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

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galin

I would have thought you would have made yourself crystal clear and have no regrets at this point.

“I would have thought” is far from crystal clear. “I would have thought you would have made yourself” is even less clear. What is the point of all those woulds? To avoid making yourself clear?

I wouldn't say 'upset' for myself, but perplexed rather.

Another would.

And can we say what an implication is not? it's not something that is expressed directly... but it looks to me like it's somewhat subjective whether you did or did not 'imply' purpose with phrasing like 'clear pattern' and even the appearance of a systematic reduction, keeping in mind that you agree that you've raised the question of misogyny in your reader's minds at least. And you've stated that you don't and can't know if reducing the roles of females was done intentionally, and here you note that you doubt very much that it was -- but in your book do you give this opinion?

You appear to be attempting to make an implication while trying to look like you are not making an implication. No the book does not give the opinion you are seeking, nor the opposite opinion. Kane is very careful to not attribute any opinions to Christopher Tolkien beyond occasionally quoting Christopher Tolkien. It would be a critical sin to attribute an opinion which cannot be substantiated.

You want Kane to lie.

A book that isn't shy of opinions, it seems to me

The book contains many opinions in the nature of personal preferences by the author. It does not, I believe, contain any opinions on the unknowable opinions of others.

And incidentally, I think employing unconscious or unintentional (in a thread, the book aside for a moment) still leaves it open that you maybe think Christopher Tolkien unconsciously and unintentionally revealed that he has something against women.

Maybe the reason Galin continues on this track is that Galin fears that Christopher Tolkien “unconsciously and unintentionally revealed that he has something against women.” It was not Kane who invented this possibility of interpretation. It was Christopher Tolkien who in his choices in his editing of The Silmarillion chose to include some passages in which females were less active or omitted entirely over other passages in which females were more prominent. Galin, and others of the same opinion, are classically shooting the one who is sending a message from which they infer something they don’t like.

If Galin thinks that argument is unfair, then he should stop using that same style of argument and innuendo against Kane.

Kane, in this thread very carefully wrote:

Regarding the issue of the reduction of female characters, I continue to believe that the evidence shows that there is a clear pattern of this being a result of the edits done. I obviously have no way of knowing whether this was done intentionally, or not, and I did not mean to imply in any way that I believed that it was (I honestly doubt very much that it was).

Galin attempts to twist this to mean that “this still leaves it open that you maybe think Christopher Tolkien unconsciously and unintentionally revealed that he has something against women,” despite Kane’s clear statement that “I did not mean to imply in any way that I believed that it was (I honestly doubt very much that it was).”

I do not see that Kane can say more much more honestly. I do not see that Galin can say much more honestly. What does Galin want Kane to say honestly? I don’t think Galin is able to say.

Neither Galin nor Kane (and probably no-one viewing this thread) knows Christopher Tolkien well enough to be able to honestly say that at some level Christopher Tolkien is never a sexual bigot. Even if they did say it, they might just be wrong.

I accuse Galin of vicious innuendo which demands a response that almost no-one can honestly give.

If Galin is really honestly inferring what he seems to be interring, then perhaps he ought to blame himself for so inferring, if he finds the inferences he make so troubling to him.

I read Kane’s book and the inference that Christopher Tolkien was purposely attempting to get back at women by reducing their role in The Silmarillion never occurred to me. For me, it was Galin who raised that as a possibility. I took it as a given that the reduction of female roles was simply part of Christopher Tolkien often preferring a shorter version in the published Silmarillion over a longer version, and agree with Kane that this was mostly unfortunate.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by jallanite

“I would have thought” is far from crystal clear. “I would have thought you would have made yourself” is even less clear. What is the point of all those woulds? To avoid making yourself clear?

The point seems clear enough to me: given that Doug admitted he is raising the question of misogyny in his reader's minds, one might assume he would be very careful about choosing his phrasing here (especially being a fan of Christopher Tolkien after all, as he states he is) -- but yet not very long after the book is published, Doug admits he would like to alter certain phrasing.

And yes, I don't think Doug considered this argument well enough before he published his book -- in general, and not just because of certain examples of phrasing.

You appear to be attempting to make an implication while trying to look like you are not making an implication. No the book does not give the opinion you are seeking, nor the opposite opinion. Kane is very careful to not attribute any opinions to Christopher Tolkien beyond occasionally quoting Christopher Tolkien. It would be a critical sin to attribute an opinion which cannot be substantiated.

You want Kane to lie.

No, the point with the section you quoted is that Doug offers plenty of his own opinions in the book and in these threads -- so why didn't he give the opinion in his book that he doesn't think there was purpose behind this 'clear pattern'?

