Douglas Charles Kane’s “Arda Reconstucted: The Creation of the Published Simarillion”

[Findegil]

Thank you for pionting us to this book, but as you can see in the thread "Have you read or the intention to read Arda Reconstructed" we are already aware of it.

It is true that it is a very helpful book for those still interested in this project, but it does not really provide one with additional sources that should be considered.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Findegil

It is true that it is a very helpful book for those still interested in this project, but it does not really provide one with additional sources that should be considered.

I never claimed that the book provided any additional sources.

Nor should it.

What it does do is organize material so that it is more easily found rather than by searching through thread after thread and book after book of the HOME series and other books edited by Christopher Tolkien. And it does so accurately and (at least mostly) completely for the material it covers, the later material.

[Galin]

(...) Christopher Tolkien often omits what Kane feels should have been included. In particular, Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay often reduce the role of females in the work.

And as for the claim that CJRT reduced the role of females... I further suggest this discussion (especially that between Doug Kane and Carl Hostetter [Voronwe and Aelfwine]):

http://www.thehalloffire.net/forum/v...t=2184&start=0

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galin

And as for the claim that CJRT reduced the role of females... I further suggest this discussion (especially that between Doug Kane and Carl Hostetter [Voronwe and Aelfwine]):

http://www.thehalloffire.net/forum/v...t=2184&start=0

I don’t see that that thread helps at all. I see that my own statement is actually somewhat weaker than what Kane claims.

I doubt that Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay consciously decided to reduce female rolls and Kane never claims they did.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by jallanite

I don’t see that that thread helps at all. I see that my own statement is actually somewhat weaker than what Kane claims.

Well I do think the thread helps in explaining what you've simplified here (however purposely, for brevity no doubt) in but one sentence.

I doubt that Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay consciously decided to reduce female rolls and Kane never claims they did.

I don't believe that anyone in any way decided to reduce female roles specifically, and the point in the thread is not whether or not Doug Kane explicitly claims so, but his choice of presentation in raising this issue. Even possibly raising the question of misogyny is serious stuff in my opinion, so how one presents the matter, specifically, is important.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galin

I don't believe that anyone in any way decided to reduce female roles specifically, and the point in the thread is not whether or not Doug Kane explicitly claims so, but his choice of presentation in raising this issue. Even possibly raising the question of misogyny is serious stuff in my opinion, so how one presents the matter, specifically, is important.

I really don’t understand what you are on about. I could equally claim that “even possibly raising the question of free speech is serious stuff in my opinion”, implying that you are against free speech.

Note, that I am NOT doing this. The point of this thread for me, and I started it if that matters, is not particularly Kane’s “choice of presentation in raising this issue”. That issue was only one of many points I raised. Is it your contention that any discussion of anything beyond Kane’s “choice of presentation” is not to the point of the thread? I disagree.

It was Hofstetter who originally “raised the question of misogyny” and who later rather backed down from his accusations. I don’t see that Kane is accusing Christopher Tolkien of misogyny.

Kane does indicate that Christopher Tolkien did not do a perfect job of editing his father’s work. Christopher Tolkien has explicitly said the same. This project itself is partly based on that premise.

Kane again and again expresses his puzzlement about some of Christopher Tolkien’s choices. Most of those cases also puzzle me.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by jallanite

I really don’t understand what you are on about. I could equally claim that “even possibly raising the question of free speech is serious stuff in my opinion”, implying that you are against free speech. Note, that I am NOT doing this.

What I'm on about there is merely that if one is going to raise an issue like 'reducing the roles of women' I think he or she should be very careful to avoid the implication of misogyny, especially if it's not what one intends to say or imply.

And you didn't raise the matter or present it, Doug Kane did of course; you simply referred to it briefly, and I invited readers here to see, at least in more detail, how Mr. Kane presented the issue, and his responses to Mr. Hostetter's points and opinions particularly (and others in the thread too of course).


If you're not interested in the linked thread, or don't think it helps at all then that's fine. I assume other people might read this thread however, and maybe they might be interested.

The point of this thread for me, and I started it if that matters, is not particularly Kane’s “choice of presentation in raising this issue”. That issue was only one of many points I raised. Is it your contention that any discussion of anything beyond Kane’s “choice of presentation” is not to the point of the thread? I disagree.

That's not my contention, for the record.

It was Hofstetter who originally “raised the question of misogyny” and who later rather backed down from his accusations. I don’t see that Kane is accusing Christopher Tolkien of misogyny.

Ok, that's your opinion and characterization. No problem of course. And I'll let other readers here decide for themselves as well; again if they are interested in this particular matter.