try swapping them over. I don't think you can change a character in a story wthout changing the story itself - the character is not seperate from the tale he or she inhabits - hence the 1st ed Hobbit is a different story from the revised Hobbit, because the encounter with Gollum is changed by the substitution of Gollum (2) for Gollum (1). The Hobbit instantly becomes the prequel to LotR. They are different stories, with different aims & a different momentum by the change in Gollum's character.

I never said that my 'fanfic' had any academic value. I was playing a game - taking an idea from the Tolkien 'canon' - the stories in which it appeared are set in 'this' world, & Tolkien uses it himself in Mythopoea - transmission of ideas/experiences across time, but from one living mind to another living mind, & expanding it to encompass the idea of the transmission of 'canonical' ideas within Tolkien's 'mythos'. It is a kind of 'Lost Road' fanfic in that sense. So, the premise of the' story' is that a writer, alive & well at one point in time, can communicate, mentally, with a reader at another point in time, by means of a printed text, as we communicate across space via the web. This is a 'fanfic' within the limits of the Legendarium - it is not an 'alternate universe' idea - even if the stories that inspired it are less well known to readers. We have a case of 'living shapes that move from mind to mind'. At the same time, it steps 'outside' the invented world of the Legendarium, by making the author of the Legendarium, & we as readers, into 'characters' in the fiction. Yet at the same time, it is within the Legendarium, as it makes use of the ideas on which the legendarium is based, & uses the rules by which the Legendarium operates. In other words, it amalgamates (in a stumbling way) the two alternatives set up in this thread - the book or the reader, in order to explore with the whole idea of 'canonicity' , what it means & what its effects are on our freedom as co-creators, & what limits, if any, it imposes.

Bethberry

Quote:'My great hesitation was with the way you reiterated that your definition of worth was the only one tenable and that the entire project could only be made legitimate by recourse to a final, ultimately 'authentic' 'authoritative' source, even after, it seemed to me, there were compelling arguments not only as to the value of the project for many and also about the legitimacy of literary activity as process regardless of 'end result.' I was in fact questioning your aim as much as you questioned that of the project.'

I wasn't saying that my definition was the only one tenable. - though I accept it may have come across that way. Of course, if there is no final, 'authentic' authoritative source, then any value a 'revised' Silmarillion has will be a matter of personal opinion, rather than it having any objective or even academic worth. And if, in order to create it (as opposed to re-creating it - it cannot be recreated because it never existed) one has to cut sizeable chunks from the original sources then it seems to me that it cannot tell us anything -one could construct an 'archetypal' greek vase from sherds from hundreds of different vases, but would the resulting object be anything more than a curiosity - & couldn't it be argued that by breaking bits off the individual sherds to make them fit together, one had done more harm than good, simply in order to create an object that had never actually existed? I'd say that was a pointless exercise, even if I knew that the person who did it was a decent guy, with his heart in the right place, & wouldn't mean it as a personal attack In fact, I'd question the danger of that vase misleading the public into thinking Greek vases were like that. The idea behind the project, as I understand it, is to somehow produce a 'better' Silmarillion than the one CT has given us. But I can't see how it can be better - unless one knoked together 'Greek' vase can be said to be 'better' than another knocked together 'Greek' vase. The only way to judge which was better would be to judge on aesthetic grounds - but you woouldn't be judging which was the 'better' vase, only which was a more pleasant object to look at, & the 'Greekness' of the objects would play no part in that decision - unless you also judged on how intact the pieces were which had been used to construct the relative vases - & if that was your criteria for judgement, then the original sherds would be best of all, in the shape you found them, & they would certainly tell you more about the Ancient Greek individuals & society that produced the originals from which you'd cobbled your 'ideal' versions together.