Again if clarity is wanted (and why not), I just wonder why he chose to readily enough give that opinion in discussion, but not in the book.

Maybe the reason Galin continues on this track is that Galin fears that Christopher Tolkien “unconsciously and unintentionally revealed that he has something against women.”

Well for the record, I fear no such thing

Kane, in this thread very carefully wrote:

Regarding the issue of the reduction of female characters, I continue to believe that the evidence shows that there is a clear pattern of this being a result of the edits done. I obviously have no way of knowing whether this was done intentionally, or not, and I did not mean to imply in any way that I believed that it was (I honestly doubt very much that it was).

Galin attempts to twist this to mean that “this still leaves it open that you maybe think Christopher Tolkien unconsciously and unintentionally revealed that he has something against women,” despite Kane’s clear statement that “I did not mean to imply in any way that I believed that it was (I honestly doubt very much that it was).”

That's not a twist Jallanite: rather it takes Doug at his word but notes that there is a distinction that, as far as I know, he has never commented on. For all I know right now 'maybe' Doug does hold this opinion. I could have worded things better perhaps -- or simply put the matter in question form as I often enough do, and maybe by not doing so the statement seemed more to accuse Doug of something rather than raise the distinction; again even despite my use of maybe above.

There was no intentional accusation, but (and not that anyone cares, I know) recently someone stated that he/she thought I asked too many questions (I can link to the thread if anyone actually does care), and as I had just put a statement into question form (in the same post), instead I thought I would make my 'incidentally' comment a statement rather, knowing that Doug could easily speak to my 'maybe' if he desired.

But anyway, I sincerely think that only going so far as to say there was no conscious purpose does not necessarily mean that the person giving that opinion still might not believe there was some unconscious 'revelation' here.

I do not see that Kane can say more much more honestly. I do not see that Galin can say much more honestly. What does Galin want Kane to say honestly? I don’t think Galin is able to say.

If you want it more directly: Doug do you believe Christopher Tolkien unintentionally revealed that he has something against women?

You (Doug) don't have to answer obviously, even if you have an opinion to that; but again it's not necessarily the same thing as stating that you don't believe the 'reduction' in female characters was on purpose.

Neither Galin nor Kane (and probably no-one viewing this thread) knows Christopher Tolkien well enough to be able to honestly say that at some level Christopher Tolkien is never a sexual bigot. Even if they did say it, they might just be wrong.

I accuse Galin of vicious innuendo which demands a response that almost no-one can honestly give. If Galin is really honestly inferring what he seems to be interring, then perhaps he ought to blame himself for so inferring, if he finds the inferences he make so troubling to him.

I'm rather, and simply, looking for an opinion Jallanite. Earlier Doug gave his opinion about 'purpose' -- despite that he yet can't say he knows for sure, as he doesn't know Christopher Tolkien well enough -- and I'm asking for an opinion about a distinction that goes beyond that.

I've heard plenty of opinions about Christopher Tolkien in various threads, from people who don't know him.

I read Kane’s book and the inference that Christopher Tolkien was purposely attempting to get back at women by reducing their role in The Silmarillion never occurred to me. For me, it was Galin who raised that as a possibility. I took it as a given that the reduction of female roles was simply part of Christopher Tolkien often preferring a shorter version in the published Silmarillion over a longer version, and agree with Kane that this was mostly unfortunate.

Well, while that may be true for you given the circumstances here, if you or anyone will read (or read again) the linked thread, it will be obvious that I am not the only one who raised the question of implied misogyny, and am certainly not even the first to do so in the linked thread.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

If you want it more directly: Doug do you believe Christopher Tolkien unintentionally revealed that he has something against women?

No.

I believe that the edits that Christopher Tolkien was responsible for (though won't don't know to what extent Guy Kay contributed to them) had the effect of significantly lessening the role of women in the published Silmarillion and in my opinion that has a detrimental effect on the book. I doubt very much that this was done intentionally (as I have said repeatedly. I don't know Christopher well enough to have any idea about whether it somehow reflects on his attitude towards women in general.

I respect the massive effort that Christopher has dedicated to preserving his father's legacy and making as much of his writing available as possible. By all accounts, he is a man of courtesy and principle, both of which I appreciate. I recognize that in working on publishing The Silmarillion he faced many challenges that contributed to its deficiencies (some of which he himself has subsequently acknowledged, although I wish he would provide more information about the editing process and the decisions that he made).

[Galin]

OK, thank you Doug. So given your full answer, I take it that your initial 'no' essentially means that you don't have an opinion either way -- as you don't know Christopher Tolkien well enough to have any idea about whether this pattern, as you call it, somehow reflects on his attitude towards women in general.

And I also wonder if you agree...

Jallanite wrote: I read Kane's book and the inference that Christopher Tolkien was purposely attempting to get back at women by reducing their role in The Silmarillion never occurred to me. For me, it was Galin who raised that as a possibility. I took it as a given that the reduction of female roles was simply part of Christopher Tolkien often preferring a shorter version in the published Silmarillion over a longer version, and agree with Kane that this was mostly unfortunate.

... that this last sentence could stand as an accurate enough summation of your argument in Arda Reconstructed -- that the reduction in female roles was 'simply' part of Christopher Tolkien 'often' preferring a shorter version over a longer one.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

It would be easy for me to say "yes, that's it" and let that be the end of it, but I'm not sure that I can say that it is that simple. Yes, many of the edits that affect the role of female characters result from Christopher choosing shorter versions. But not all of them. For instance, the two removals of the description of Galadriel as "valiant." Or substituting the Quenta passage in which only Ossë teaches the Teleri sea-lore for the Annals text in which both he and Uinen do so, despite the fact that the Annals is the main source for the that portion of that chapter (Chapter 5). Neither of those edits are a result of choosing a shorter version over a longer one. Nor is using the older story of Melkor being the one that wounds the Two Trees rather than the new story of Ungoliant destroying them on her own while Melkor cravenly stands in the shadows. I don't know why those choices were made, but they can't be so simply explained away.

[Galin]

OK but you name 11 characters in all, and can't we add at least 3 more characters, leaving 6 (in addition to your Galadriel, Uinen, Ungoliant)?

I mean I'm not sure that the choice to not include the Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth (which leaves out Andreth but reduces the presence of Finrod, and leaves out an interesting detail about Aegnor) as an appendix to The Silmarillion easily falls into a characterization of choosing a shorter version of something over a longer version. The 6 I would list so far...

Galadriel
Uinen
Arien
Andreth
Beleth
Ungoliant

Arguably leaving (short versions versus long)...

Miriel
Nerdanel
Indis
Indis' daughters (although merely a footnote, at least in FM4 in any case)
Nellas (the long version here is the Narn)

But not all of them. For instance, the two removals of the description of Galadriel as "valiant."

Please forgive me for restating a point here about Galadriel, but I'm guessing not everyone is going to read the linked thread. For now I won't go into my full case for why I think Galadriel has not been reduced in character, but I'll just note (and not that you said otherwise of course) that despite the changes you are referencing from HME here, the Silmarillion version that Christopher Tolkien published nonetheless specifically describes Galadriel as '... the only woman of the Noldor to stand that day tall and valiant among the contending princes, was eager...'

Or substituting the Quenta passage in which only Ossë teaches the Teleri sea-lore for the Annals text in which both he and Uinen do so, despite the fact that the Annals is the main source for the that portion of that chapter (Chapter 5).

For that portion yes, but is not the Quenta the main source for chapter five in general?

If memory serves, on your chart you list it as the main source more often than the Annals of Aman at least. And unless I've missed something (possible, obviously), the Quenta passages for this part of the story do not mention Uinen at all, neither as present with Osse on the coasts of Middle-earth, or later upon Eressea. In the Quenta tradition (MR sections 36, 37) it is Osse not Uinen who comes to the coast to befriend the Teleri, and it's only Osse who instructs them at this point. And it is Osse not Uinen who later teaches them upon Eressea, and later again (43 and commentary) Osse alone teaches the Teleri the craft of ship building.

That's the Quenta tradition. The Annals however note (again, some Teleri having remained on the coasts of Middle-earth): 'And Osse and Uinen came to them and befriended them and taught them all manner of sea-lore and sea-music.' Annals of Aman section 66

But again, in the Quenta it is Osse alone who taught the teleri 'strange musics and sea-lore' -- although here when upon Tol Eressea -- as earlier it is only said in the Quenta that Osse instructed the Teleri generally. Thus when Christopher Tolkien merges the two texts it seems to me that he decides to give Uinen her presence with the Teleri, but keep Osse as the instructor of these specific things...

'... and Osse and Uinen came to them and befriended them; and Osse instructed them, sitting upon a rock near to the margin of the land, and of him they learned all manner of sea-lore and sea-music.' 1977 Silmarillion

Thus the result of Christopher Tolkien employing the Annals for this portion of the story gives Uinen a presence in the book here, but Osse, who is much more weighted as instructor of the Teleri in the overall scenario, is given his specific teaching of music and lore -- taken from the Eressean passage in the Quenta.

Again, unless I've missed something here about the Quenta tradition.