Its the inevitable 'falseness' of the result of trying to construct a 'single' Galadriel, or Gandalf in this way, let alone a 'single' version of the fall of Gondolin which grates with me. I think its a serious mistake, & will inevitably create a false impression in readers, which will, as you imply, need to be countered - & would not need to be countered if this revised Sil didn't exist. As far as I'm concerned its a dead end, & a much more fruitful field of research would be found in attempting to understand the individual stories, & what the author was attempting to say. It seems to me he is saying very different things to us in FoG & in Tuor, & taking some bits from one & some bits from others - as you might with historical accounts of an event, in order to try & discover what 'really' happened - in order to produce a 'truer' or more 'accurate' account of the History of Gondolin will lead you to miss what Tolkien is saying in those two very different stories. Gondolin is not Troy. The real danger is that we do throw out the author, by pretending there wasn't one. One of the most significant statements in this regard in the whole of HoME is in the introduction to vol 12:

'Since the ceaseless 'making' of his world extended from my father's youth into his old age, The History of Middle Earth is in some sense also a record of his life,a form of biography (my italics), if of a very unusual kind. He had travelled a long road.'

Which is the point - the whole Legendarium is a 'biography' of his inner life. A story such as FoG in BoLT cannot be seen as simply an early version of Tuor - or vice versa, so, they cannot be run together with any real hope of producing anything of more than curiosity value - & while I accept that others find it worthwhile, I still, after all the opposing arguments, cannot see anything of value (& I speak here only for myself) in doing it. CT realised the mistake of making a 'Silmarillion' only after he'd completed & published it. My own feeling is that those involved in the revised Sil project will realise he was right when they've finished what they're doing.

Of course, as I have said before, I may be wrong!

Findegil

Sorry, but it seems to me that your 'revised Sil' with the massive appendix will be very large & confusing, & that it will only appeal to those who have read HoME, & will have formed their own opinions about what should & shouldn't be there anyway. I honestly don't get the point of it, & I'm afraid all the explanations of yourself, Awendil & Maedhros have not made the idea behind it any clearer for me. I just can't see this 'fox' you're all chasing. What will this 'Silmarillion' be for, what will you, or anyone else, actually do with it when its finished, that they couldn't do without it? Is it, as Aiwendil seems to think, a literary work, or as you seem to think, an academic work? Is it designed to enchant readers or to inform students? Are you Schliemanns or Homers? or is it to be Homer annotated by Schliemann?

Aiwendil

I hope I've covered most of your points in the foregoing - we seem to have posted at the same time. One thing though, I don't think the 'multiple Galadriel's (& Gandalfs & Gollums) is merely 'semantics'. They are different characters - as I've pointed out Galadriel (2) is not an exile in ME, Galadriel (1) is, & their stories, & more importantly, their motivations are different. It seems to me that this points up the problem I find with your whole approach - this idea that there is a 'coherent' Sil to be dug out from among all these different texts from different periods in Tolkien's life. Of course, you could construct one - maybe an interesting one - maybe even produce a masterpiece - but it would be your 'masterpiece', not Tolkien's. And that would be of relevance to your fans, not Tolkien's.

Your example of fragments of LotR being put together doesn't work for me - it wasn't a bunch of fragments - it was the work of a man with something specific he wished to communicate. And that's the point - however faithful you try to be, you can't know his mind, or his intent, you can only guess at it, & your guess is as likely to be wrong as right (unless he can communicate with you across space time )

[HerenIstarion]

davem:

Its the inevitable 'falseness' of the result of trying to construct a 'single' Galadriel, or Gandalf

Same advise as before: try to place yourself inside, stop judging from outside: Gandalf of the Hobbit is seen through Bilbo's eyes, Gandalf of LoTR is retold by Frodo, and Gandalf of later accoutns probably by Pengolodh

When I grow older, loosing my hair, forty (I hope more, but who can tell?) years from now... and clutching my inevitable Nobel Prize will pass away, some dude, likewise inevitably, will want to write my biography. The best way would be to question people who knew me whilst I still walked this side of turnpike. But he will hardly find two people who will recall me exactly alike. Some think I'm decent chap with the heart in the right place, some think I'm a prick, some I'm smart, and some I'm dumb. And poor dude will be forced to roll down all of their accounts into some 'historical H-I' in case he still wishes to go on with teh biography by the time, for I may be all of the four indeed - I react to different people differently, and even if I were to react in precisely the same way, their preception differs too. That's why I do not find several allegedly different Gandalfs and Galadriels such a complication.