By the way (something else I've wondered about), may I ask is there anyone outside of Uinen and Galadriel that you feel cannot be characterized as a minor character with respect to the Silmarillion?

[jallanite]

Finally, Galin, your are getting down to the discussions in Arda Reconstructed itself moving away from what I perceive as innuendo against the messenger which surely misses that point. If the messenger has presented the data mostly correctly, then the fact that occasionally he or she has stumbled occasionally becomes no more than a minor flaw such as the greatest of us are liable to make. If the messenger has grossly misrepresented the data then blaming the messenger in himself or herself is unnecessary. It is the misrepresentation that will put the blame on the messenger over any heated words.

No statement made by myself can every fully represent my ideas (imperfect as they must be) on the composing of the published Silmarillion. Again and again one thinks one has found some principle that guided Christopher Tolkien, and then one comes across a passage which goes against the proposed principle.

But certainly that Christopher Tolkien so often did not select from the fullest account means that along with often matters dropped, obviously matters pertaining to females were dropped, sometimes only a word or phrase. But I do not mean anything I might put forth to be taken as something that must have guided Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay at all times throughout their work. But yes, loss of female-oriented material as part of general shrinkage is in itself sufficient to explain why the loss appears to be systematic, though it does not explain every case.

Why, for example, did Christopher Tolkien remove Findis, Finvain, and Faniel, the three daughters of Finwë by Indis? Possibly because they only appear in a single footnote and can easily be seen as simply more clutter in a work arguably already overstuffed with minor characters.

And would The Silmarillion have included most of the dropped material on females if at the time when Christopher Tolkien was working on it some criticism had appeared blaming J. R. R. Tolkien for sexism in his work? Most notably, The Hobbit contains only one named female,[FONT=Arial, sans-serif] Bilbo[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ʼs mother Belladonna Took, who was deceased by the time the story takes place.

That some others are bothered by Kane[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ʼs supposed insinuations about Christopher Tolkien[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ʼs[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] s[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]upposed misogyny. doesn[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ʼt impress me at all, having read the discussion. That is only a weak form of the appeal to authority fallacy,: some people were discussing something and some of them agreed with me, so there must be something to their position.

Nor is there any one method of identifying major or minor characters in The Silmarillion. It depend where one draws tjhe line and diffferent people will draws in in different places if they try to definitely distinguish between major and minor?
[/FONT][/FONT]

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Regarding Arien, I'm not sure why you are asking that. The edits that I identify regarding Arien are that two references to her beauty are removed from passages taken from the Annals, but there was not substituted passages added in from teh Quenta.

Turning back to something that you wrote earlier.

Originally Posted by Galin

If memory serves, on your chart you list it as the main source more often than the Annals of Aman at least. And unless I've missed something (possible, obviously), the Quenta passages for this part of the story do not mention Uinen at all, neither as present with Osse on the coasts of Middle-earth, or later upon Eressea. In the Quenta tradition (MR sections 36, 37) it is Osse not Uinen who comes to the coast to befriend the Teleri, and it's only Osse who instructs them at this point. And it is Osse not Uinen who later teaches them upon Eressea, and later again (43 and commentary) Osse alone teaches the Teleri the craft of ship building.

That's the Quenta tradition. The Annals however note (again, some Teleri having remained on the coasts of Middle-earth): 'And Osse and Uinen came to them and befriended them and taught them all manner of sea-lore and sea-music.' Annals of Aman section 66

But again, in the Quenta it is Osse alone who taught the teleri 'strange musics and sea-lore' -- although here when upon Tol Eressea -- as earlier it is only said in the Quenta that Osse instructed the Teleri generally. Thus when Christopher Tolkien merges the two texts it seems to me that he decides to give Uinen her presence with the Teleri, but keep Osse as the instructor of these specific things...



Thus the result of Christopher Tolkien employing the Annals for this portion of the story gives Uinen a presence in the book here, but Osse, who is much more weighted as instructor of the Teleri in the overall scenario, is given his specific teaching of music and lore -- taken from the Eressean passage in the Quenta.

Again, unless I've missed something here about the Quenta tradition.

It is true that the Quenta is the main source for the latter part of Chapter 5, but only for portions that turn to matters having nothing to do with Osse and Uinen. For the part of the chapter that they appear, the Annals are the main source. So it doesn't really make sense to me to say that the reason why Christopher changed the text to have only Osse instructing the Teleri is that it is consistent with the Quenta tradition. By including that statement that Osse and Uinen befriended them, but then changing it from saying that both of them instructed them to just saying that Osse instructed them, it lessens her role, and implies that it is not a female's place to be instructing in these matters. That is as clear as can be to me.